Kerala High Court Questions 'Hurried' Promotion Of S. Sreejith IPS As Director General Of Police Amid Corruption Allegations

The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 3) orally questioned the hurried manner in which S. Sreejith IPS was promoted to Director General of Police (DGP) even in the midst of corruption allegations against him.

Justice A. Badharudeen today orally asked the State why it did not consider having another vigilance clearance before appointing the officer when there were two separate allegations now pending against him:

"What is the procedure for appointment? In order to appoint a ADGP in the rank of DGP, there must be vigilance clearance...There are two orders...In fact, you conceded consideration of approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly the 2nd respondent was directed to consider the same...Again...some allegations are there and the report was set aside in order to reconsider the same. Then why can't you go for another vigilance clearance?"

Recently, while disposing of another plea, the Court had set aside a report clearing the officer of an unauthorised foreign trip to Dubai to attend the inauguration of a private enterprise.

The present plea was raised alleging corruption by top IPS and IAS officials, in the illegal appointment of body builders Shinu Chovva and Chitharesh Natesan as police inspectors.

In the last order, the Court had directed the Home Department's Principal Secretary to decide on grant of sanction under Section 17A Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act for conducting an enquiry into the allegations.

When the matter came up today, the State sought further time to grant sanction whereas the petitioner's counsel pointed out that Sreejith was given a promotion just 3 days back while the State had undertook to give sanction.

The Court then orally asked the counsel representing the State:

"You asked for 2 weeks last time and when it is posted, you seek again 2 weeks. No No. That cannot be considered. Why you are in hurry to make promotion to a person against whom allegations are there? Then in the midst of allegations, you have the duty to get another vigilance clearance. Otherwise, appointment is hasty."

A contention was raised that the sanctioning authority was not the State but the Centre since the officers are in the All India Service. The petitioner's counsel argued that the State is in contempt of the Court's last order. After hearing the parties, the Court ordered:

"2 weeks' time sought for in the case for consideration of Section 17A prior approval cannot be considered as the same found to be playing...tactics. Therefore, the Additional Chief Secretary to the State is specifically directed to consider grant of Section 17A approval on or before 10.8.2026 to avoid unpleasant remarks for non-compliance."

It further added that if there is any violation of laws or procedure with respect to the promotion, the same can be challenged in the manner provided under law:

"In the meantime learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite undertaking to consider Section 17A sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act 2018, the suspected officer was given promotion to the post of DGP in a hurry burry manner even without getting a vigilance clearance in view of pendency of these matters. If the promotion is given in violation of the rules or procedure, the same is a matter of challenge, and the aggrieved person is at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law." 

The matter has been posted for further consideration on August 10 (Monday) for further consideration.

The petition is moved by Advocates V. Sethunath, Thomas Abraham and Sreeganesh U.

Case No: WP(Crl.) 968/2026

Case Title: Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Ors.