Kerala High Court – IAS Officer Asked to Revise Cashew Case Apology

Kerala High Court – The Kerala High Court on Friday declined to accept an unconditional apology submitted by IAS officer K. Biju over a disputed government order connected to prosecution sanction in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation corruption case. The court directed the Cashew Department Secretary to submit a revised affidavit addressing issues that were left out of his earlier statement.

Court flags omissions in officer’s affidavit

Biju had appeared before the court after being summoned in contempt proceedings arising from the wording of the government order. In his affidavit, he expressed regret over the language used and stated that the phrasing was inappropriate, even though it was not intended to undermine the court.

He also withdrew remarks that could be interpreted as questioning the authority or judgment of the High Court. However, the court said the affidavit did not adequately address a central issue: whether the government had independently found a prima facie case before granting the Central Bureau of Investigation permission to prosecute those named in the matter.

The judge returned the affidavit and asked the officer to file a fresh version after including the missing clarification.

Warning issued to state officials

During the hearing, the High Court delivered a pointed warning to civil servants, saying officials should not act merely as representatives of the government when matters involving the judiciary are concerned. The court observed that officers are accountable to the public and must act within the limits of their responsibilities.

The judge cautioned that attempts to challenge or confront the court could have serious consequences for officials, regardless of political or administrative support. Referring to a quote attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, the court remarked that courage should not be confused with conduct that disregards institutional authority.

Controversial order led to contempt proceedings

The matter began after the state issued an order granting the CBI sanction to prosecute accused persons in the multi-crore cashew import case. The list included INTUC leader R. Chandrasekharan, who is the third accused in the investigation.

The High Court had previously expressed concern that the wording of the order suggested the state had acted only because it was compelled by the court. According to the court, such language appeared to place the responsibility for the prosecution decision on the judiciary rather than on the government’s own assessment of the evidence.

The court considered the phrasing problematic because prosecution sanction is expected to reflect an independent administrative decision based on the material placed before the competent authority.

Questions raised over departmental role

The court also sought clarification from Industries Department Principal Secretary A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish. It asked whether he had advised the current Cashew Department Secretary while the disputed order was being prepared and issued.

Following intervention by the Advocate General, the original government order was withdrawn and replaced with a new order. However, the earlier version had already been used by Chandrasekharan during a press conference as part of his public response to the allegations.

The court noted that the sequence of events raised concerns about whether there had been an effort to weaken public confidence in the judiciary while benefiting the accused persons in the case.

Further action to depend on revised response

The High Court said it would consider the next course of action after examining the revised affidavit from the officials concerned. The contempt proceedings remain pending.

The CBI investigation concerns allegations that raw cashew nuts were imported from African countries through unlawful means between 2006 and 2015. The alleged transactions are said to have caused substantial financial losses to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation.

Former Managing Director K.A. Ratheesh has been named as the first accused in the case. Chandrasekharan has been listed as the third accused. The case continues to remain under judicial scrutiny as the court examines the conduct of officials involved in issuing the prosecution sanction order.