Kochi: The Kerala High Court on Friday rejected the unconditional apology submitted by IAS officer K. Biju, Secretary in charge of the Cashew Development Department, in connection with the controversial prosecution sanction order issued in the alleged Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation corruption case.
The High Court directed the senior bureaucrat to file a fresh affidavit and also instructed him to issue a revised prosecution sanction order clearly stating that it had been passed “with proper application of mind.”
The matter has now been posted for further hearing on July 15.
Court Declines to Accept Unconditional Apology
The case came up before Justice A. Badharudeen, who was considering the affidavit filed by K. Biju after the court had earlier directed him to appear in person and explain why contempt proceedings should not be initiated over the language used in the prosecution sanction order.
Although the IAS officer expressed regret and tendered an unconditional apology, the court declined to accept it, observing that further clarification was required.
Justice Badharudeen directed Biju to submit a fresh affidavit addressing the court’s concerns.
Read also: Kerala HC Pulls Up IAS Officer K. Biju Over Government Order in Cashew Corporation Corruption Case
Fresh Sanction Order Ordered
Apart from seeking a fresh affidavit, the High Court instructed the officer to issue a revised prosecution sanction order.
The court specifically directed that the new order should clearly record that the prosecution sanction had been granted after an independent and proper application of mind, rather than merely in compliance with judicial directions.
The revised order is expected to remove any ambiguity regarding the exercise of statutory powers by the competent authority.
‘Officials Should Not Become Weapons of the Government’
During the hearing, Justice Badharudeen made significant observations on the role of civil servants while exercising statutory authority.
The court remarked that government officials must function independently and should not become “weapons of the government” while performing duties entrusted to them under law.
The judge emphasised that whenever a statutory authority grants prosecution sanction, the order must demonstrate that the competent authority has independently examined all relevant materials before arriving at a decision.
According to the court, statutory powers cannot be exercised mechanically or in a manner that suggests the authority acted solely because of directions issued by another institution.
What K. Biju Said in His Affidavit
In his affidavit before the High Court, K. Biju acknowledged that the language used in the original prosecution sanction order was inappropriate.
He expressed regret that certain expressions employed in the order could be interpreted as reflecting adversely upon the authority of the High Court.
The officer submitted an unconditional apology, stating that it was:
- Voluntary.
- Unequivocal.
- Tendered with genuine remorse.
He also stated that he withdrew every expression contained in the original order that could be construed as questioning the correctness, authority or judicial wisdom of the High Court.
Background of the Controversy
The controversy arose after K. Biju issued a prosecution sanction order in the alleged Cashew Corporation corruption case.
The wording of the order created an impression that the State Government had granted sanction only because the High Court had directed it to do so, rather than after independently evaluating the available materials.
The High Court had earlier expressed serious concern over this wording, observing that it undermined the statutory responsibility of the sanctioning authority.
The court maintained that a prosecution sanction must always reflect an independent decision taken by the competent authority after due consideration of the facts and legal requirements.
Government Had Issued Revised Order
Following the High Court’s earlier observations, the Kerala government had already issued a revised prosecution sanction order and placed it before the court.
However, during Friday’s hearing, the court made it clear that the revised order must explicitly state that it was passed after independent application of mind before it could be accepted.
The court indicated that merely modifying the language without demonstrating compliance with statutory requirements would not be sufficient.
Matter Posted for July 15
The High Court has listed the matter for further consideration on July 15, by which time K. Biju is expected to file a fresh affidavit and place the revised prosecution sanction order before the court.
The proceedings are being closely watched as they underline the judiciary’s emphasis on the independence of statutory authorities and the responsibility of civil servants while exercising quasi-judicial and statutory powers.
