HC sets aside Vigilance court order against Kerala ADGP Ajith Kumar, refuses to quash complaint

The High Court single bench, on Friday, set aside the order by the Vigilance Special Court for an inquiry against Kerala ADGP M R Ajith Kumar in the disproportionate assets case. Justice A Badharudeen cited a procedural flaw in the order, noting that the Special Judge of the Vigilance court ought to have directed the complainant to produce a sanction in terms of relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 

The court also said that the Vigilance Special court has no power to address the legality of the inquiry report of the high-level team of police and the report of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), and the complainant can take up the matter before the constitutional court to consider the same. The court, however, dismissed the prayer of Ajith Kumar to quash the complaint against him. It said that the complainant is free to apply before the competent authority and to produce the same before the Special Court. 

The complainant, Neyyatinkara P Nagaraj, said that he will approach the Chief Secretary of Kerala seeking sanction for prosecution. 

In August 2025, Manoj A, Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, ordered that the complainant has the legal right to file the complaint alleging an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Ajith Kumar.

It was also directed that a private complaint without attaching a sanction, from the competent authority, alleging offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, by a public servant would be maintainable before the Special Judge.

The Vigilance Court had also rejected the inquiry report filed by the VACB. It said that the complaint, documents, and materials collected by the inquiry officer showed a prima facie case, and ordered that there were sufficient materials to proceed with the case. 

Ajith Kumar challenged this order and pointed out 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.

The HC also said that P V Anvar, one of the respondents in the case, can challenge the VACB's inquiry report, which gave a clean chit to Ajith Kumar, according to his counsel Muhammad Firdouz. 

The orders of the Enquiry Commissioner and the Special Judge showed that the court had considered the judgments of the Supreme Court and the High Court on the need for a sanction to proceed with a case during the pre-cognisance stage. The Vigilance Court had observed that the SC order requiring a complaint to accompany a sanction order did not apply to the Ajithkumar case.