The AI ​​camera controversy that rocked Kerala politics has taken on a new dimension with the intervention of the High Court. It has been suggested that those who have taken up the contract of the project, can be paid the money only with the permission of the court. The contract was for five years at 11.79 crores every three months. However, while considering the petition filed by opposition leaders VD Satheesan and Ramesh Chennithala, who said that the expenditure of Rs 232.79 crore from the exchequer was based on an inflated estimate and that the corruption and nepotism behind the contract should be investigated under the supervision of the court, there was an interim proposal that the money should be given to the contractors with the permission of the court only. A division bench headed by the Chief Justice has also decided to hear the petition in detail. This can be seen as the first victory of the opposition on the camera issue.

The injustice and extravagance of spending 232 crores from the exchequer for a project costing less than Rs 100 crores has already been a topic of discussion. It is alleged that there was an irregularity behind the fact that Keltron, which was awarded the contract, later transferred it to a private company. The petition is also questioning the decision to implement the scheme, which was proposed to be implemented on the BOOT model, in the manner of paying money. The burden falls on the state treasury by this change of decision. There is also an argument that Keltron, which has taken over the contract, does not have the necessary technical qualifications to carry out the project.

There was a strong allegation that the government had hidden many relevant information on the camera issue. Things have not been done in a way that the general public is aware of. A reform introduced to reduce road accidents and deaths and create a disciplined transport culture has been subject to allegations of corruption mainly due to cover-up by the authorities. There has been no credible response from government sources to the allegations that the government has incurred additional costs due to the change in the scheme implementation.

It has to be assumed that the court is also convinced about the position of the petitioners that they have a complaint not about the project, but about the deviant methods taken to implement it. The change in the BOOT clause was made at the final stage of the tender process. The petitioners told the court that there was no detailed discussion in this regard in the cabinet meeting. If the previously decided method was folllowed, the government would not have had to pay the money directly. The fines levied from violators was expected to meet the project cost of the contractors.

Although the Transport Minister is relieved that the High Court's intervention in the camera issue is not a setback, he should wait for the petition to be disposed of to put an end to the doubts raised in the minds of the public. The court did not stop the operation of the camera. So the cameras that detect traffic violations on the roads will continue its job as usual. Since it started working on June 5, so far lakhs of law violations have been caught by the camera. However, very few of these have resulted in legal action including fines. The implementation of the project which was introduced in a festive manner is not in keeping with the purity of the intention.