SATHYAN NARAVOOR, S/O. KRISHNAN, SOUPARNIKA, NARAVOOR, KUTHUPARAMBA, KANNUR Vs. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner herein prominently seeks two prayers. Legally and practically, it is as against the second respondent, who is the Director of Vigilance and Anticorruption Bureau in Kerala. One prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing penal and other actions by the Government on a report submitted by the Finance Secretary against the second respondent, concerning some irregularities in some of his actions, and the other prayer is for a writ of mandamus directing the Government to keep the second respondent away from the present position as Director of the Vigilance and Anti-corruption Bureau. As regards the second prayer, this Court had already observed in the order dated 16.02.2017 that the said matter is exclusively within the prerogative of the Government, and that in normal circumstances, this Court will not intervene in such matters. This Court also observed, "let the Government think and decide wisely on the issue".

(2.) As regards the second prayer, it is now submitted by the learned State Attorney that the Director has gone on long leave. From the other side, it is submitted that it was as directed by the Government. Anyway, it is not certain whether he is actually on leave, or whether he has been removed from the present post. Let things be done appropriately by the Government. This issue regarding removal of the Director led to an unnecessary issue and channel discussions, to which this Court was also dragged, along with another pending Revision. It is really inappropriate, deprecatory and contemptuous. One of the TV channels, and also one of the advocates who participated in the channel discussion crossed all the limits of propriety, gentility and professional etiquettes, and even made an indirect "bargain" for the judgment to be pronounced by the Court in the said pending Revision. This sort of channel discussions will have to be treated as interference in the process of administration of justice. It was really contemptuous to drag a pending matter also to the said discussion. The different TV channels organised such a discussion without enquiring and understanding what really happened in court. It was wrongly and irresponsibly telecast that this Court has directed the Government to change the VACB Director.

(3.) On some earlier occasions, this Court had noticed some unhealthy instances of investigative excess on the part of the VACB, and necessary directions were also given to the Government indirectly to correct the VACB. On 30.02017, a proceeding came up before this Court, involving some anarchic excess on the part of the VACB by way of making investigation into the budget and the Finance Act passed by the Kerala State Legislative Assembly. When things went to that extent of the VACB trying to reign over the State Legislative Assembly also, I had to observe that the Director will have to summoned to court, if such excess is continued. Incidentally, a report submitted by the Vigilance Director regarding the investigation conducted in Jisha Murder case was mentioned in court. At that time, when the other matter was being heard as regards the powers of the VACB even to enquire into the wisdom of the legislature, I asked the learned Public Prosecutor, why necessary action was not taken by the Government on the issue, to correct and control the VACB in spite of so many instances of excess pointed out by the Court. This was probably misinterpreted, dishonestly or otherwise, by some TV channels, that the court has directed the Government to change the Vigilance Director. We judges cannot hold press meet or channel discussions. We can speak only through judicial orders, and I am doing so. As already observed, there was an attempt on the part of the media, and also some journalists and Advocates who participated in the discussion, to link a pending proceeding with the other matters now before the High Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act. This is really dishonest and contemptuous.