Court grants liberty to petitioner to challenge Government's denial of sanction for investigation, emphasizing absence of material disclosing offence under Prevention of Corruption Act despite allegations of rule violations in appointments.
In a significant judgment dated October 16, 2026, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, disposed of a criminal writ petition filed by Advocate K.M. Shajahan seeking a direction to the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to investigate complaints alleging corruption in the appointment of two bodybuilders as Armed Police Inspectors under the sports quota. The appointments, made by the previous Left Democratic Front (LDF) government, had sparked controversy due to alleged violations of existing recruitment rules, including failure to meet physical fitness criteria and age limits.
The petitioner's complaint centered on the appointments of Shri Chitharesh Natesan and Shri Shinu Chovva, both acclaimed bodybuilders with international accolades, who were appointed as Armed Police Inspectors through government orders that allegedly bypassed the Kerala Police Subordinate Services (Armed Police Battalions) Special Rules, 1984. The petitioner contended that these appointments were tainted by corruption and favoritism, as the candidates failed physical efficiency tests and exceeded the prescribed age limit. Furthermore, the petitioner alleged undue influence by senior police officers and government officials in facilitating these appointments, despite opposition within the police force and procedural irregularities.
During the pendency of the writ petition, the competent government authority considered the matter and issued an order rejecting the prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, which is a statutory prerequisite for initiating investigation or prosecution against public servants in corruption cases. The Section mandates prior sanction from the government before any inquiry or investigation can proceed.
The High Court scrutinized the controversy thoroughly, including interim orders directing government officers to expedite decision-making and submission of reports. The Court observed that mere violations of rules or procedural lapses in appointments, without demonstrable dishonest intention or corrupt motive, do not necessarily constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The judgment highlighted established precedents affirming that criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act requires proof of dishonest intention to obtain undue pecuniary advantage, which was not evident in the present case.
Significantly, the Court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the government's order denying sanction under Section 17A. In the absence of such a challenge or any material disclosing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the writ petition could not be entertained to direct investigation. The Court thus disposed of the petition with a direction that the petitioner or any aggrieved person could challenge the legality of the government's order through appropriate legal channels.
The judgment also discussed the nuances of appointments under sports quota, emphasizing that bodybuilding is not recognized as an official sports discipline under the relevant rules, thereby questioning the basis of the appointments. The Court acknowledged the government's admission of certain rule relaxations but underscored that such administrative decisions must be tested through proper legal remedies rather than invoking anti-corruption laws without substantiated allegations.
The case brings to fore the delicate balance between administrative discretion in appointments and the legal safeguards against corruption, underscoring the importance of due process and evidence in invoking criminal sanctions against public officials.
Bottom Line:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Section 17A Writ petition seeking direction to consider vigilance complaints regarding alleged illegal appointment of bodybuilders as Armed Police Inspectors - Government rejected prior approval under Section 17A - In absence of challenge to said Government Order and in absence of materials disclosing offence under Prevention of Corruption Act, writ petition disposed of granting liberty to petitioner or other aggrieved person to challenge Government Order in accordance with law.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sections 13(1)(d), 17A
Adv.K.M.Shajahan v. State of Kerala, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2999272
