Cashew import scam: Kerala HC upholds validity of sanction to prosecute former KSCDC officials

The Kerala High Court on Friday recorded its satisfaction with the legality of the sanction order issued by K Biju IAS, Secretary, Forest and Cashew Department, granting the CBI permission to prosecute former Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) officials K A Ratheesh and R Chandrasekharan in a corruption case.

Justice A Badharudeen, after hearing detailed arguments by counsel for Biju, the CBI and the State, observed that the sanction order satisfied the legal requirements for granting sanction and was in order.

The court, however, questioned the absence of the Secretary's signature in the copy of the sanction order forwarded to the CBI, observing that its authenticity was in doubt without a physical or digital signature. It directed Biju to send a physically signed or digitally signed copy of the Government Order to the CBI within two days.

"K Biju, the 2nd respondent, is specifically directed to send a physically signed or a digitally signed copy of the GO...signed by him within a period of 2 days from today. The learned standing counsel for the CBI is specifically instructed to submit before this Court as to compliance with this order after 2 days."

The direction came after the CBI's standing counsel submitted that the absence of a signed copy would impede further proceedings.

The court also impleaded the CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, Cochin, as an additional respondent in the contempt proceedings for the limited purpose of keeping the agency informed about the sanction and enabling further directions. The court noted that the CBI was required to proceed further in the matter on the basis of the sanction already granted.

The court reserved its decision on whether to accept Biju's unconditional apology or proceed further with the contempt case.

"Now, the contempt petition shall stand reserved for orders to decide as to whether the contempt to be proceeded further or the apology is to be accepted to close the proceedings."

The contempt proceedings arose after the State repeatedly refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute the former KSCDC officials.

Initially, the contempt petition was filed only against Industries Principal Secretary Mohammed Hanish, who was then in charge of the Cashew Department. During the proceedings, Hanish appeared before the court and tendered an unconditional apology after the court warned him of contempt for failing to comply with its direction to consider the sanction in light of the orders passed by a co-ordinate Bench.

Biju was later impleaded as an additional respondent after taking charge of the department. He subsequently issued two sanction orders, one of which was withdrawn on the advice of the Advocate General, who opined that it contained contemptuous remarks.

In the withdrawn order, Biju had stated that sanction was being "forced" because of the court's directions and that there had been no application of mind by the Government. A copy of the withdrawn order was also provided to one of the accused, who later read out those remarks during a press conference.

Last week, after examining the withdrawn order, the court issued notice to Biju under the High Court's Contempt of Court Rules. Biju thereafter filed two affidavits tendering an unconditional apology. The court, however, orally observed that the officer's conduct required serious consideration as it amounted to maligning the court and affected the independence of the judiciary.

On Wednesday, the court indicated that it would revisit the sufficiency of the second sanction order. The CBI's counsel requested the court to examine whether the order reflected application of mind based on the records.

During Friday's hearing, counsel for the contempt petitioner, Advocate D Anil Kumar, submitted that the sanction order, read as a whole, demonstrated application of mind through its consideration of the relevant records and investigation findings, relying on judicial precedents in support of the contention. The Special Government Pleader also supported this view.

After considering the submissions and examining the records, the court held that the sanction order satisfied the legal requirements and affirmed that it was in order.