No Further Probe Against ADGP M R Ajith Kumar; High Court Removes Remarks Against Chief Minister

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has ruled that there will be no further investigation against ADGP M R Ajith Kumar in the disproportionate assets case, quashing an earlier order by the Vigilance Court that had cancelled a clean chit given to him. The High Court further stated that complainants are at liberty to file a fresh complaint after obtaining prior permission, should they wish to pursue the matter.

In a significant development, the High Court also ordered the removal of adverse remarks made by the Vigilance Court against the Chief Minister’s office. This decision came following a petition filed by the government challenging these specific observations.

The appeal to the High Court was lodged by M R Ajith Kumar himself, contesting the Vigilance Court’s decision to revoke his clean chit. A key argument presented by Ajith Kumar was that the Vigilance Court had acted without a thorough examination of the Vigilance department’s report. He contended that the original complaint against him was based solely on general allegations raised by an MLA through media channels, lacking any other credible supporting evidence. His petition specifically requested a stay on the verdict, asserting that it was delivered without a proper evaluation of the case’s facts.

Previously, the Vigilance Court had issued an order asserting that the Chief Minister had no authority to intervene in the investigation concerning M R Ajith Kumar’s disproportionate assets case. The Special Vigilance Court had notably rejected a Vigilance report that had initially exonerated Ajith Kumar, who was serving as the Excise Commissioner at the time. The court had also sternly criticised the investigating officer and strongly condemned the inclusion of the phrase “Chief Minister approved” in the final report.

The Vigilance Court had underscored that the Chief Minister functions merely as the administrative head of the Vigilance department and that political figures in high office are precluded from intervening at any juncture of an investigation. It emphasized that it is the legal framework and the law itself that determine an individual’s guilt or innocence, and administrative heads or senior politicians hold no legal standing to influence this process. The Vigilance Court had unequivocally stated that any investigation subjected to such interference would inherently lose its independence and fairness.