But there are indications that the joy in the KC(M) camp is going to be short-lived. Leader of the Opposition, V. S. Achuthanandan and working president of the Bar Owners Association(BOA), Biju Ramesh, who was the first to accuse Mani of accepting a bribe, have decided to move the court in protest against the Vigilance reprieve.

An angry VS has accused the Vigilance Director of succumbing to the pressure exerted on him by the Oommen Chandy government. The decision is a challenge to the rule of the law, VS said, adding that it has spoiled the reputation of the investing agencies not only in the state but elsewhere in the country as well.

The vigilance decision has also vindicated VS’s original demand for a CBI inquiry into the bar bribery case.

That Mani has reasons to worry is clear from the VS move. The latter has questioned the Vigilance Director’s decision to seek legal advice from former additional solicitor general Nageswar Rao though former solicitor generals were available. VS is on a strong wicket as he says neither the vigilance manual nor the other laws allows the vigilance chief to seek legal opinion from a former solicitor general.

VS also points out, rightly, that the Kerala High Court had appointed two lawyers as amicus curiae to suggest measures to revamp the Vigilance Department. The court order has come, VS claimed, because it believes that the vigilance probe would not be impartial.

Ironically, the Vigilance Director has sought to ignore the recommendations of the vigilance special unit which probed the case. The unit had managed to gather enough evidence – more than 60 per cent, according to reliable information - to prove that Mani had accepted Rs 35 lakh as bribe. The demand, reports have it, was made when Rs 15 lakh was handed over to him at his Pala residence.

The opposition charge is that the Vigilance chief has chosen to ignore the evidence collected by the probe team. Instead, for obvious reasons according to the opposition parties, he has gone by the advice of the department’s legal adviser, C. C. Augustine, who said there was not enough evidence to substantiate the charge against Mani.

The reprieve to Mani should also be viewed against the backdrop of repeated assertions by Chief Minister Oommen Chandy and Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala that there was no proof against Mani! This, VS said, was nothing but open political pressure and signal to the investigating agency to save Mani.

If further proof of the pressure on the investigating agency is needed, it has come from the horse’s mouth as it were. The Home Minister has candidly admitted that there was pressure from both the leaders of Congress and other partners of the United Democratic Front (UDF). Chennithala’s remark, it is being construed, is directed at Oommen Chandy and his close aides, who have all along been moving heaven and earth to save Mani. The HM’s outburst is bound to accentuate the group war already raging inside the Congress party in the state.

Whatever the denouement, one thing is clear: it is not going to be an everything is hunky-dory situation for Finance Minister Mani. A long and protracted legal battle is ahead of the KC(M) chief. And if the court is convinced of the report of the special probe team which recommended filing of charge-sheet against Mani, then the Finance Minister could be in serious trouble. (IPA)