Thiruvananthapuram: More than two decades have passed since the palmoil deal was inked, but the issues refuse to die down even though cases pertaining to the alleged corruption in the contract came under scrutiny at all levels, right from the vigilance court, the High Court and SupremeCourt.
The case pertains to the alleged corruption to the tune of Rs 2.3 cr in the import of Palmolein to the state in 1992.
After the investigations failed to find any evidence against Chief Minister Oommen Chandy, the Vigilance gave him a clean chit in 2011. Subsequently the UDF Government decided not to have any further inquiry into the case three months ago.
However, with the Thrissur Vigilance Court now setting aside the UDF Government decision, the case has resurrected yet again. But this raises a big question mark about the way the case had been handled by anti-corruption agencies for over two decades. The case took its toll on high profile politicians like K.Karunakaran who lived under the shadow of the palmoil case till his death on December 24,2010.
It was after Karunakaran's death that the Supreme Court vacated the stay that had been granted on his plea in 2007. This paved the way for further legal proceedings after the chargesheet .
Earlier In 2005, the then UDF Government led Oommen Chandy decided to withdraw the case. But the LDF which came back to power in 2006, scrapped the previous decision, forcing Karunakaran to move the Supreme Court for the stay.
The reopening of the case triggered a major political storm with T.H.Mustafa, who was one of the accused in the case, made certain controversial remarks that brought Chief Minister Oommen Chandy’s role under the scanner.
In fact Chandy was forced to give up Home and Vigilance portfolio after the Vigilance court directed that his role be probed. But with Government Chief Whip P.C.George alleging that the case had been reopened with the motive of implicating Chandy, Vigilance Judge P.K.Haneefa recused himself from the case and even special prosecutor P.A.Ahmed resigned citing differences over the vigilance report favoring Chandy.
Apart from politicians, the case also caused extensive damage to the careers of many IAS officers. P.J.Thomas lost the coveted post of Chief Vigilance Commissioner just because the palmoil case was pending against him and the position could be held only by a person with “impeccable integrity”.
The promotion prospects of senior bureaucrat like Jiji Thomson were also adversely affected by the case. With the High Court rejecting his discharge petition last year, there’s a big question mark over his impending promotion as Chief Secretary.
Now with the Thrissur Vigilance Court setting aside the Government decision on scrapping further inquiry, the possibilities of Chief Minister Oommen Chandy coming under the scanner yet again cannot be ruled out even though he is not an accused in the case.
The next step of the State Government will be to move against the Vigilance Court direction in a higher court, those who have been in the forefront in the palmoil corruption case including Opposition Leader V S Achuthanandan.
The veteran leader had first alleged that palmoil was imported at Rs 30 per kg against the market price of Rs 18 and he is expected to use the opportunity to corner Chandy. The presence of Ramesh Chennithala as Minister for Home and Vigilance has only kindled hope in the LDF camp.
Political observers say while writing to the Centre on October 5, 1991 for importing palmoil, even the then chief minister Karunakaran would not have imagined in his wildest dreams that the deal and subsequent corruption charges would kick of a controversy which would rage for two decades, even after his death.
For the LDF, the vigilance directive couldn’t have come at a better time. It was the LDF Government that ordered a probe in 1996 registering case against Karunakarn and six others. While the chargesheet was filed on November 30,1999, there was no progress for the next ten years as Karunakaran challenged the Government’s authority to sanction his prosecution.
His contention that the Lok Sabha Speaker’s nod was required to prosecute him, was rejected by Vigilance Special Judge and the High Court in 2007. The veteran leader challenged the HC verdict in the Supreme Court.
Next: VS : Victory for my anti-graft crusade
VS : Victory for my anti-graft crusade
Thiruvananthapuram: Opposition Leader V S Achuthanandan has said that the verdict quashing the State Government decision to withdraw the palmolein case was a victory for the anti-graft crusade initiated by him.
