Kerala High Court Steps In: Relief for ADGP Ajith Kumar in Disproportionate Assets Case

The story goes like this: a Muvattupuzha Vigilance Court had previously mandated a deeper probe into the allegations against the ADGP. However, Mr. Kumar, clearly feeling aggrieved by this decision, took his plea to the Kerala High Court. And what did the High Court conclude? Simply put, Justice A. Badharudeen's bench determined there wasn't even a "prima facie" case – meaning, no initial, self-evident grounds – to justify pushing forward with the vigilance inquiry.

Now, where did these allegations even stem from? A gentleman named George Vattukulam had lodged a complaint, alleging that between 2005 and 2014, ADGP Ajith Kumar had accumulated wealth disproportionate to his legitimate earnings. The Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), as is standard procedure, conducted its own initial investigation. And their findings? A "referred report," which is essentially a closing report, stating quite clearly that the allegations were, in their view, utterly baseless. No evidence to back up Mr. Vattukulam's claims.

But here's where things got a bit contentious. Despite the VACB’s clean bill of health, the vigilance court in Muvattupuzha decided to reject their referred report. They then ordered a further inquiry, pointing to what they perceived as "suspicious circumstances." We're talking about things like various land deals, financial transactions involving family members, personal loans, and several property purchases. To the lower court, these aspects seemed to raise red flags, suggesting something might be amiss.

However, the High Court saw things differently, and crucially, they looked at the original Vigilance Inquiry Report (VIR) from the VACB. Justice Badharudeen's bench meticulously examined these very "suspicious circumstances" that the vigilance court had highlighted. And their conclusion? That each and every one of those points had been adequately explained and accounted for within the VACB's initial, thorough report. It wasn't that the issues weren't looked at; they simply found no wrongdoing.

The High Court also delved into a significant legal point, clarifying the boundaries of judicial power. They emphasized that once an investigating agency like the VACB has conducted a full and proper investigation, culminating in a final report (like the "referred report" in this instance), a magistrate generally cannot simply order a "further investigation." Such a directive is only permissible if there are truly specific, material reasons that the agency clearly overlooked or ignored during their initial, comprehensive probe. In this case, the High Court found no such oversight.

Indeed, the High Court went further, stating quite unequivocally that the vigilance court had, regrettably, overstepped its jurisdictional bounds. Its reasoning for ordering a new inquiry was deemed "flawed," and the order itself was even labeled "illegal and perverse." It seems the lower court’s apprehension about loans and property purchases, while perhaps understandable on the surface, just didn’t hold up under closer scrutiny by the higher judicial authority, especially when all transactions were accounted for in the initial report.

So, for ADGP Ajith Kumar, this decision marks a definitive end to what must have been a period of considerable uncertainty and stress. The Kerala High Court's ruling stands as a clear affirmation that the initial vigilance inquiry was indeed comprehensive and that the allegations against him were, as the VACB initially reported, without merit. A big sigh of relief, one would imagine.