Kerala High Court Disposes Plea Seeking Vigilance Probe into Appointment of Bodybuilders Shinu Chova and Chitharesh Natesan as Police Inspectors

Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment.

The petition sought a direction to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to consider complaints submitted by the petitioner, and conduct an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the appointments of Natesan and Chovva.

The appointments originated from a government decision to provide employment to the two bodybuilders in recognition of their achievements in international bodybuilding and physique competitions. According to the statement filed by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, the Council of Ministers decided in January 2025 to appoint them as Armed Police Inspectors by creating two supernumerary posts, with their appointments to be regularised against the next two regular vacancies.

The government issued the relevant appointment order in June 2025. Appointment orders were subsequently issued on March 10, 2026, and training orders followed on June 11, 2026.

However, the appointments came under scrutiny over questions concerning the applicable recruitment rules and the candidates' physical eligibility.

According to the government statement, Chitharesh Natesan did not attend the National Physical Efficiency One Star Standard Test conducted on February 24, 2025. Shinu Chovva appeared for the test but qualified in only four of the eight events and was consequently declared not qualified.

The government statement further recorded that Natesan was declared medically unfit due to flat foot following a medical examination conducted on March 25, 2026.

In July 2026, following a change of government and consideration of representations and pending proceedings, the government directed that the training of both candidates be stopped. The Additional Chief Secretary stated that the government was re-examining the Cabinet decision.

The petitioner has alleged that the appointments were made in violation of the Kerala Police Subordinate Services (Armed Police Battalions) Special Rules, 1984, and applicable government guidelines governing recruitment under the sports quota.

The petitioner contended that bodybuilding achievements did not fall within the sports categories recognised under the relevant rules and that the appointments bypassed prescribed eligibility requirements and recruitment procedures.

The complaint also raised allegations against senior police and government officials concerning the processing and recommendation of the appointments. The petitioner sought a detailed vigilance inquiry into the relevant government files and communications.

These allegations formed the basis of the request for an investigation into possible offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The allegations, however, were disputed by the State. The Director General of Prosecution, submitted that the allegations did not establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act merely because an appointment might have been made contrary to rules or departmental norms.

During the pendency of the petition, the High Court passed a series of interim orders concerning the government's consideration of prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

On July 17, the Court directed the government to consider the question of granting prior approval under Section 17A within two weeks, following the submission made on behalf of the VACB.

Subsequently, a government order was issued on 08 August, rejecting the prior approval under Section 17A.

Placing reliance on the decision in Bindulal V.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2024 KER 35039], the petitioner argued that the government order itself warranted scrutiny. In Bindulal, the Court had observed that prior approval is required where the alleged offence is related to a recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in the discharge of official functions or duties.

The State, on the other hand argued that a mere violation of rules or departmental norms does not, by itself, constitute criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The State emphasised that dishonest intention is an essential element of the offence.

The Court recorded that prior approval under Section 17A had been denied through the government order dated August 8, 2026. It then noted that the petitioner had not amended the writ petition to seek the setting aside of that order.

The Court disposed of the writ petition while expressly preserving the right of the petitioner or any other aggrieved person to challenge the legality of the government order in accordance with law.