Kerala Lokayukta is expected to consider the review petition, in connection with the diversion of the Chief Minister’s Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF), on April 12. The postponement was due to the request of the petitioner. Otherwise, it would have been heard on April 11.
The petition was filed by R S Sasikumar, seeking to review the order referring the case to be probed by Lokayuka and Upa Lokayukta.
R S Sasikumar had, in his petition, demanded that the action referring the case to the three-member bench should be re-examined and that the validity of the case should not be examined anymore. The complainant also reminded that the case was taken up for hearing after a three-member bench examined its validity.
Contesting the petition, Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta criticised the petitioner for delaying the procedures. According to reports, as the petitioner’s lawyer failed to turn up, another lawyer appeared before the Lokayukta. He requested to reschedule the hearing as he had to act on short notice.
Upalokayukta Justice Harun-Al-Rashid asked if R S Sasikumar was present during the hearing and observed that ‘he could have argued the case in his lawyer’s absence. He has been arguing a lot in front of the media.’ (Lokayukta was referring to Sasikumar’s active participation in TV debates on this subject). Lokayukta alleged that the petitioner attempted to defame the judges. Upa Lokayukta asked if the petitioner does have any evidence of Government pressure on the panel. His statement that Lokayuktha is not trustworthy is based on some other calculations and to defame the judges.
Lokayukta Justice Cyriac Joseph said it is not fair to discuss the case details in the channel while it is before the judges. He said, he does not go explicit as it is good to avoid mad dogs. He says channel debates consisting of several people resemble the lynching of tribal youth Madhu in Attappadi.
Petitioner Sasikumar said it was not the institution of Lokayukta that he criticised but the actions of it. He trusts Lokayuktha; hence he appeared for the hearing. He added that he submitted the review petition when Lokayukta decided to examine the validity of the petition, which had been decided by the three-member panel in 2019. It should not be considered as a personal attack. He reiterated his stand that Lokayukta judges’ participation in the iftar party, hosted by the CM, was against the guidelines of the Supreme Court.
Sixteen cabinet ministers belonging to the first Pinarayi Vijayan Government (2016 – 2021), including the Chief Minister, who participated in the cabinet meetings which took decisions to make the payments to the alleged ineligible hands and the then Chief Secretary are the respondents in the case in connection with the ‘Abuse’ of CM Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF).
R S Sashikumar, the former Syndicate member of Kerala University, is the complainant who filed the case in 2018. His complaint alleges that the decision to provide financial assistance to the families of the late Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Uzhavoor Vijayan, former Chengannur MLA K K Ramachandran Nair and Police Constable P Praveen. NCP is a constituent of the CPM-led ruling Left Democratic Front (LDF). Late Ramachandran MLA was a CPM leader. Praveen died in a road accident while escorting former CPM State secretary (late) Kodiyeri Balakrishnan. Therefore, the allegation was about blatant favouritism and the unilateral decision taken by CM Pinarayi.
R S Sashikumar also demanded that the amount paid to the above families should be recovered from those who participated in the Cabinet meeting that resolved to make those payments, and those who accepted the purses should be declared ineligible if Lokayukta finds the misappropriation in the payments.
Kerala Lokayukta admitted the complaint in 2019. It issued a notice to Pianarayi Vijayan and a couple of Ministers in the Cabinet. Even though the trial was completed a year before, Lokayukta had not issued the verdict yet. In the meantime, the petitioner approached Kerala High Court against the inordinate delay on the part of the Lokayukta in delivering its verdict.
Comments