Cashew Corp Scam: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Contempt Proceedings Against IAS Officer Over Contemptuous Remarks

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 15) reserved its verdict on whether to accept the unconditional apology tendered by IAS officer K. Biju, who is in charge of Kerala's Cashew Development department or to proceed with contempt proceedings against him.

Justice A. Badharudeen today orally remarked:

"For the time being, I am taking the matter for orders. Whether the apology is to be accepted or rejected...to proceed further taking note of the very very serious nature of allegations raised against the court, which should not have been made by an officer having 17 years of standing, and the intention to give accused himself a copy for it to be published in a press conference is to malign the integrity of the court, independence of judiciary and also threat the court...we are not ready to be subject-matter of judicial scrutiny or we not ready to accept the orders of the court, we will decide in accordance with our whims and fancies."

The Court was considering a contempt plea initiated after the State refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute against corrupt officers of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).

K. Biju was arrayed as an additional respondent after he took charge of the cashew department. Thereafter, he passed two sanction orders, one of which was cancelled on the advice of the Advocate General, who opined that the same contained contemptuous remarks. Last week, the Court had issued notice as per the Contempt of Court Rules of the High Court to Biju after perusing the afore cancelled order (Annexure A9).

In the said cancelled order, Biju had stated that sanction was "forced" to be given because of the orders of the Court and there was no application of mind by the government.

On Friday (July 10), K. Biju had appeared in person before the Court and had tendered his unconditional apology. However, not satisfied with the apology submitted, the Court had asked the officer to add that he had independently appraised the matter and re-issued the order after assessing the facts.

On Monday (July 13), he swore an affidavit, again recording his unconditional apology for the words used in the cancelled order.

"I most respectfully apologise before this Hon'ble Court for issuing Annexure A9 Government Order without proper application of mind and for the derogatory statements contained therein...All the observations and expressions which were capable of being understood as derogatory to, or diminishing the dignity and authority of, this Hon'ble Court were deleted, and the fresh Government Order...was issued giving prosecution sanction after proper application of mind, clearly finding that a prima facie case is made out against accused 1 and 3 necessitating sanction to prosecute them," K. Biju swore in the affidavit.

After perusing the affidavit, the Court orally said:

"this was an order issued by a senior officer having 17 years of service. Then even without the junction of the court or the petitioner, the AG himself says this is a per se contemptuous order. Is it correct? Then whether a court of law reading this order is justified in giving you pardon or to accept your apology to close the proceedings?...Doing mischief and passing orders to defame the integrity of the judiciary and filing application to exonerate or to apologise may take away the seriousness of the matter. Very serious matter. I have gone through Annexure A9 order today also. I am of the considered view that this Court has to think again and again. Whether the apology is to be accepted, to draw the proceedings or in order to keep the integrity and independence of the judiciary, whether contempt needs to be proceeded. That is the view of this Court." 

The Court also made it clear that the State is the sanctioning authority and not the Court but the latter has the power to set aside improperly passed orders denying sanction. It told the government pleader:

"Please understand that the sanctioning authority is always the government, not the court but you don't see that by exercising that power in an arbitrary and biased manner...You have authority, no doubt about it. Court has no authority. But once you are passing an order, that order should be based on records, not an arbitrary stating that we will not grant sanction, we will save the accused. if you pass such an order, this Court will definitely interfere. Even if it is passed 100 times, this Court will set aside 100 times."

After the standing counsel for the CBI pointed out that it had not received the sanction order, the Court directed that a copy may be forwarded to the CBI today itself. It also observed that sufficiency of the second sanction order may need a revisit:

"In the meanwhile, there shall be direction to the secretary to fwd the sanction order directly to the CBI today itself without fail. As regards the sufficiency of the sanction, the learned CBI's Standing counsel has certain submissions. Post on Friday to consider the same."

The case will be taken up again on July 17.

Case No: Con.Case (C) No. 908 of 2025

Case Title: Kadakampally Manoj v. Mohammed Hanish and Anr.