The Kerala High Court has raised serious concerns over the functioning and relevance of Vigilance Tribunals in the state, highlighting their poor case disposal rates despite substantial public expenditure.
The bench of Justice K.Babu directed the state government to conduct a comprehensive performance audit of these tribunals.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by a 61-year-old petitioner seeking a time-bound disposal of a pending vigilance enquiry (E.C. No. 2/2021) before the Vigilance Tribunal, Kozhikode. The enquiry related to allegations of corruption involving the creation of a forged land title (“pattayam”) and illegal encroachment on government land, allegedly involving officials of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala.
During the proceedings, it was noted that although the Tribunal eventually disposed of the matter following court directions, the petition exposed a broader systemic issue—chronic delays and inefficiency in vigilance adjudication.
The Court examined official data and found that Vigilance Tribunals in Kerala dispose of only 4–5 cases annually on average, with some years recording as few as 2–3 cases. Despite this minimal workload, the state incurs over ₹1 crore annually on salaries alone, with additional operational expenses pushing the total cost even higher.
Shockingly, the number of pending cases before each tribunal is also reported to be less than 10, indicating not backlog but severe underutilisation.
The Court noted that government departments have largely failed to refer cases to the Vigilance Tribunals, despite a statutory mandate under the Kerala Civil Services (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, 1960. These rules require that corruption cases involving gazetted officers be referred to the tribunals.
Government circulars and orders issued in 2015 and 2022 had already flagged this issue, reiterating the need for departments to utilize the tribunals effectively. However, the Court observed continued non-compliance.
In a sharp observation, the Court questioned the very necessity of retaining such institutions: “Why should the Government retain these Tribunals?”
The Court emphasized that public funds amounting to crores are being spent on institutions that are failing to fulfill their intended purpose of ensuring speedy enquiry into corruption cases.
Drawing parallels, the Court cited the example of the now-defunct “Munnar Tribunal,” which functioned for eight years, disposed of only 42 cases, and cost the exchequer over ₹13 crore in salary expenses alone before being abolished.
This, the Court said, exemplifies the consequences of failing to conduct periodic performance reviews of statutory bodies.
While reaffirming the principle that reviewing the implementation of statutes is integral to the rule of law, the Court directed the Kerala government to conduct a performance audit of Vigilance Tribunals. Assess whether the objectives of the 1960 Rules are being met. Take corrective measures, including reconsidering the continuance of such tribunals
The Court also ordered that the judgment be communicated to the Chief Secretary for immediate action.
Case Details
Case Title: K.B.Soman Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: JURISHOUR-684-HC-2026(Ker)
Case No.: WP(CRL.) NO. 99 OF 2024
Date: 07/04/2026
Counsel For Petitioner: T.G.Sunil (Pranavam)
Counsel For Respondent: Rajesh A
