ELECTION 99
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

Chargesheet filed against Karunakaran in palmolein case

D Jose in Thiruvananthapuram

The chargesheet filed by the Kerala Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau against former chief minister K Karunakaran and seven others in the controversial eight-year-old palmolein case has embittered the opposition United Democratic Front, which has been accusing the Communist-led government of political vendetta against its opponents.

With the filing of the chargesheet in the palmolein case on Tuesday, the number of former ministers hauled up in different cases by the Nayanar government has gone up to seven. All of them were members of the 19-member cabinet headed by Karunakaran from 1991-95. Besides T H Mustafa, who is a co-accused in the palmolein case, the other former ministers facing prosecution are R Balakrishna Pillai, M V Raghavan, T M Jacob, C V Padamarajan and Raghuchandrabal. Apart from this former industry minister P K Kunhalikutty and former Union minister Professor P J Kurien have been implicated in two separate sex scandals.

While a magistrate's court has found Prof Kurien prima facie guilty in the sensational Suryanelli sex scandal, the police under chief minister E K Nayanar have spared Kunhalikutty in the Kozhikode sex case -- despite, it is alleged, clear proof of his involvement and much to the chagrin of the women's organisation fighting for his arrest. The palmolein case has also put in dock several top retired and serving bureaucrats. They are former chief secretary S Padmakumar, former additional chief secretary Zachariah Mathew and former managing director of the Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Jiji Thomson, who is now on deputation at the Centre.

The case against Karunakaran is significant since he has been arraigned as the number one accused in the criminal conspiracy to import 15,000 tonnes of palmolein from a Malaysian company at exorbitant rates resulting in a loss of Rs 23 million to the state exchequer. Incidentally, Karunakaran is the first chief minister in the history of Kerala to have a chargesheet filed against him in a vigilance case.

In fact the government would have to wait for the disposal of the case filed by Karunakaran in the Supreme Court challenging his prosecution to begin the trial against him. The apex court had permitted the government to file the chargesheet pending the disposal of the case.

The government will also have to seek the approval of the state governor and the Lok Sabha speaker to prosecute him. The clearance of the central government is also required in proceeding against the former Indian Administrative Service officers. The special court before which the chargesheet was filed has not taken cognisance of it in the absence of these clearances. The chargesheet was taken on file after the bureau submitted an application seeking time to furnish the sanction order and other original documents. The court has given time till January 21 to furnish these documents.

The vigilance bureau's case is that Karunakaran and others and others had received kickbacks from the deal: that Karunakaran, who was the chief minister in 1991-92, had arranged the deal through the director of Power and Energy Ltd., Malaysia and its representatives in India. The import was in violation of the rules and procedures laid down by the central and state governments. Moreover, there was no need for importing palmolein during the period since there was adequate stocks available with the State Trading Corporation.

The case had emanated from adverse remarks made against the deal by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Left Democratic Front, which was in the opposition then, had tried all legal avenues to trap Karunakaran. The case was handed over to the vigilance following the assumption of office by the CPI-M government in 1996.

Interestingly, the erstwhile Antony group of the Congress had also used the case in 1995 to oust Karunakaran from the chief ministership. This has now proved quite embarrassing for the Antony faction since the LDF government has made use of a report of the assembly panel on public undertakings headed by the then Antony loyalist M M Hassan to gather evidence against Karunakaran. The committee had made several adverse remarks against the deal.

The vigilance department's attempt to examine Hassan after the two sides patched-up had sparked off a controversy recently. Hassan refused to appear before the bureau saying that his action as the chairman of the undertakings committee was protected and he was not bound to reveal any information he had received in that capacity.

The opposition feels that the haste being shown by the government in prosecuting Karunakaran is aimed at destroying his political future. Opposition leader A K Antony has decried the move and added that it will not succeed in destroying a leader of Karunakaran's stature.

Tell us what you think of this report