Comments
In a significant volte-face loaded with political implications in an election year, the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau has given a clean chit to former Kerala Finance Minister KM Mani in the bar bribery case.
There is no evidence that Mani received the money from bar owners as alleged, the Bureau said in its report submitted to the Vigilance Court here at the end of a ‘further probe’. The irony about the latest development is that the repeat probe was conducted by none other than Superintendent of Police R Sukesan, who had carried out the task the first time as well.
He sought closure of the case since he “could not find evidence that a bribe was either sought for or given.” He went on to pick some holes in the array of evidences listed out in the first instance.
There are some inconsistencies with respect to those referred to court then, sources quoted him as saying in the application.
A ‘further probe’ was initiated into this high-profile case after the High Court of Kerala made some adverse comments against Mani. This had led to his resignation as Finance Minister in November last year.
The High Court had observed that Caesar’s wife should be above suspicion and proceeded to wonder why the State government should be worried about the prospects of a further probe. The court had gone on to take the government to task for showing no qualms about “spending tax payer’s money to defend a minister who is facing serious corruption charges.”
Meanwhile, Chief Minister Oommen Chandy has welcomed the development and said that there is nothing that prevented Mani from returning as the Finance Minister “if the particular circumstances that led to his resignation cease to exist.”
He had all along been saying that Mani would prove himself above suspicion, Chandy said, adding: “He stands vindicated now.”
State BudgetThe Kerala Congress (Mani), of which Mani is the chairman, said it expected Mani to return as the Finance Minister at the earliest and present the state Budget, the last of this government.
But the LDF argued that the purported Vigilance closure report had merely stated the inability of the inspecting officer to zero in on evidences against Mani, and not the lack of evidence per se.
Comments
COMMENT NOW
Comments
Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.
We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of TheHindu Businessline and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.