Thiruvananthapuram: In a strong judicial observation, the Vigilance Court on Thursday rejected a report that had granted a clean chit to senior IPS officer M.R. Ajith Kumar (1995 batch) in an alleged disproportionate wealth case. The court ruled that “the political executive does not have a role in the enquiry initiated against an officer.”
Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) A. Manoj said the documents produced before the court established a prima facie case fit to proceed further. The court directed that complainant advocate P. Nagaraj and other witnesses be examined before it takes cognisance of the anti-corruption charge.
Court Questions Political Influence in Vigilance Report
The complainant had approached the vigilance court after the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) failed to act on his petition, seeking a case against ADGP Kumar under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Kumar, considered close to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, is presently serving as Excise Commissioner.
Defending its clean chit, the VACB informed the court that the probe was complete and that the Home Department had accepted the vigilance director’s report. It further stated, “It is also informed that the above decision has the approval of the Chief Minister.”
Rejecting this line of defense, the court sharply asked, “The question is: what is the role of the so-called constitutional dignitaries in the enquiry initiated against the high-ranking police officer? It is a fact that the vigilance department falls under the control of the Chief Minister of the State; it is solely for governance and nothing more. The political executive does not have a role in the enquiry initiated against an officer.”
Also Read: Senior IPS Officer M R Ajith Kumar Appointed as Kerala’s New Excise Commissioner Amid Sabarimala Row
“Invisible Penetration” into Enquiry Process
The court noted serious irregularities in the vigilance report, observing: “Facts of the case suggest that there is an invisible penetration by someone into the inquiry that leads to the preparation of a report favourable to the suspected officer, who holds a high position in the police department.”
Calling the vigilance report “subservient,” the court remarked, “The enquiry report is a subservient report prepared for those who need reports like the present one. This court cannot believe that the officers of the vigilance department and the superpower authority controlling them are unknown to the Lalita Kumari case principle (police to register FIR upon information about a cognizable offence).”
It further noted: “Upon reading the entire report, it becomes clear that the facts collected were based on the statement provided by the suspected officer (ADGP).”
The court underlined that the enquiry had attempted to bypass statutory provisions, the Vigilance Manual, and Supreme Court judgments.
Background of the Officer
Ajith Kumar was removed as ADGP (Law and Order) last year after lapses during the Thrissur Pooram Festival ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. Both the Congress and Left Democratic Front ally Communist Party of India had alleged that Kumar’s meeting with Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader Dattatreya Hosabale was part of a conspiracy that led to the “deliberate botching” of the festival.
With the latest order, the vigilance court has cleared the way for further examination of charges against the senior officer, setting aside political endorsements as irrelevant to judicial enquiry.
