Back
directs government to consider for Vellappally Natesan in microfinance scam
The on Friday directed the to urgently consider the requests submitted by the probing the ₹15.85 crore microfinance scam. Justice A. Badharudeen issued the after noting that the investigating officer, S. Sasidharan IPS, had reported that could be filed in at least 8 of the 124 registered cases, pending only government sanction.
The case involves alleged misappropriation of government funds disbursed under the Micro Finance Scheme through the between 2003 and 2014. The SIT has investigated 124 cases, of which 8 have been recommended for prosecution. The court specifically directed the Additional Chief Secretary to pass orders on the sanction request without fail by , underscoring the urgency of the matter.
Background of the Scam
The , a prominent community organization representing the Ezhava community, was entrusted with disbursing loans under a microfinance programme meant for the welfare of backward classes. However, investigations revealed that loans worth ₹15.85 crore were misappropriated through fraudulent means, with the involvement of senior officials of the Yogam and the KSBCDC. The crime was first registered in 2016 by the , but the probe languished for years until the High Court intervened in 2020, ordering the formation of a special investigation team.
The SIT, led by senior IPS officer S. Sasidharan, has been tasked with expediting the investigation after the court expressed dissatisfaction with the earlier pace of the probe. The accused in the three cases where is now being sought include Vellappally Natesan, the general secretary of ; M.N. Soman; K.K. Mahesan; K.S. Sabu; Vasanthkumar; T. Prabhakaran; and R. Purushothaman.
Court's Directions and Observations
During the hearing, Justice Badharudeen reviewed a detailed status report submitted by the SIT. The court noted that in 8 cases, the involvement of accused persons was clearly established, but one final report was awaiting from the government. The court observed that the is the competent authority to grant such sanction and directed that the request be considered and disposed of expeditiously.
The court also addressed the delay in the investigation, orally remarking that the SIT had not complied with several earlier directions.
"You have not complied with many of the earlier directions. You are on the verge of
,"
the court stated. The investigating officer sought additional time, explaining that in one case where
was previously recorded, fresh evidence of misappropriation had been uncovered. The court granted 7 days for the investigating officer to submit records for
in two cases and 20 days to complete rectification of
in five other cases.
The court recorded the investigating officer's submission that the process for submitting requests would be completed in a time-bound manner. The case has been posted for further consideration on .
Legal Implications of the Ruling
The High Court's directive carries significant legal ramifications, particularly regarding the procedure for obtaining under the and other statutes. The requirement of prior sanction from the competent authority is a crucial safeguard against frivolous prosecution, but it has often been criticized for causing delays in corruption cases. By fixing a specific deadline for the Additional Chief Secretary to consider the request, the court has reinforced the principle that the must act promptly and not impede the course of justice.
The court's warning of against the SIT also sends a strong message about judicial oversight in high-profile investigations. Legal experts note that the court's proactive role in monitoring the probe ensures accountability and prevents investigative inertia, especially in cases involving powerful individuals. The direction to finalise reports within 20 days sets a benchmark for the SIT to complete its work without further adjournments.
Impact on Investigation and Practice
For the SIT, the timeline is tight but achievable. The investigating officer has committed to rectifying and submitting sanction requests within the given period. This development is expected to accelerate the filing of in the 8 cases where evidence is ready. The also clarifies that the SIT must focus on the 19 cases still pending with the team, while factual reports in 52 cases are being reviewed.
From a broader perspective, the judgment exemplifies the High Court's willingness to intervene when investigative agencies fail to act decisively. It underscores the need for specialized investigation teams to handle complex financial frauds and the importance of judicial monitoring in ensuring timely justice. The ruling may influence other pending cases involving misappropriation of public funds, particularly those under the purview of state corporations.
Conclusion
The 's order represents a watershed moment in the SNDP microfinance scam probe. By directing the government to expeditiously consider and setting firm deadlines for the SIT, the court has injected urgency into a case that had stalled for nearly a decade. The legal community will be watching closely as the Additional Chief Secretary and the SIT work within the court-ordered timelines. If successful, this approach could serve as a model for resolving similar corruption cases across the country, reaffirming the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that justice is not delayed in the fight against financial fraud.
