The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 17) recorded its satisfaction regarding the legality of the order passed by K. Biju IAS, Secretary, Forest and Cashew department, Government of Kerala, granting sanction to CBI to prosecute K.A. Ratheesh and R. Chandrasekharan— allegedly corrupt ex-officers of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).

Justice A. Badharudeen today heard detailed arguments by the counsel for the IAS, standing counsel for the CBI, and the special government pleader. The judge then observed:

"the sanction order issued...found to have satisfied the legal requirements to grant sanction and the same is in order."

The Court, however, orally questioned the absence of the Secretary's signature in the copy of the sanction order forwarded to the CBI:

"There is no signature of your Secretary in the order. Why?...Who signed? No signature...On the last page, somebody signed. That is not sanctioning order. Sanctioning order should be directly signed by the issuing authority. Why it is so?...The issue is whether you have issued an order that is either signed physically or digitally signed by the Secretary and in verification in the website through the QR code, could be visible...It's authenticity is in doubt...You ensure that a physically or digitally signed order by the Secretary is forwarded to the CBI...Why you are doing so? That is the objection of the CBI."

Considering the submission of the CBI's standing counsel that the absence of the same would cause impediments, the Court passed an additional direction:

"K. Biju, the 2nd respondent is specifically directed to send a physically signed or a digitally signed copy of the GO...signed by him within a period of 2 days from today. The learned standing counsel for the CBI is specifically instructed to submit before this Court as to compliance with this order after 2 days."

The Court also felt it fit to implead the CBI in the contempt proceedings initiated against Biju, for the purpose of keeping the organisation updated about the proceedings and for further directions. It added:

"According to the standing counsel for the CBI, CBI is to act upon further in this matter based on the sanction already granted. Therefore, CBI may be impleaded as a party. In view of the above submission, in the interest of justice, CBI ACB branch, Cochin is impleaded as an additional respondent in this contempt petition for the limited purpose of knowing the details of the sanction and further proceedings in this case and to direct the CBI to proceed further in this case."

For context, Biju was issued contempt notice for making allegedly contemptuous remarks in a cancelled order granting sanction.

The Court has now reserved its verdict regarding whether or not to accept his apology. "Now, the contempt petition shall stand reserved for orders to decide as to whether the contempt to be proceeded further or the apology is to be accepted to close the proceedings."

The Court was hearing a contempt plea initiated after the State repeatedly refused to grant sanction to the CBI to prosecute the allegedly corrupt ex-officers of KSCDC.

Initially, the contempt plea was only against Industries Principal Secretary Mohammed Hanish as he was in charge of the Cashew department. He had, during the course of the proceedings, appeared before the Court and tendered his unconditional apology after Court warned him of contempt for not complying with its order to consider sanction in the light of the directions made by a co-ordinate Bench.

Later, K. Biju was arrayed as an additional respondent when he took charge of the 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.

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. Moreover, a copy of this cancelled order was given to one of the accused persons, who conducted a press conference where he read out these 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). Following this, Biju filed two affidavits tendering his unconditional apology for the alleged contemptuous remarks but the Court orally opined that the action of the officer warrant serious consideration since it amounted to maligning the court and affected the independence of judiciary.

On Wednesday, the Court had said that it shall consider the sufficiency of the second sanction order may need a revisit and that the same would be considered today.

The CBI's counsel had requested that the Court may look into the said order and see if there is application of mind to satisfy, prima facie, that the sanction was issued with reference to the records.

Today, the counsel appearing for the contempt petitioner Advocate D. Anil Kumar pointed out when considering the sanction order as a whole, there is application of mind since there is examination of relevant records, investigation findings. He also relied on certain precedents to canvass the averment. The special public prosecutor also took a similar view.

Considering the same as well as perusing the records, the Court affirmed that the sanction was in order.

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

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