Cashew Corporation Scam: Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict in Contempt Case Against IAS Officer Over Controversial Government Order
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reserved its verdict in the contempt proceedings initiated against senior IAS officer A.P.M. Mohammed Hanish, Principal Secretary, Industries Department, over the issuance of a controversial government order in the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) corruption case. The Court deferred its decision after considering a revised affidavit and apology submitted by the officer.
The contempt proceedings stem from remarks contained in a government order granting prosecution sanction in the multi-crore Cashew Corporation scam. The High Court had taken strong exception to portions of the order, observing that they appeared to attribute the decision to prosecute solely to judicial directions and portrayed the Court as having compelled the government to act, thereby undermining the judiciary’s independence and authority.
During the hearing, the State informed the Court that the contentious order had already been withdrawn and replaced with a revised version after intervention by the Advocate General. The Industries Secretary also filed a fresh affidavit expressing unconditional regret and withdrew the objectionable observations that had prompted the contempt proceedings.
Justice A. Badharudeen had earlier rejected the officer’s initial apology, holding that it failed to adequately address the Court’s concerns. The Bench had also cautioned civil servants against issuing official orders that cast aspersions on judicial proceedings or create an impression that the executive was acting under judicial compulsion without exercising its own statutory discretion.
The underlying CBI case concerns alleged irregularities in the import of raw cashew nuts by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation between 2006 and 2015, resulting in substantial financial losses to the public sector undertaking. The prosecution sanction relates to several accused, including former officials of the Corporation and other public servants.
By reserving its verdict, the High Court has concluded hearings on whether the conduct of the senior IAS officer amounted to contempt of court. The forthcoming order is expected to clarify the extent of accountability expected from senior bureaucrats while drafting official government orders concerning ongoing judicial proceedings and may have broader implications for the relationship between the executive and the judiciary.
