Kerala High Court Asks If State Obtained Sanction To Prosecute ADGP Ajithkumar In Illegal Assets Case

Additional Director General of Police MR Ajith Kumar has moved the High Court challenging a Special Court's decision to proceed with an illegal assets case against him, despite the Vigilance Enquiry report giving him a clean chit.

When the matter was taken up today, Justice A. Badarudheen at the outset asked the State if it had obtained sanction to prosecute the public servant.

Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act stipulates that there can neither be any inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant in the discharge of his official functions or duties, without previous approval/ sanction of the Competent Authority.

"There lies the legal issue. The question is whether the private complaint can be proceeded by the Special Judge without 17A approval. A legal question is involved...This Court is empowered to look into the legality, illegality of a matter which is addressed before this Court," the Judge orally observed.

The proceedings were launched last year following corruption and hawala allegations leveled against the ADGP (currently serving as an Excise Commissioner) by former Nilambur MLA P V Anvar and on a private complaint lodged by one Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj.

Senior counsel B. Raman Pillai appearing for the officer argued that the complaint was hearsay, based solely on the allegations made by Anvar and the documents produced were mere newspaper reports.

The counsel submitted that there was no approval in accordance with Section 17A and yet, the Special Judge proceeded with the case and is slated to soon examine the witnesses— on August 30.

Hearing this, the Court ordered, "The learned Public Prosecutor is directed to take instructions specifying as to whether any steps...in this manner and also to hear the de facto complainant in detail."

The Court also said that it would look into whether the vigilance enquiry report was submitted with government approval.

"Nobody can say that because of the seriousness of the allegation, we can give go by to the statutory mandate. Should not be. Maybe the allegation is true. The finding of the Enquiry Report may be wrong. The allegation in the complaint may be right. But everything has its own way to be proceeded. It is not a normal complaint. Offence is PC Act. Normally, 19(1) prosecution is necessary. But here the Magistrate seems to have stepped into the stage of cognizance without a sanction," the Court orally remarked.

The case is posted tomorrow (August 27) for further consideration.

The petition is moved by Advocates R. Anil, Sujesh Menon V.B., Thomas Sabu Vadakekut, Mahesh Bhanu S., Ressil Lohan, Ananth Krishna K.S., George Vinci Jose. The petitioner is represented by Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai.

Case No: Crl.MC 7741/2025

Case Title: M.R. Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala