Kerala's Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau manipulated the inquiry to save ADGP M R Ajith Kumar (currently serving as Excise Commissioner) in the probe related to misappropriation of wealth, stated the order of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Thiruvananthapuram, Manoj A. The order was issued based on a complaint filed by Neyyatinkara P Nagaraj.

The Special Vigilance Court, which rejected the investigation report filed by the VACB on Thursday, has also raised doubts about the need for approval from the Kerala Chief Minister for the final report.

The Vigilance Department ordered a probe in September 2024 based on the recommendation of the State Police Chief, who reported that the allegations raised by former MLA P V Anvar prima facie disclosed a vigilance angle and recommended a detailed probe by the bureau. In May 2025, the Special Investigation Unit-1 (SIU), VACB, Thiruvananthapuram, submitted a report citing that there was no evidence to prove the allegations against Ajith Kumar.

Anvar had alleged that Ajith Kumar, his wife and his brothers have been constructing a big house, spending crores on 22 cents of land at Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram. The probe report showed that Ajith Kumar and his family own 80.21 cents of land in Thrissur and Thiruvananthapuram with an estimated value of ₹8,77,58,000. The officer also noted in the report that the project cost of the house would come to ₹3,58,00,000 and that Ajith Kumar received a net salary of ₹2,33,004 and that he availed a home loan of  ₹1.50 crore. The inquiry officer then dismissed the complaint as fake.

The court, which trashed the VACB probe report, has made damning statements against the inquiry officers. Shibu Pappachan, the DySP of SIU-1, Thiruvananthapuram, was the inquiry officer, and K L Johnykutty, Police Superintendent, SIU-1, Thiruvananthapuram, was the supervisor.

The court wondered how the officer found the allegations false, even without fixing the check period, assessing the income, expenditure, and savings during the relevant period.

The court observed that even the verification of six basic statements in the vigilance manual during the inquiry into disproportionate assets was not followed in this case. The manual says that assets at the beginning of the check period, assets at the end of the check period, assets acquired by the Suspect Officer (SO) and his family during the check period, income of the SO and his family during the check period, expenditure of the SO during the check period and likely savings of the SO during the check period have to be verified.

"It is evident that the inquiry officer, contrary to the guidelines, prepared a report favouring the suspected officer to exonerate him from the allegations. Even he did not state the legally justifiable reason why he did not follow the mandate of the vigilance manual," the court observed.

It stated that from the outset, an attempt was made to sabotage the probe, and the so-called inquiry was initiated merely for the sake of appearances, intended to shield the officer from the law's grasp. "There is an invisible penetration by someone into the inquiry that leads to the preparation of a report favourable to the suspected officer, who holds a high position in the police department. The inquiry report is a subservient report prepared for those who need reports like the present one," the order said. The inquiry violated the provisions of the vigilance manual and Supreme Court judgements, the court said.

The judge also expressed reservations about recording Ajith Kumar's statement for the probe. The facts collected by the officer were based on the statement provided by Ajith Kumar. This procedure adopted by the inquiry officer cannot be justified in law, according to the court.

"He has provided every chance to the suspected officer to justify his acts, rather than adopting a fair procedure. The suspected officer does not have the right to participate in the inquiry, and to provide details on how he could escape the allegations. This circumstance itself indicates that, in the initial stage, the inquiry officer intended to exonerate his official superior by whatever means, including adopting illegal ways and procedures not sanctioned by law," the judge said.

The Vigilance Director forwarded the report in March 2025 and it was stated that the department verified and accepted the report. It was also informed that the decision (to give a clean chit to Ajith Kumar) has the approval of the Chief Minister. The court also observed that nobody has the right to interfere in the inquiry, and the need for approval was not explained.

"This is a case where the suspected officer was exonerated of the allegations, and the person stated above (Chief Minister) approved the final decision. Suppose the final decision in the enquiry was otherwise: is it a circumstance to believe otherwise? If there is a procedure for seeking approval, it is against the provisions of law. This is contrary to the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence," the court said.