The sensational disclosure was made by the ADGP in a talk with a prominent TV channel. Thomas, who is part of the team investigating both the bar bribery and Pattor land grab cases, said the development had put him under severe pressure, adding that there was also a move to shift him from the investigations into the cases.

The ADGP’s ‘complaint’ demolishes the Government’s oft-repeated claims that there was no intervention from its side to undermine the investigations. State Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala had gone on record that the guilty will be punished, no matter how highly placed he or she may be.

It is not at all difficult to divine the reasons for the mounting pressure on ADGP Jacob Thomas. Thomas is known as an honest, fearless and incorruptible officer. It was on his insistence that an FIR was filed against State Finance Minister and Kerala Congress(M) president, K. M. Mani in the bar bribery case. Needless to say, the officer had treaded on sensitive corns of many a politician in the process, incurring their wrath. That explains the concerted attempts to have him replaced and shunted off to an innocuous post.

It may be mentioned that the Kerala Lok AZyukta had frowned upon the submission of a ‘clarificatory report’ by Jacob Thomas in the Pattor case. The Lok Ayukta’s contention was that the second report was uncalled for as the court had already preliminary enquiry and admitted the complaint to the file.

The Lok Ayukta was also unhappy about the publishing in the media of the report before it could consider it. Some newspapers had reported that the SIT report had freshly implicated Chief Minister, Oommen Chandy and former Chief Secretary, E. K. Bharat Bbhushan in the Patoor case. The Lok Ayukta had come down heavily on the ‘leakage’ of the SIT report which, it said, had not implicated any ‘additional or fresh’ personnel as reported by a section of the media. The court also wanted the report to be kept secret.

The order has taken legal experts by surprise. A section of the lawyers opined that, while the court was right in condemning the ‘leakage’ of the report, there was no need for the report to be kept a secret if it does not contain any new names. The move not to publish it will only strengthen the suspicions in the minds of the public, they claimed.

Meanwhile, the petitioner in the Patoor case, Joy Kaitharam, has again requested the Vigilance Director to file a case against the Chief Minister, the former Chief Secretary and former Kerala Water Authority(KWA) managing director, Ashok Kumar Singh. An earlier complaint to the Vigilance Director had been rejected on the ground that the department cannot file a case against the CM, the former CS and the former KWA MD as the probe report submitted by the ADGP was under the consideration of the Lok Ayukta.

However, the fresh petition filed by Kaitharam contends that the Vigilance Director was on a weak legal wicket. Section 9(7) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 states that there is no bar on any agency taking up an issue that has been already under the consideration of the Lok Ayukta and initiating further proceedings. The petitioner has also contended that the report was no more under the consideration of the Lok Ayukta. Once the Lok Ayukta decided to accept the case in file on January 9, 2015, the consideration of the Jacob Thomas report was over, the petitioner contended.

Kaitharam’s fresh complaint also argues that the Supreme Court’s order in the Lalitha Kumari Vs State of UP and others case mandates the filing of an FIR within 15 days of receiving a complaint. The report of Jacob Thomas having become a public document on January 9, non-registration of a case based on the findings of the report is a flagrant violation of the SC order, the petitioner contended.

It may be mentioned that the Kerala High Court had dismissed a plea for a CBI probe into the bar bribery case ‘at this stage’ on the ground that there was no material to conclude that the Vigilance And Anti-Corruption Bureau(VACB) was not conducting a fair and impartial probe.

That situation no longer exists in the light of the ADGP Jacob Thomas’s contention that there was a threat to his life and that there were attempts to shift him from the sensitive post. The ADGP’s voicing of his fear conclusively proves, if proof were needed, that there are attempts to scuttle the investigations into the bar bribery and Patoor land grab cases.

This being the ground reality, there are expectations that the High Court will review its earlier decision against a CBI probe in the bar bribery case. The whole of Kerala is looking forward to the next hearing in the cases. (IPA Service)