Kerala HC Rejects Request for CBI Probe in Ongoing Vigilance Case, Orders Time-Bound Completion Within 90 Days

In a significant order reinforcing the judicial stance on ongoing criminal investigations, the High Court of Kerala has declined a plea for shifting a pending case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that since an active investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau is already underway, transferring the probe at this juncture would be premature.

A Quest for Independent Oversight

The petitioner, Aneesh Babu, had approached the High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the state authorities to register a case and initiate an investigation, ideally monitored by the Court or a retired Judge. Citing Exhibit P5, the petitioner urged for comprehensive scrutiny of alleged grievances. The primary contention was that the existing state machinery was insufficient and necessitated independent oversight by a premier central agency like the CBI.

The Vigilance Status Quo

During the proceedings, it was clarified that the state’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau had already registered a crime— VC 09/2025/EKM , dated January 27, 2026—and that investigations were actively progressing. The Court had previously directed the investigating team to submit bank transaction details under seal, which have now been preserved as permanent records of the Court.

Given these facts, Justice Badharudeen observed that the state investigative machinery was not sitting idle, thereby neutralizing the argument for an immediate transfer of the case to the CBI.

Court’s Directive: A Clock for Accountability

Acknowledging the petitioner’s concerns while maintaining respect for the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive, the Court set a firm timeline. The bench directed the investigative agency to finish the probe within 90 days. Furthermore, the agency was instructed to factor in the allegations contained within the petitioner's Exhibit P5 document.

The Court provided a safety valve for the petitioner, noting that should there be grievances regarding the quality or bias of the ongoing investigation, the petitioner retains the right to return to the Court for further relief.

Key Observations

• "On perusal of the report filed by the Vigilance, it is noticeable that a crime already registered and investigation has been going on."
• "In such circumstances, at this juncture, it is too premature for this Court to order investigation of the crime by the CBI and therefore, the said prayer is rejected."
• "The investigating agency is directed to effectuate investigation fruitfully and complete the same within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."
• "If the petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation in any manner, he is at liberty to approach this Court again to redress his grievances."

Implications for Future Cases

This judgment underscores the judiciary's reluctance to interfere in active investigations unless there is clear evidence of systemic failure. By ordering a 90-day completion window, the High Court effectively balances the demand for speedy justice with the procedural necessity of allowing authorized agencies to perform their functions without excessive judicial micro-management unless strictly warranted.