Thiruvananthapuram | The Kerala Lok Ayukta on Monday said those unhappy with its orders in the matter regarding the alleged CMDRF misuse by CM Pinarayi Vijayan and his cabinet colleagues should challenge it in court instead of casting aspersions on the judges who adjudicated the case.
The anti-corruption agency claimed that two of its recent orders in the case regarding the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) were being wrongly interpreted and projected before the public by the complainant as well as some politicians and a few media houses.
Lok Ayukta Justice Cyriac JosephIt said, "Instead of challenging those orders in a court of law, aspersions were being cast on the judges and they were being demeaned by the complainant and some politicians, and the same was publicised by some media houses. Such conduct is objectionable." In a press statement, the Lok Ayukta said that the matter was referred to a larger bench on March 31 as there was a difference of opinion among the two judges in the bench about whether the Cabinet decisions of the Chief Minister and his council of ministers can be investigated under the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.
There was also a difference of opinion regarding the merits of the case, it said.
These reasons were already cited by a division bench of the Lok Ayukta while dismissing a plea moved by the complainant -- R S Sasikumar -- seeking recall of the March 31 order.
In the release, the anti-corruption agency said that there was wrong news being circulated in the media by some persons in connection with the CMDRF case orders.
It added that aspersions were cast on the judges for attending the CM's iftar party as well.
In the statement, the Lok Ayukta said that the judges attended the party as they were officially invited by the CM as were many others such as the chairpersons of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Kerala Administrative Tribunal and the Minorities Commission.
It said that it was "low and uncultured" to say that the Lok Ayukta judges passed an order in favour of the government becLok Ayukta Justice Cyriac Josephause they attended the CM's iftar party.
It said that many judges of the high courts and the Supreme Court attended official events and that did not mean they would pass orders in favour of the state government.
The Lok Ayukta contended that the complainant in the case was attempting to create a smokescreen to divert attention from the legal issues in the matter by casting aspersions on the judges.
It also denied that it referred to Sasikumar as a "rabid dog" during the hearing.
It clarified that the judges only said that when one sees a rabid dog, the smarter option is to avoid confronting it and moving away, rather than engaging with it.
"The reference did not mean the judges were calling the complainant a rabid dog. The Lok Ayukta passes orders without fear or favour or love or hatred. The judges cannot be expected to pass orders that the parties want," the statement said.
Lok Ayukta Justice Cyriac Joseph and Upa-Lok Ayukta Justice Harun-Ul-Rashid dismissed the application for recall saying that it was not maintainable as the anti-corruption agency could only review its decisions or orders on interlocutory applications.
The Lok Ayukta said that its order of March 31, which was sought to be reviewed, was not an order passed on any interlocutory application and therefore, "an application for review or recall of the said order will not lie".
While dismissing the application, the Lok Ayukta had also said that the March 31 order was not on the maintainability of the complaint, but rather on whether the alleged actions of the Chief Minister and the ministers could be probed under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.
The complaint by Sasikumar had alleged "favouritism" in sanctioning financial aid from the fund to NCP leader late Uzhavoor Vijayan, former CPI(M) MLA late K K Ramachandran Nair and to the family of Praveen, a civil police officer who died in an accident while undertaking escort duty for ruling CPI(M) state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan.
The complainant sought disqualification of the Chief Minister and the other ministers for misusing the fund.
