The Kerala High Court on Monday, 15 June dismissed a petition filed by Industries Department Principal Secretary (Cashew) Mohammed Hanish, who had challenged a direction to personally appear before the court in a contempt case linked to alleged corruption in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Limited (KSCDC). The ruling clears the way for contempt proceedings to continue against the senior bureaucrat.

What the Division Bench ruled

A Division Bench comprising Justice K Natarajan and Justice Johnson John upheld the earlier order of Justice A Badharudeen, which had directed Hanish to appear before the court and face contempt proceedings. The Bench held that a competent authority cannot repeatedly reject a prosecution sanction by effectively overriding findings already recorded by the court.

The court came down heavily on Hanish's position that sanction was denied due to a lack of evidence, questioning how an authority could arrive at such a conclusion while disregarding judicial findings already on record. The Bench, however, noted that if Hanish had not committed any contempt, he retained the liberty to seek discharge from the proceedings.

Background: How the contempt case arose

The case traces back to a petition filed by Kadakampally Manoj alleging large-scale corruption and misuse of funds in raw cashew procurement by KSCDC. Acting on the complaint, the Kerala High Court ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe in 2015.

Following the investigation, the CBI sought prosecution sanction against former KSCDC chairman R Chandrasekharan and former managing director K A Ratheesh, among others. The State government initially refused sanction, prompting the court to order reconsideration — only for the sanction to be denied a second time. Manoj then initiated contempt proceedings.

Three refusals and a court's patience worn thin

The Single Bench quashed the second rejection and again directed the government to reconsider the matter. Despite this, sanction was refused for a third time. Taking note of the repeated defiance, the Single Bench in April ordered Hanish, as the nodal Principal Secretary, to appear before the court in the contempt proceedings.

The Division Bench observed that since the CBI cannot proceed with prosecution without sanction from the competent authority, the government's repeated refusals had effectively blocked further legal action — despite a single judge having already found prima facie material against the accused officials.

What happens next

With the Division Bench dismissing Hanish's petition, the contempt proceedings before the Single Bench will now proceed. The ruling reinforces the principle that executive authorities cannot use administrative discretion to nullify judicial directions in corruption matters. The case is being closely watched as a test of judicial oversight over government decisions to withhold prosecution sanction.