The Kerala Lokayukta will pronounce on Friday its verdict in the case related to alleged misuse of Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) in which the Chief Minister Pinarayi himself is an accused.
The Lokayukta has not given its verdict in the case though the hearing of the case was completed one year back. The hearing of the case was completed on 18 March last year.
Following this, the petitioner RS Sasikumar approached the Kerala High Court seeking to direct the Lokayukta to pronounce the verdict in the case.
The High Court asked the petitioner to approach the Kerala Lokayukta with his petition and it was after this ruling came, that the Lokayukta decided to pronounce its verdict on Friday .
The verdict, if not gone in favour of the Pinarayi Vijayan government, could put the LDF in trouble.
A former syndicate member of Kerala University RS Sasikumar has filed the complaint in 2018.Sasikumar had alleged that Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and other ministers in his cabinet misused the CMDRF.
Sasikumar, in his complaint said the state cabinet had illegally transferred funds from the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) to the families of NCP leader Uzhavur Vijayan, former Chengannur MLA K K Ramachandran Nair, and Praveen, the escort driver of the CPI-M state secretary who died in an accident while on duty.
He also said that Uzhavur Vijayan’s family was given Rs 25 lakh and the kin of Praveen, driver of late CPI-M leader Kodiyeri Balakrishnan was granted Rs 20 lakh. He also said that Ramachandran Nair’s loan liability of Rs 9 lakh was also given from the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF)
It is said the delay in delivering the verdict was due to the controversial Lokayukta amendment bill curtailing the powers of the anti-corruption body,passed by the Assembly, which didn’t get the assent of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan.
It is alleged that the Lokayukta amendment bill was brought to save the Chief Minister. As per the amendment bill, If Lokayukta passes a verdict against the chief minister in a corruption case, the Assembly would be the competent authority to decide on it, not the Governor.
The appellate authority for the ministers would be the Chief minister, while for the members of the Assembly, it would be the Speaker. Thus, when the amendment bill becomes law, as the ruling party has majority in the Assembly, the Chief Minister and ministers could be saved from the verdict, even if the Lokayukta passes an adverse verdict against them.