Back
Dispute in ₹15.85 Crore SNDP Fraud: Criticises Government's Divergent Views
The on Friday delivered a stinging rebuke to the state government over its contradictory stance on whether is required in the ₹15.85 crore SNDP Microfinance Fraud case. Justice A. Badharudeen, hearing a pair of petitions from 2020, questioned the government's commitment to the after the issued a government order stating no sanction was needed, while the government's own legal officers argued otherwise.
A House Divided: Secretary vs. Prosecutors
The dispute centers on the prosecution of high-profile figures—General Secretary Vellappally Natesan, President Soman, and former Secretary Sabu K.S.—along with former managing directors of the ). The had sought sanction under , believing the accused include "" as defined under Section 2(c)(xii) of the Act.
However, the Secretary of the , Dr. Veena N. Madhavan, issued G.O.(Rt.) No.58/2026/BCDD on , concluding that sanction was unnecessary because the accused were private parties. This directly contradicted the opinion of the Special Public Prosecutor for Vigilance and the Advocate General, both of whom maintained that sanction was mandatory.
"Whims and Fancies" Over
Justice Badharudeen did not mince words when the conflict was placed before the court. He orally remarked,
"When the government is saying that, then vigilance prosecutor is against it. According to you, AG is also against it and he filed a report. Then government is running through the left, the government's officers, who are legally bound to represent the interests of the government, in accordance with law, are running on the right side and government on the left side."
The judge added,
"They are not ready to rule the State in accordance with law. They want to rule the State in accordance with their whims and fancies."
The court also took issue with the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor, who had placed the Secretary's report before the bench. When the prosecutor said he was compelled to produce the document, the judge retorted:
"You are, in fact as an officer of the government, is doing mischief before this Court. You are unfit to hold the post. I have no hesitance to say that you are unfit to hold the post. You leave the post and entrust somebody to do this."
The Legal Core: or Private Party?
Petitioner M.S. Anil, represented by
, argued that the accused include
—specifically the former MDs of
—and thus sanction under the
is a prerequisite. The Special Public Prosecutor conceded this point, stating that
"the view of the Secretary is incorrect and according to him, sanction is necessary."
The court recorded in its order:
"According to the learned counsel for the petitioner... since the accused persons herein are
, as defined under
in order to prosecute them, sanction is necessary."
What Happens Next?
Justice Badharudeen adjourned the matter to , treating it as to allow the State Attorney to present arguments. The court also directed the investigating officer to produce copies of the submitted for , signaling that the issue of whether the Secretary's order stands or falls will be examined in depth.
The case continues to expose deep fissures within the state machinery, with the High Court demanding consistency and over administrative convenience. For now, the question of sanction—and the fate of the SNDP fraud prosecution—remains unresolved.
