The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, 8 July initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Cashew Development Department Secretary K. Biju, a senior IAS officer, after finding that a government order issued by him in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) corruption case contained remarks that were prima facie contemptuous of the court and appeared designed to discredit the judiciary while shielding the accused. Justice A. Badharudeen has directed Biju to appear before the court in person on Friday and issued notice under Rule 9 of the Contempt of Court (High Court of Kerala) Rules.

Background: The KSCDC Corruption Case

The court was hearing a contempt petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj over the state government's repeated failure to grant timely sanction to prosecute former KSCDC officials accused of causing a loss of approximately ₹600 crore through the import of raw cashew nuts from Africa. The government has since granted CBI sanction to prosecute former Managing Director K.A. Ratheesh and former Chairman R. Chandrasekharan.

What Made the July 2 Order Objectionable

The court's ire centred on the first government order, issued on 2 July, which suggested that prosecution sanction was being granted solely because the High Court had compelled the government — rather than reflecting an independent administrative decision. The Advocate General himself advised the government to withdraw the order, describing portions of it as amounting to ex facie contempt of court. A revised order, with the offending references removed, was subsequently issued on 6 July.

Court's Strong Observations

Accepting the Advocate General's position, the High Court held that the earlier order constituted a serious attack on judicial independence and could not remain on record except for the purpose of initiating contempt and disciplinary proceedings against the officer concerned. Justice Badharudeen made a series of unusually strong oral observations, questioning whether the order had been drafted to protect the accused rather than facilitate prosecution.

The court further noted that the order appeared more beneficial to the accused than to the prosecution, and expressed concern that copies had reached the accused, who had publicly relied on its contents to mount a political defence.

Judge Spares Political Executive, Targets Officer

In a pointed observation, Justice Badharudeen made clear he did not hold the political executive responsible. 'I am blaming the officer alone. I do not believe the Chief Minister or Ministers would have approved such a foolish order,' the judge said, adding that the officer's conduct appeared to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish the image of the judiciary before the public.

What Happens Next

The case is scheduled to be heard again on Friday, when K. Biju is required to appear before the court in person. The High Court's decision to pursue both contempt and disciplinary proceedings simultaneously signals an unusually stern response to what it characterised as an assault on judicial independence. The outcome could set a significant precedent for how bureaucratic orders that impinge on court authority are treated in Kerala.