Achuthanandan said Chief Minister Oommen Chandy had taken the decision to withdraw the case fearing he would be implicated in the case. A similar fate awaited Chandy in the solar scam case also.
"I have been fighting the case for the last 22 years. The case for including Chandy as an accused in palmolien case is now before Supreme Court. The decision to approach the vigilance court against withdrawing the case was based on the order of the Supreme Court.
The verdict is a blow to the efforts of Chandy to go for backdoor parleys for escaping from corruption cases," Achuthanandan said. Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala has said that the State Government would file an appeal in the High Court against the decision of the Thrissur Vigilance Court to quash the State Government decision to withdraw the Palmolein case.
CPM Legislative Party Deputy Leader Kodiyeri Balakrishnan has asked Chief Minister Oommen Chandy to resign from the post of Chief Minister. The decision to quash the case was taken by the State Cabinet overlooking the recommendation of the vigilance department, Kodiyeri said.
Government Chief Whip P.C. George said that the case was a needless one and had dragged on for far too long. P.C. Vishnunath, MLA, has said Achuthanandan was acting with vengeance. He had approached the Supreme Court with this case against Karunakaran even when the latter was very seriously ill and was on his deathbed, Vishnunath said.
Next: Balachandran panel report to strengthen Vigilance
Balachandran panel report to strengthen Vigilance
Thiruvananthapuram: As there seems to be no end in sight to the palmolein corruption case that has already crossed two decades, the need to implement a set of recommendation given by a committee headed by Justice K.P.Balachandran again assumes significance.
The three-member committee had submitted its report on strengthening the Vigilance Bureau and the Lok Ayukta to the then Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan in November 2012. Even after a year, the report is gathering dust at the Secretariat.
The key focus of the committee's recommendations was to avoid the delay in completing corruption cases. It was pointed out that scores of cases were remaining idle at the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau awaiting prosecution sanction for months and even years from the Government.
Hence the committee suggested necessary amendments to empower the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to initiate prosecution steps in case the authorities concerned failed to give prosecution sanction within a stipulated time, preferably three months, as prescribed by the Supreme Court.
“A report sent by the VACB to the Government seeking prosecution sanction has to pass through at least eight officers in the Secretariat. Hence parties with vested interests could easily delay the report by influencing any of these officers,” said a member of the committee.
An overhaul of the VACB machinery was necessary as even ‘trap’ cases in which the accused were held red-handed were found to be delayed indefinitely. Hence time-frames need to be set for the completion of such cases.
The other members of the committee were retired IPS officer Alphonse Louis Erayil and IAS officer Kuruvila John. Former Chief Secretary K.Jayakumar and former Home Secretary Sajen Peter were the member secretaries of the committee.
Another major recommendation of the committee was to provide official badges to all personnel at all border checkposts in order to curb rampant corruption. "It was found that in many checkposts, outsiders would enter the office and assist the officials, which was a route to corruption," said the sources.
Next: Mustafa lashes out at Thiruvanchoor
Mustafa lashes out at Thiruvanchoor
Kochi: Congress leader and one of the accused in the palomolein case, T.H. Mustafa, on Friday blamed his party colleague and former home minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan, for the vigilance court ruling rejecting the government's petition to quash the case.
"Thiruvanchoor who held the vigilance portfolio failed to ensure that the government's case is presented properly before the court. The minister played a double game and should resign from the Cabinet as he has no moral right to continue," Mustafa, who was minister for food and civil supplies when the controversial palmolein deal took place, told reporters.
The former minister also demanded that the government constitute a probe panel against Thiruvanchoor to find out the truth as this was a serious lapse. Mustafa's comments have raised another round of debate especially as CPM leader Kodiyeri Balakrishnan claimed that the government approached the court with the dismissal plea overlooking the stand of Thiruvanchoor.
Mustafa had earlier courted another controversy a couple of years ago when he moved a petition before the vigilance court claiming that Chief Minister Oommen Chandy knew about the palmolein deal and not listing him as an accused was a travesty of justice.
