Kerala HC issues interim stay on Vigilance Court proceedings against ADGP Ajith Kumar

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday issued an interim stay on proceedings of the Special Vigilance Court, Thiruvananthapuram, against ADGP Ajith Kumar in the case related to amassing assets disproportionate to his income.
The order issued by the Vigilance court on August 14 noted that the complaint filed by Neyyatinkara Nagaraj was maintainable and rejected the report filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram Special unit - 1, which probed various allegations against Ajith Kumar. 

The Vigilance court scheduled a hearing of the complainant Nagaraj on August 30. Justice A. Badharudheen, who considered Ajith Kumar's plea against the order, expressed doubt over how the Vigilance Court proceeded with the complaint without the government's sanction and stressed the need for the government's consent for the Vigilance court to take cognisance of the offence. The defence counsel argued that summoning the complainant for a hearing cannot be construed as a step towards taking cognisance.

The HC, however, stayed further proceedings on the case till September 12, when the case will be considered again.

The court also heard arguments regarding section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which deals with the dismissal of a complaint. As per the section, if the Magistrate feels that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding after considering the statements of the complainant and the witness, the complaint shall be dismissed by recording his reasons. The HC noted that the statute is clear regarding the prerequisite sanction to proceed with a complaint against a public servant. 

As per section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, for the previous sanction of the Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court unless such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences and the court has not dismissed the complaint and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding.

Ajith Kumar said in the petition that any Court which is considering a complaint can indeed deal with a complaint either in a pre-cognisance stage or post-cognisance stage, and considering previous judicial pronouncements, when the complaint is against a public servant, the law is clear that a sanction is a prerequisite to proceed, regardless of the stage.