The Kerala High Court on Friday, 10 July refused to accept the unconditional apology filed by IAS officer and Cashew Department Secretary K. Biju over a controversial government order related to prosecution sanction in the multi-crore Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation corruption case. The court directed him to submit a revised affidavit addressing critical omissions it had identified, while delivering a pointed warning to the state's bureaucracy against acting as instruments of the government in matters concerning the judiciary.

The Court's Warning to Civil Servants

'Do not try to confront the court. If you do, no government can protect you,' the judge said, underscoring that government officers exist to serve the people — not to shield the administration. The court also quoted Napoleon Bonaparte, observing, 'A brave man dies only once.' The remarks are being read as a sharp signal to senior bureaucrats about the limits of political cover when judicial authority is at stake.

What Triggered the Contempt Proceedings

The case stems from a government order granting the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) sanction to prosecute accused persons in the Cashew Development Corporation import corruption case, including INTUC leader R. Chandrasekharan. The High Court had earlier taken strong exception to the wording of that order, finding that it appeared to suggest the government had granted prosecution sanction only under judicial compulsion — effectively shifting moral and legal responsibility onto the court itself.

Summoned before the bench, K. Biju filed an affidavit expressing unconditional regret, admitting that the language used was inappropriate, though he maintained it was not intentional. He withdrew all expressions that could be construed as questioning the court's authority or wisdom.

Why the Apology Was Rejected

The court found the apology incomplete on a specific and significant ground: the affidavit failed to explicitly acknowledge that the government had independently found a prima facie case in the corruption allegations before granting prosecution sanction. Without that admission, the court said, the apology did not adequately address the core concern.

The bench also turned its attention to Industries Department Principal Secretary A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish, questioning whether he had advised the present Secretary in issuing the contentious order.

The Sequence of Events

The original government order was subsequently withdrawn after the Advocate General intervened, and a fresh order was issued in its place. However, before its withdrawal, accused R. Chandrasekharan had already cited the original order at a press conference to mount what the court described as a political defence. The High Court observed that there appeared to have been a conscious attempt to discredit the judiciary and shield the accused — a characterisation that elevated the matter from procedural to institutional.

Background: The Cashew Corporation Case

The CBI case pertains to the alleged illegal import of raw cashew nuts from Africa between 2006 and 2015, which reportedly caused heavy financial losses to the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation. Former Managing Director K.A. Ratheesh is the first accused in the case, while R. Chandrasekharan is the third accused. The High Court indicated it would determine further proceedings after reviewing the revised affidavit to be submitted by the government officials.