The Kerala High Court has deferred the personal appearance of Industries Principal Secretary A.P.M Mohammed Hanish in a contempt of court case until June 1. The decision comes after Hanish filed an appeal against an earlier order directing his personal appearance on May 22. The contempt plea was initiated by Kadakampally Manoj from Kollam, who alleged that the state government’s refusal to grant sanction for a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the ₹600-crore cashew import scam amounted to contempt of court.
The Single Bench of the High Court had previously quashed a state government order denying sanction for the CBI probe into alleged corruption in the import of raw cashew between 2006 and 2015 by the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC). The investigation was intended to examine the alleged roles of R. Chandrasekharan, former Chairman of KSCDC, and P.A. Ratheesh, its former managing director, in the scam. However, the state government had denied sanction for the CBI probe on three separate occasions, arguing that its decision did not constitute contempt of court since the court had only directed the government to consider granting sanction, not to approve it.
On May 20, the Division Bench, while hearing Hanish’s appeal against the Single Bench’s order for his personal appearance, directed him to file an application before the Single Bench. This procedural step led to the deferral of his appearance until June 1. The case has drawn attention to the ongoing legal and administrative tussle over the investigation into the alleged financial irregularities in the cashew import process, which spans nearly a decade.
The Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation, a state-owned enterprise, has been at the center of the controversy after allegations surfaced regarding financial mismanagement and corruption during the tenure of its former leadership. The import scam, reportedly involving irregularities worth ₹600 crore, has prompted public scrutiny and demands for accountability. The state government’s repeated denial of sanction for a CBI probe has further intensified the legal and political debate surrounding the case.
The High Court’s intervention in quashing the state’s order denying sanction underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that investigations into serious allegations of corruption are not obstructed. However, the government’s contention that it is bound only to consider, and not necessarily approve, the probe has added a layer of complexity to the matter. The deferral of Hanish’s appearance provides temporary relief to the accused official but does not resolve the core issue of sanction for the CBI investigation.
Legal observers note that the case highlights the tension between executive authority and judicial directives in matters involving corruption and financial misconduct. The outcome of the contempt plea and the pending CBI probe could have far-reaching implications for accountability in public sector undertakings in Kerala. As the next hearing approaches on June 1, all parties involved—including the state government, the accused officials, and the petitioner—await further clarity on the legal and procedural steps required to address the allegations.
