Kochi: In a major relief for Additional Director General of Police M.R. Ajith Kumar, the Kerala High Court on Friday quashed the Vigilance Court order that had revoked his clean chit in the disproportionate assets case.
The High Court ruled that there would be no further probe at this stage and directed that any future complaints must be filed only after securing mandatory prior sanction.
The High Court also removed adverse remarks made by the Vigilance Court against the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s office, stating that such observations were made without sufficient legal basis or supporting evidence.
The government had moved the High Court, arguing that the Vigilance Court’s comments had exceeded jurisdiction.
Ajith Kumar had appealed against the Vigilance Court decision, arguing that it was based solely on unverified public allegations made by former MLA P.V. Anvar through the media.
He maintained that the court had neither examined the Vigilance report in detail nor considered documentary evidence before revoking his exoneration.
The High Court noted that courts must be cautious in tampering with clean chit findings unless there is prima facie material to justify further investigation.
It upheld that preliminary allegations do not constitute actionable evidence.
According to the Vigilance report, five separate allegations raised by Anvar, including illegal wealth accumulation, involvement in gold smuggling for financial gain, construction of a luxury residence with illicit funds, teak wood misappropriation, and financial irregularities in property dealings, were all found to be false.
During the probe, it was established through official records and witness testimonies that the teak wood had been auctioned legally, the residence was constructed using legitimate bank transactions, and no financial inconsistencies were detected.
The report further confirmed that no link was found between Ajith Kumar and any alleged gold smuggling network.
The High Court clarified that while oversight of corruption is essential, baseless accusations should not be allowed to tarnish reputations without substantive proof.
The judgment is seen as a setback for those seeking renewed action in the case, though it leaves scope for fresh proceedings under due legal procedures.
(IANS)
