Kerala High Court Orders Reconsideration of Prosecution Sanction in Contempt Case

Court Sets Aside Government Order, Directs Fresh Examination of CBI's Request Within 45 Days

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court, presided over by Mr. A. Badharudeen, J., has intervened in a contempt case involving Kadakampally Manoj and Mohammed Hanish, directing the respondent to reconsider the grant of prosecution sanction. The court found that the respondent had failed to comply with specific directions from a prior judgment, leading to the setting aside of the Annexure A6 Government Order.

The case stems from allegations of non-compliance with the court's earlier directives concerning the sanctioning authority's decision-making process. The petitioner, Kadakampally Manoj, initiated contempt proceedings after the respondent allegedly ignored the court's instructions in a previous judgment delivered on July 24, 2024, in WP(C) No. 25863 of 2020.

The court's scrutiny revealed that the Annexure A6 Government Order did not adhere to the directions outlined in the prior judgment. The sanctioning authority was found to have neglected the judicious exercise of discretion required under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C., failing to provide valid legal reasons for its decision.

In its interim order, the court emphasized that the respondent must reconsider the grant of prosecution sanction, adhering strictly to the court's observations and directions. The court underscored the importance of addressing the materials furnished and the report submitted by the CBI with the correct legal perspective.

The court also clarified that the hearing of the accused is not mandated for granting sanction in this case, and the process should be conducted without prejudice or reliance on the premise of reviewing earlier orders.

The Kerala High Court has set a compliance deadline of 45 days, mandating the respondent to pass fresh orders in line with the court's previous judgment. The matter is scheduled for further consideration on October 15, 2025, as part of the ongoing proceedings.

The judgment underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring accountability and adherence to legal directives, particularly in cases involving public procurement and alleged misconduct by public servants.

Bottom Line:

Contempt proceedings initiated against the respondent for non-compliance with specific directions issued by the court in a prior judgment. The court emphasized that the respondent must reconsider the question of granting prosecution sanction in light of the previous judgment and pass fresh orders within the stipulated time frame.

Statutory provision(s): Section 197 Cr.P.C., Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act

Kadakampally Manoj v. Mohammed Hanish, (Kerala) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810128