Corruption cases and tribunals

Special court systems are set up with the aim of delivering faster judgments in cases. In the state, vigilance tribunals were established to quickly decide corruption cases against gazetted officers. These tribunals were started in 1960 in places including Thiruvananthapuram and Kozhikode. However, the High Court had recently asked the government to review the functioning of these tribunals as they are not achieving their intended purpose.

While considering a petition filed by a person from Palakkad seeking faster disposal of a case pending before a tribunal, Justice K. Babu questioned whether these tribunals should continue. The tribunals are currently not functioning effectively and have become weak in performance. On average, only about five cases are being decided each year. At the same time, the government is spending crores of rupees on their functioning, including salaries and other expenses. The goal of reducing corruption is also not being achieved effectively through these tribunals. Between 2015 and 2023, the Kozhikode tribunal disposed of only 30 cases, while the Thiruvananthapuram tribunal disposed of 35 cases. Apart from vigilance cases, no other departments are referring cases to these tribunals. In this situation, the court has questioned whether such a failed system should continue.

For the Munnar tribunal, which was started in 2011, the government spent more than Rs 13 crore until 2018. However, only 42 cases were disposed of. The court pointed out that its functioning was later stopped after evaluating this performance. In many cases, the government ends up spending several times more money on investigations and legal proceedings than the actual amount involved in the corruption by gazetted officers. Therefore, a major overhaul of the system is needed.

There are also several examples where vigilance investigations have slowed down due to interference from those in power. In this context, the High Court’s suggestion to audit the functioning of vigilance tribunals should be taken seriously by the government. If such systems are found to be ineffective and only causing financial loss, it would be better for the state treasury to shut them down quickly. Following the High Court’s direction, the vigilance tribunals wrote to the Chief Secretary stating that departments should not initiate disciplinary actions against corrupt gazetted officers themselves, and instead refer such cases to vigilance tribunals for trial. The High Court is justified in questioning the very need for these tribunals when cases are being dealt with and concluded within departments instead of being referred to them.