Providing a respite to the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF government in Kerala, the state Lokayukta referred the misuse of the Chief Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF) case to a three-member bench.
The anti-graft ombudsman referred the case to a full bench following a split verdict on Friday, 31 March. The Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta could not arrive at a consensus in the case.
The bench comprising Lokayukta Justice Cyriac Joseph and Upa Lokayukta Justice Harun Ul-Rashid pronounced the long-awaited verdict around 11 am.
It said the three-member full bench, comprising the remaining Upa Lokayukta Justice Babu Mathew P Joseph would go through the case.
Besides Vijayan, 16 ministers in his 2016-21 Cabinet were made respondents in the case.
The quasi-judicial body did not set any timeframe for resuming the proceedings, and indications are that it would prolong.
The final verdict was expected to dictate the political future of Vijayan. An adverse remark from the ombudsman would have led to his resignation as per the provisions of the Kerala Lokayukta Act, 1999.
Bill put on hold
The case was based on a complaint by RS Sasikumar, a former Syndicate member of the University of Kerala. He alleged nepotism and misuse of power in utilising the CMDRF.
The verdict was crucial for Vijayan as he was the only one among the accused who still holds a constitutional position.
The case took on political dimensions last year when the government moved a Bill amending the Lokayukta Act in the state Assembly, curtailing the powers of the anti-graft body.
The Bill made it non-mandatory for the chief minister and ministers to resign, if faced with adverse remarks.
It also envisaged that the Lokayukta could make recommendations to the competent authority, which can accept or reject them.
The 1999 Act is still in force since Governor Arif Mohammad Khan has not approved the Bill.
Also read: Governor Khan to meet ministers to discuss pending Bills
The complaint
In his petition, Sasikumar accused the chief minister of nepotism and misuse of power by diverting funds from the CMDRF to clear the debts of two prominent LDF leaders, and a police officer attached to the security detail of the then-CPI(M) state secretary, the late Kodiyeri Balakrishnan.
He wanted the money to be recovered from the families of the two leaders, apart from disqualifying the chief minister for misusing his position.
The petitioner said the money was provided to ineligible people. Families of late CPI(M) legislator from Chengannur KK Ramachandran Nair, late NCP state president Uzhavoor Vijayan and policeman P Praveen, who was killed in a road accident while escorting Balakrishnan, had received the funds.
Sasikumar claimed that ₹25 lakh from CMDRF was provided to meet the educational expenses of Uzhavoor Vijayan’s children. He also brought to the Lokayukta ‘s notice the appointment of Nair’s son as an assistant engineer.
The complainant also said ₹8.5 lakh from CMDRF was paid for redeeming the pawned gold of Nair’s wife and settling his car loan.
An amount of ₹20 lakh was paid from CMDRF to the wife of the city police officer, who died after the pilot vehicle of Balakrishnan had met with an accident.
This solatium was in addition to providing her with a government job, the petitioner argued.
Also read: Arya Rajendran letter: Nepotism and the Kerala CPI(M)
Delayed verdict
Though the arguments were completed last year, the verdict was delayed. The Lokayukta delivered the split verdict after the petitioner had approached the Kerala High Court, which directed the ombudsman to expedite the process.
Early this month, the high court dismissed a petition seeking an order directing the CBI to take over the case.
Incidentally, KT Jaleel, the higher education minister in the first Pinarayi Cabinet, had to quit following a Lokayukta verdict, which held him guilty of misusing power.
The hearing in the case was held from 5 February to 18 March, 2022. According to the rules, the verdict should be delivered within 30 days of the culmination of the hearing.
In case of extraordinary circumstances, it could be stretched by another 15 days. However, the verdict was indefinitely delayed, following which the petitioner approached the high court.
