The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed the registration of an FIR against K M Abraham, Chief Principal Secretary to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, which was ordered by the Kerala High Court in connection with allegations of amassing disproportionate assets.
The apex court also issued notice to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Abraham’s Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court’s direction for a CBI probe.
A bench, comprising Justices Dipankar Dutta and Manmohan, passed the interim order after hearing submissions by Senior Advocate R Basant, appearing for Abraham, and Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta, who represented the State of Kerala.
The Court observed that the Kerala High Court’s directive for FIR (first information report) registration may have violated procedural requirements under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, particularly the need for prior sanction before initiating a probe against a public servant.
Citing earlier judgments such as Anil Kumar & Ors versus M K Aiyappa (2013) and L Narayana Swamy vs State of Karnataka (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated that a Magistrate cannot order the registration of an FIR against a public servant without prior sanction from the competent authority.
The Kerala High Court, in its order dated April 11, 2025, had directed the CBI to investigate allegations brought by activist Jomon Puthenpurackal, who claimed that Abraham had acquired assets vastly disproportionate to his known sources of income including a Rs three crore apartment in Mumbai, a Rs one crore flat in Thiruvananthapuram, and a one-third stake in an Rs eight crore shopping complex in Kollam.
Justice K Babu of the High Court criticized the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) for arbitrarily excluding critical time periods from its investigation. The Court emphasized that the chosen “check period” for evaluating disproportionate assets must provide a complete picture of the public servant’s financial activities.
The High Court also questioned the credibility of the Enquiry Officer’s conclusions, observing discrepancies in the source of funds and inconsistencies in reliance on documents like Memoranda of Understanding and powers of attorney.
Finding sufficient grounds to question the impartiality of the VACB inquiry, the High Court had transferred the investigation to the CBI. However, with the Supreme Court’s stay now in place, the FIR and consequent probe will remain suspended pending further hearing.
UNI SNG SS
