The Kerala High Court has declined to transfer the investigation into bribery allegations made against an Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), holding that it would be premature to interfere with an investigation already underway by the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
The order was passed by Justice A. Badharudeen while hearing a petition filed by businessman Aneesh Babu, who had sought a CBI investigation into allegations that an ED officer allegedly demanded ₹2 crore as illegal gratification for settling a money laundering case involving him and his family.
During the proceedings, the Court considered the report submitted by the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, which informed the Court that a criminal case had already been registered in relation to the allegations and that the investigation was actively progressing.
Taking note of the ongoing investigation, the Court held that there was no immediate necessity for transferring the case to the CBI. The Court observed that directing a CBI probe at this stage would be premature and instead instructed the vigilance agency to proceed with the investigation in an effective manner and conclude it within a fixed timeline.
In its order, the Court stated that the prayer seeking a CBI investigation could not be granted at the present stage and directed the investigating agency to complete the probe within 90 days from the date of receipt of the order. The Court also instructed investigators to consider the allegations raised in the petitioner’s representation while carrying out the inquiry.
Importantly, while disposing of the petition, the Court preserved the petitioner’s right to approach the Court again if he remains dissatisfied with the outcome or manner of investigation.
The latest order is consistent with the Court’s earlier observations during the hearing of the matter. At an earlier stage, the Court had indicated that an ongoing investigation by a competent authority could not be shifted to another agency merely on the basis of apprehensions unless substantial flaws or deficiencies in the investigation process were demonstrated.
The controversy arises from allegations made by Aneesh Babu, a businessman based in Kollam, who is himself facing legal proceedings in connection with a cashew import fraud and an associated money laundering case.
Babu had been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in January 2026 in connection with the alleged financial irregularities. Subsequently, in April 2026, he secured bail from a Special Court in Ernakulam dealing with matters under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
In the petition before the High Court, Babu alleged that an ED officer had sought a bribe amounting to ₹2 crore from him and his family for resolving the proceedings initiated against them. He argued that the investigation conducted by the vigilance authorities lacked independence and claimed that political and external influences were affecting the process. On that basis, he sought transfer of the investigation to the CBI.
Appearing for the petitioner were Advocates Liju V. Stephen, Indu Susan Jacob, Jiji Joy and Sanjay Johnson Mathew. Standing Counsel Jaishankar V. Nair represented the Enforcement Directorate, while Special Government Pleader Sreelal Warriar appeared for the CBI.
A detailed copy of the High Court’s order is awaited.
