Setback for K.M. Mani as Kerala HC upholds decision for further probe

In a stinging observation with grave political implications, the Kerala High Court on Monday said it was quite natural for the common man to entertain a feeling that there could not be a proper investigation into the bar bribery case against Finance Minister K.M. Mani, when the accused against whom fingers were being pointed continued as a Minister.

Justice B. Kemal Pasha made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) challenging the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance Court directive to conduct further investigation into the bar bribery case.

The court also expunged the observation of theVigilance Court that the Vigilance Director had no powers to give timely directions to the investigation officer in the matter of investigation. The judge observed that he was reminded of the Shakespearian saying that “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

‘‘The fundamental principle that justice is not only done but it should also appear that it is done, is applicable not to the judiciary alone…It is equally applicable to the other two pillars of the State.”

The court observed that even the Advocate General had to be bypassed by the Director of Vigilance to obtain a legal opinion from outside sources on filing a final report in the case. However, the Director could not be faulted on that score. The court, however, asked whether “the common man should pay for that also.’’

“I am not making any further comments on it, as this court is not invited to answer such questions. I am leaving that question to the conscience of the accused,” the judge observed.

Kapil Sibil, Supreme Court Lawyer appearing for the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, submitted that the Vigilance Court had unnecessarily gone into the details of the materials collected by the investigation officer and entered some findings regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe.

The court observed that the Vigilance Court could have avoided those observations. It seems that somehow in its anxiety to justify the taking of cognizance of the offence or of ordering a further investigation, the court below had made those observations in detail, Justice Pasha said.

The court made it clear that those observations shall not have the effect on any findings or the merits of the case. The court also said that such observations by the Vigilance Court shall not prejudice the accused in any manner in the continued investigation or a trial.