Kerala HC nod for further probe against KM Mani

Virtually sealing the fate of K.M. Mani as finance minister, the Kerala high court on Monday observed that it was quite natural for the common man to feel that a proper investigation by the Vigilance in the bar bribery case was not possible when Mr Mani, the accused, is continuing as minister.

Amidst the mounting pressure for his resignation from all around, including the Congress, Mr Mani alleged a conspiracy against him but said he would take a decision on Tuesday.

The court criticised the Vigilance for using public money in seeking legal opinion from two Supreme Court lawyers for the case. “Whether the common man should pay for that also I am leaving that question to the conscience of the accused (K.M. Mani),” Justice B. Kemal Pasha observed while upholding the Thiruvananthapuram Vigilance court order for a further investigation into the case. Echoing the proverb, the judge said, “Caesar’s wife must be above suspicion.”

During the heated arguments, the court orally asked the Vigilance, “why are you worried about a further investigation into the case ”

Senior Supreme Court lawyer and former law minister Kapil Sibal appeared for the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Bureau and vehemently opposed the observations made by the Vigilance judge on the powers of the Vigilance director.

The court accepted the views and expunged the remarks, but said that Vigilance director Vinson M. Paul could have asked the investigating officer to conduct a further investigation instead of asking the Vigilance SP to file a final report in a particular manner. “Vinson M. Paul acted mechanically. He considered the scrutiny report alone,” the court said.

“The fundamental principle that justice is not only done but it should appear to be done is applicable not only to the judiciary but also to the other two pillars of the state,” the court observed. Even the advocate-general had to be bypassed by the Vigilance director to obtain a legal opinion from outside on the factual report. The director could not be found fault with on that score, the court said. Considering the arguments of both the A-G and Mr Kapil Sibal, the court said that the Vigilance court could have avoided the adverse remarks against the Vigilance in the order. “It seemed that somehow in his anxiety to justify taking cognisance of the offence or of ordering a further investigation, the court below had made those observations in detail,” it said.

The Vigilance court’s observations will not have any effect on the merits and the same shall not prejudice the accused in any manner in the continued investigation or a trial if needed, the court said.