The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) directed K. Biju IAS, who is in charge of the Cashew Development department, to personally appear before it for allegedly making observations, amounting to ex facie contempt of court, in a cancelled government order.

Justice A. Badharudeen also issued notice to the officer as per Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (High Court of Kerala) Rules, so as to initiate contempt proceedings against him.

The Court was considering a contempt plea filed by Kadakampally Manoj after the Principal Secretary of the Industries department Mohammed Hanish repeatedly failed to comply with the High Court's direction to re-consider sanction, which was earlier rejected, in light of its finding that there were prima facie materials to prosecute ex-officials of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).

Today, when the matter came up, the Advocate General produced two government orders before the Court, dated July 2 and July 6, both of which accorded sanction to the CBI to prosecute against the alleged corrupt ex-officers of KSCDC.

Accordingly, sanction has now been granted to prosecute A1 K. Ratheesh, former Managing Director, and A3 R. Chandrasekharan, former Chairman of the KSCDC, who allegedly caused loss of crores of rupees to the Corporation.

However, the prior order dated July 2 (Annexure A9), passed by Biju, which allegedly contained disparaging remarks against the Court, was cancelled vide the subsequent order on the advice of the AG to the government.

After hearing the parties and perusing the government orders, the Court observed that the AG rightly advised the government to cancel the July 2 order and remove the contents amounting to ex facie contempt of court.

"The order would depict that the learned Advocate General, who is duty bound to protect the interest of the State and also, the integrity of the judiciary infact rightly advised to withdraw the earlier order and…the AG vide letter…furnished legal opinion to the government that there are contents in the GO that amounts to ex facie contempt of court and hence, the same shall be excluded and fresh GO may be issued. On his advise, GO…dated 6.7.2026 has been issued."

"You are not at fault. You have done you duty. On seeing the order as something which could not be produced, you didn't produce it. I fully appreciate that attitude. But the officer could not be spared. He must be proceeded against. Disciplinary action as well as contempt. For issuing this first order. How can an IAS officer say so? How can he blame the entire judiciary?...If he has any grievances, his forum is before the appellate court, not before this court for an order," Justice Badharudeen orally told AG Jaju Babu.

The Court also made it clear that the afore Annexure A9 order, which stands cancelled by the subsequent one, cannot be used for any purpose except to proceed against Biju (2nd respondent) in contempt and disciplinary proceedings:

"Even though as per GO dated 6.7.2026, A9 was cancelled by the government, the use of the same and operation of the same for any purpose other than for the purpose of proceeding this contempt and for initiating disciplinary action against 2nd respondent, shall remain stayed until further orders."

During the course of the contempt proceedings, sanction for CBI prosecution was repeatedly refused and the Court had found the previous officer Mohammed Hanish to be prima facie in contempt of court. Hanish had tendered his unconditional apology before the Court and it was informed that he is no longer in charge of the cashew department. Thereafter, Biju was impleaded and directed to issue sanction as per the Court's directions.

Last time, the Advocate General had informed the Court of the State's decision to grant sanction and had sought time to verify the same and produce the order granting sanction.

Subsequently, the contempt petitioner had filed petitions before the Court producing the prior sanction order (dated July 2) and pointed out that the same contained disparaging comments against the judiciary. He had further sought a direction to initiate contempt proceedings against K. Biju, who had passed the said order with the disparaging comments.

According to the affidavit filed by the contempt petitioner, the prior sanction order was passed even before the AG's submission seeking verification of the government's decision to grant sanction.

It is further stated that in the prior order, it was written that sanction was forced to be given because of the orders of the Court and there was no application of mind by the government. It was also pointed out that the copy of the same was given to the accused, who conducted a press conference in Thiruvananthapuram, where he had read out portions of the order containing disparaging comments.

The Court also orally remarked that the officer, who issued the prior, cancelled order, has acted in a manner which is per se in contempt of the court. It was further orally said that the officer, and not the government, is to be blamed for the same:

"He passed an order. Straight away, even gave copy to the accused. That is not a mistake. That is per se contempt of court. For which he is liable to be proceeded against. The entire fault is with the secretary. I'm not even blaming the government. They are not having full access to the officers as of now. They are only in the beginning stage. They are attempting to do something to the society and they have the desire to do so. I'm not blaming. I'm only blaming the officers of this stature. They are maligning not only the court, but the government to do something to the society. See, you imagine for a moment that if a third party or a public as a whole who are watching the proceedings, and they are waiting for booking and sentencing the accused who are involved in corruption cases in crores of rupees, what is their idea?...I am on the attitude of the officer alone. I'm not even saying that it is the government decision. It is the decision of this officer…I won't even believe that the Ministers or the Chief Minister may consent for this foolish order. I won't believe. I am only on the attitude officer, which is very very dangerous, as far as judicial discipline is concerned…"

It was further orally said that the prior order was issued to help the accused get acquitted:

"This order won't help the prosecution. It will help the accused...You please understand that the earlier order will stand in the position of a previous statement. It can be used for contradicting the witness when this is being used as an evidence…That is a wrong committed by this order. Very serious matter. Simply because of the issuance of the order, may not be given a go-by to him. He is at behalf of the accused. He wants to save them for reasons known to him. I don't know. That is a dangerous position of this order...More worse than the earlier stand. Earlier stand, they consistently said we will not issue. Here, he will issue but that will be more helpful to the accused to go out of the prosecution. That is more dangerous."

Justice Badharudeen further orally criticised the officer's action as purposefully done to tarnish the image of the judiciary in front of the public and said that he cannot be spared from contempt as well as disciplinary proceedings:

"He, in facts, want to tarnish the image of the judiciary for which he issued an order and given to the accused to publish and make publicity through news channels. Then you have cancelled and issued. Purposefully, you have achieved the goal of tarnishing the image and also to blame the court that the court is for issuing sanction. Court is not for issuing sanction or rejecting sanction. Court is to see the legality of the order...I won't spare this man from the proceedings of the contempt. That will be proceeded. Strict action will be taken. No leniency, nothing, no apology…"

The case is posted to Friday (July 10) for the personal appearance of K. Biju IAS.

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

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