PIL challenging AI Camera contract requires prima facie evidence of corruption; bald allegations insufficient for court-monitored inquiry: Kerala High Court. - 2025-08-27

Law Updates Made Simple.

Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against AI Camera Project, Citing Lack of Evidence and 'Fatal' Delay

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheesan and MLA Ramesh Chennithala challenging the legality of the state's ₹232 crore "Safe Kerala" project, which deployed AI-powered cameras for traffic enforcement.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji ruled that the petitioners failed to provide any credible evidence to substantiate their allegations of corruption, nepotism, and procedural impropriety. The court held that "bald statements" and "mere suspicion" are insufficient to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction for a court-monitored inquiry into a major public infrastructure project.

Background of the Case

The "Safe Kerala" project was initiated by the Kerala government to curb the high rate of road accidents by implementing a fully automated traffic enforcement system. The project, involving the installation of AI cameras across the state, was awarded to the Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd (KELTRON), a state PSU, which then subcontracted the work.

The petitioners, in their writ petition, sought to quash the government orders granting administrative sanction for the project. They alleged that the entire procurement process was opaque, designed to benefit private entities with political connections, and resulted in a significant loss to the public exchequer.

Petitioners' Core Arguments

Senior Counsel George Poonthottam, representing the petitioners, argued that:

* The contract was a "giant pyramid scheme" designed to defraud the public, with cameras priced at four times their market value.

* The government ignored objections from the Finance Department and manipulated the procurement process by opting for an expensive Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT) model over a more economical CAPEX model.

* The main contractor, M/s SRIT India Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 7), was unqualified and violated tender conditions by subcontracting core activities to a consortium of partners for a commission.

* The project posed a significant threat to citizens' right to privacy, as personal data was being handled by private entities.

State's Defence

Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, representing the State of Kerala, countered that the project was a crucial road safety initiative implemented with full transparency. He contended:

* The petitioners' claims were vague, unsubstantiated, and devoid of specific proof of corruption or favouritism.

* The PIL was politically motivated and suffered from "fatal" delay and laches, having been filed three years after the initial administrative sanction and only after the project went live.

* Concerns about data privacy were unfounded, as all data is encrypted and stored on servers controlled exclusively by the Motor Vehicle Department and the National Informatics Centre (NIC), with no access for private agencies.

Court's Reasoning and Precedents

The High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in contractual matters, stating it does not act as an appellate authority over administrative decisions. The bench observed that for a court to intervene, especially in a PIL, there must be a prima facie case of arbitrariness, illegality, or corruption that "pricks the conscience of the court."

The judgment highlighted several key points:

* On Lack of Evidence: The court found the petitioners' claims to be "bald statements rather than specific, substantiated allegations." It noted that "vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the court to conduct an inquiry."

* On Delay: The bench deemed the significant delay in filing the petition as "fatal to their case," questioning why the petitioners, as members of the legislative assembly, waited until the project was fully implemented to raise objections.

* On Subcontracting: The court found no violation of tender conditions, noting that the main contractor had kept KELTRON informed about the changes in its consortium partners, as permitted by the tender document.

* On Data Privacy: The court was satisfied with the government's explanation that robust security measures were in place to protect citizen data, which remained under governmental control.

The bench cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Ratnagiri Gas & Power (P) Ltd. v. R.D.S. Projects Ltd. , which established that the "burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegations and the burden is ‘very heavy’."

In a crucial passage, the Court observed:

"To invoke the court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in a Public Interest Litigation, Petitioners must present prima facie evidence of arbitrariness, nepotism, or corruption... A thorough examination of the averments in this particular writ petition, however, reveals no such compelling situation."

Final Decision

Concluding that the PIL lacked substantive merit, the High Court dismissed the writ petition. The court declined to order a court-monitored inquiry, stating that such an exercise based on unsubstantiated claims would amount to an unwarranted "fishing and roving inquiry."