In a closely watched writ petition, the Kerala High Court examined whether an internal enquiry report linked to alleged irregularities in a senior appointment at the Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Kerala (VFPCK) was being improperly withheld, thereby stalling the statutory process for granting sanction to prosecute public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. The case brought into sharp focus the balance between expeditious anti-corruption action and the procedural safeguards owed to accused officials.
The controversy began when a petitioner approached the High Court seeking directions to ensure that an enquiry report prepared by a committee of senior VFPCK officials was forwarded to the competent authority empowered to grant prosecution sanction. The petitioner argued that the report was crucial for compliance with an earlier direction of the Special Judge, who had required sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act before criminal proceedings could move forward.
The challenge was strongly opposed by the officer whose appointment was under scrutiny, who maintained that his promotion was lawful, pointed out that related service disputes were already pending, and argued that the criminal complaint itself disclosed no cognisable offence.
Framing the core issue around procedural fairness, the High Court examined who is entitled to be heard at the stage of sanction for prosecution. The Court underscored that the proviso to Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act clearly mandates a hearing to the concerned public servant when sanction is sought at the instance of a private complainant. In a key observation, the Court held that “the sanctioning authority should not grant sanction without providing an opportunity to the aggrieved person”, making it clear that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed even in corruption cases.
Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and directed the authority holding the enquiry report to forward it to the sanctioning authority, while expressly mandating that both the complainant and the accused officer must be heard. A final decision on sanction has been ordered within 3 months.
Case Title: VK Chacko vs. Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 39191 of 2025
Coram: Justice A. Badharudeen
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Shinto Thomas, Ram Vinayak, Mohamed Aslam V.P., Sona Vijayan K., Ayana L. Biju
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. K. R. Ganesh, Adarsh Babu C. S., Ahsana E., Ashik J. Varghese
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kerala_New_High_Court.jpg
