Kerala High Court Questions State Over DGP Promotion Amid Inquiry Delay
The Kerala High Court has orally criticised the State government for promoting Director General of Police (DGP) S. Sreejith before a decision was taken on a demand for an inquiry into the alleged illegal appointment of two bodybuilders as Sub-Inspectors in the armed police force. The observations were made by Justice A. Badharudeen during a hearing on Wednesday.
The court noted that one of the officers suspected in the alleged illegal appointment was promoted in haste without the mandatory Vigilance clearance while the matter was pending before it. The judge remarked that if the promotion violated any rules or procedures, it could be challenged by the aggrieved parties in accordance with the law.
The case relates to a complaint filed by lawyer K.M. Shajahan concerning the appointments of bodybuilding champion Chitharesh Natesan and silver medallist Shinu Chovva, who secured their positions as Sub-Inspectors in the armed police wing. The petitioner has alleged irregularities in the selection process.
Earlier, the court had directed the Home Secretary to approve an inquiry by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) into the complaint. When the matter came up for hearing, the court was informed that the Home Secretary required two more weeks to comply with the order.
The Bench, however, found the request for an extension of time to be “tactical” and directed the State to consider sanction for approving the inquiry by August 10, stating that this would help avoid “unpleasant remarks.” The court also cautioned that the promotion of the officer concerned could be challenged if it was found to be in violation of established procedures.
The development has drawn attention to the timeline of events, as the promotion was effected while the legal process was still underway. Legal experts point out that the court’s oral observations are not a final ruling, but they signal the judiciary’s concern over administrative actions taken during a pending inquiry.
The State government has not yet issued an official response to the court’s remarks. The matter is scheduled for further hearing after the stipulated date for the Home Secretary’s compliance.
