Back
Issues Notice to Vigilance Director on Refusal to Probe DGP S Sreejith
The on Friday issued notice to the Director of the on a petition challenging the government’s decision to decline, for now, a full vigilance investigation into corruption allegations against Director General of Police S. Sreejith, IPS. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the single bench, sought the VACB Director’s response after the petitioner—an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector—argued that the government order dated was passed without proper despite material that warranted further inquiry.
The development marks the latest chapter in a series of legal skirmishes surrounding the senior police officer, who has faced accusations of foreign travel without permission, , and the formation of an unofficial “” during his tenure as Kerala Transport Commissioner. The court’s intervention comes after the petitioner objected to an earlier notice that required him to appear in the presence of Sreejith—a procedure the High Court had already deemed unfair.
The Allegations: Dubai Trip and
At the heart of the petition are claims that Sreejith travelled to Dubai while on casual leave without obtaining the requisite permission to go abroad. During that trip, he allegedly participated in the inauguration of a private enterprise that the petitioner contends is connected to the officer. Further allegations involve and other financial irregularities, which the petitioner insists are not related to Sreejith’s official duties.
The petitioner had initially approached the High Court in seeking a probe into these matters. In a previous order, the court directed an inquiry into the complaint. However, the process hit a procedural snag when the government issued a notice for a involving both the complainant and Sreejith. The petitioner objected, arguing that forcing a whistleblower to sit face-to-face with the accused before any investigation is fundamentally biased.
Court’s Observation on
The High Court agreed with the petitioner’s objection. In a ruling earlier this year, Justice Badharudeen observed that “requiring a complainant to participate in a hearing in the presence of the person against whom allegations are made cannot be recognised as a .” The court directed the Additional Chief Secretary to afford the petitioner an independent personal hearing in Sreejith’s absence.
That hearing took place, and on Thursday, the Additional Chief Secretary appeared before the court to confirm compliance. He informed the bench that an order had been passed on , which concluded that a vigilance investigation against Sreejith was not warranted “as of now.” The government’s reasoning was not detailed in open court, but the petitioner’s counsel argued that the order was cryptic and failed to address the .
Challenging the Government Order
In the present petition, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector has sought the of the order and a direction to the VACB Director to conduct a full inquiry and submit a report to the High Court expeditiously. One of the key legal arguments centres on the requirement of prior approval under relevant statutes for investigating public servants. The petitioner contends that the allegations concerning the Dubai trip and the do not fall within actions taken by Sreejeth in the discharge of his official functions.
“The does not bar an inquiry when the allegations pertain to personal conduct unrelated to official duties,” the petitioner argued. The distinction is critical: if the alleged misconduct is private in nature, the protections afforded to public servants under the may not apply in the same way. The court is expected to examine this nuance when it hears the matter next.
The ‘’ Allegations
Beyond the foreign trip controversy, the petition raises serious concerns about Sreejith’s tenure as Kerala Transport Commissioner from to . It is alleged that during this period, an unofficial “” was formed and operated outside the regular departmental framework. The petitioner claims this squad was used to “victimise subordinate personnel and facilitate illicit transactions.”
While the exact nature of these illicit transactions has not been fully detailed in public, the petitioner’s submissions suggest a pattern of extortion or favouritism within the transport department. If proven, these allegations could point to systemic abuse of power and corruption within one of the state’s key regulatory bodies. The High Court has yet to pronounce on whether these new allegations warrant a separate probe, but the notice to the VACB Director indicates that the court is treating the matter with seriousness.
Legal Implications and Broader Impact
The case raises several important legal questions for the legal community. First, the scope of in preliminary inquiries: the High Court’s observation that a with the accused is inherently unfair could set a precedent for how complaints against senior officials are processed. Second, the distinction between official and personal conduct under anti-corruption laws: if the court holds that the Dubai trip and are private matters, it could narrow the shield of prior approval, making it easier for whistleblowers to seek independent investigations.
Moreover, the petition tests the limits of in deciding whether to order a vigilance probe. The petitioner’s argument that the government order was passed “without ” invites the court to scrutinise the administrative decision-making process. If the High Court finds the order lacking, it may direct a fresh inquiry or even order the VACB to register a case.
For practicing lawyers, the case illustrates the importance of in anti-corruption investigations. It also highlights the strategic use of writ petitions to challenge executive inaction or refusal to act. The outcome could influence how similar complaints against high-ranking police officials are handled across the country, particularly where allegations involve foreign travel and benami assets.
What Happens Next
The court has issued notice to the VACB Director, returnable within a specified period. The Director will have to file a addressing the allegations and the government’s decision. The Additional Chief Secretary may also be called upon to explain the reasoning behind the order. Meanwhile, the petitioner remains confident that the is sufficient to trigger a full-scale vigilance investigation.
The immediate next hearing is expected to focus on the of the petition and the threshold for of executive decisions on investigations. Given the high public interest and the seniority of the officer involved, the case is likely to be closely watched by legal professionals, anti-corruption activists, and the state police establishment alike.
Conclusion
The ’s decision to issue notice to the VACB Director signals that it is not inclined to accept the government’s refusal without a closer look. By raising questions about and the nature of the allegations, the court has kept the door open for a deeper probe. For DGP S. Sreejith, the notice is a reminder that even top police officers are not immune from scrutiny. For the legal fraternity, the case offers a rich canvas of procedural and substantive law issues that could shape the discourse on corruption investigations in the years to come.
