Kerala HC Notice to VACB Director and DGP Over Corruption Allegations

The Kerala High Court on Friday issued notice to the Director of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) and to Director General of Police (DGP) S. Sreejith on a petition seeking a vigilance probe into allegations of “grave corrupt practices, benami transactions, and money laundering” against Mr. Sreejith.

The petition has been filed by an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector. According to the petitioner, Mr. Sreejith engaged in systematic corruption during his tenure as the Transport Commissioner. The alleged misconduct includes the formation of an unofficial “Transport Commissioner’s Squad” to victimise subordinate staff and facilitate illicit transactions. The petitioner also claims that Mr. Sreejith owns a spa in the United Arab Emirates under a benami name.

The petition further alleges that Mr. Sreejith conducted unauthorised foreign trips for money laundering purposes. The Sabarimala dwarapalaka gold theft case, which concerns the theft of gold ornaments associated with the Sabarimala temple, is also mentioned in the plea. The petitioner states that Mr. Sreejith has close associations with an accused in that case, though the specific nature of the alleged association is not detailed.

The plea also highlights an earlier order from the High Court. As per the petitioner, the court had directed the authorities to consider the allegations and submit a report. Instead, the Additional Chief Secretary submitted a report giving a “clean chit” to Mr. Sreejith, allegedly without a proper decision or a thorough investigation into the benami assets.

Benami transactions are transactions where property is purchased in the name of one person while the funds are provided by another, often to conceal true ownership. Indian law prohibits such arrangements. The petitioner appears to argue that the earlier inquiry failed to examine these aspects adequately.

The issuance of notice is an initial step in the judicial process. It does not imply that the court has accepted the allegations or made any findings on their merits. The notice requires the VACB Director and Mr. Sreejith to file their responses. Subsequently, the court will decide whether further investigation is required.

Such petitions are often filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue writs for enforcing rights and reviewing administrative actions. The present case seeks a court-monitored vigilance inquiry into the conduct of a senior police official.

The next hearing will be scheduled after the respondents submit their replies. Neither Mr. Sreejith nor the VACB Director has made a public comment on the notice so far.