Kochi
The Kerala High Court on Friday refused to accept the unconditional apology tendered by IAS officer and Cashew Department Secretary, K. Biju, in connection with a controversial government order on prosecution sanction in the multi-crore Cashew Development Corporation corruption case, directing him to file a fresh affidavit after incorporating crucial omissions pointed out by the court.
The Court while returning the affidavit, delivered a strong message to the State’s bureaucracy, cautioning civil servants against becoming instruments of the government in matters involving the judiciary.
Do not try to confront the court. If you do, no government can protect you, the judge warned, adding that government officers exist to serve the people and not merely defend the government.
Quoting Napoleon Bonaparte, the court observed, A brave man dies only once.
The contempt proceedings arose from a government order granting the CBI sanction to prosecute the accused in the Cashew Development Corporation import corruption case, including INTUC leader R. Chandrasekharan.
The High Court had earlier taken serious exception to the wording of the order, observing that it appeared to create the impression that the government had granted prosecution sanction only because it had been compelled to do so by the High Court, thereby shifting responsibility to the judiciary.
Summoned to appear before the court, Biju submitted an affidavit expressing unconditional regret.
He admitted that the language used in the order was inappropriate, though not intentional, and acknowledged that such wording should never have found a place in a legally valid government order.
He also withdrew all expressions that could be construed as questioning the authority or wisdom of the High Court.
The court, however, found the apology incomplete, pointing out that it failed to specifically acknowledge that the government had granted prosecution sanction after independently finding a prima facie case in the corruption allegations.
The court also turned its attention to Industries Department Principal Secretary, A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish, asking whether he had advised the present Secretary in issuing the controversial order.
The original government order was subsequently withdrawn after the Advocate General intervened and a fresh order was issued.
However, before its withdrawal, one of the accused, R. Chandrasekharan, had relied on the original order during a press conference to mount a political defence.
