Thiruvananthapuram: The Thiruvananthapuram Special Vigilance Court has rejected the Vigilance report that granted a clean chit to ADGP M.R. Ajith Kumar in a case relating to the illegal acquisition of assets. The court observed that there were lapses in the investigation and that there had been a deliberate move to shield Ajith Kumar.

The court sharply criticised the Vigilance’s reference to the Chief Minister’s approval of the report, stating that it is not the sanction of the political leadership but the law that determines whether a person is guilty or innocent. The court noted that the investigating officer had adopted a course of action that deviated from proper procedure in order to protect a senior officer, and that the case ought to have been investigated by an officer of equal or higher rank.

Suspicion of benami and money-laundering transactions: The court remarked on the suspicious nature of a transaction in which a flat purchased by the officer’s brother-in-law for ₹34 lakh was sold to Ajith Kumar just 22 days later for ₹65 lakh. Although there was evidence warranting the application of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the Vigilance chose not to pursue such an investigation.

Complainant’s statement not recorded: The court found that the investigating officer had failed to record the statement of the complainant, Neyyattinkara Nagaraj. Consequently, the court itself will directly record the complainant’s testimony.

₹8 crore worth of land holdings: The report revealed that Ajith Kumar and his wife own land worth over ₹8 crore in Thrissur and Thiruvananthapuram. The cost of constructing their house at Kowdiar is stated to be ₹3.58 crore. The court criticised the Vigilance for making no effort to examine whether the assets exceeded known sources of income.

The court concluded that the investigation was neither fair nor lawful, and hence the report could not be accepted. The order began with a reference to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Bhajan Lal case, reiterating that before the law, there is no distinction between the rich and the poor.