KOCHI: The Kerala High Court on Wednesday initiated contempt of court proceedings against K. Biju, IAS, Secretary in charge of the Cashew Development Department, over controversial remarks in a government order granting prosecution sanction in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation corruption case.
The court observed that the order amounted to a serious attack on the judiciary.
Justice A Badharudeen directed the officer to appear in person before the court on Friday and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against him. The court orally observed that the officer's conduct was extremely serious and indicated that an apology would not be acceptable.
The controversy relates to a government order dated July 2 granting prosecution sanction to the accused in the case. The order stated that the High Court had assumed the role of the trial court by assessing the evidence, leaving the government with no option but to grant prosecution sanction.
It further said that the sanction was being accorded without an independent application of mind and solely in compliance with the High Court's directions in the contempt proceedings. The order also claimed that, by directing the government to grant prosecution sanction, the High Court had effectively required the State to abdicate its statutory duty to independently apply its mind.
The High Court clarified that it had never directed the government to grant prosecution sanction. It had only directed the State to reconsider the CBI's request for prosecution sanction in accordance with law.
The court said the July 2 order contained factually incorrect statements and amounted to a deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the judiciary before the public.
Coming down heavily on the officer, the court questioned whether he was fit to continue in public service if he could issue such an order. It also expressed doubt over whether the controversial order had actually been drafted by the officer himself, observing that it appeared as though statements made by the accused had been reproduced in an official government order carrying a G.O. number.
The court further criticised the fact that a copy of the government order had reached the accused before it was officially released. It referred to the press conference held by the main accused, INTUC State president R. Chandrasekharan, during which portions of the order critical of the court were read out publicly.
The court said these developments created an impression that the order had been issued to assist the accused and amounted to an attack on the justice delivery system.
Appearing for the State, Advocate General Jaju Babu informed the court that the July 2 order had been withdrawn and replaced with a fresh order issued on July 6 after deleting the controversial remarks.
When the court asked how the government could issue a revised order within four days after earlier seeking time to produce a proper order, the Advocate General submitted that he had personally intervened in the matter.
Recording that the intervention appeared bona fide, the court directed that the July 2 order should not be relied upon for any purpose other than the contempt proceedings and possible disciplinary action until further orders.
The court also observed that it did not believe the Chief Minister or the Industries Minister had knowingly permitted such an order to be issued.