Supreme Court Stays CBI's FIR For Corruption Against Chief Principal Secretary Of Kerala CM K.M. Abraham

Senior Advocate R. Basant appeared for Abraham, while Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appeared for the State of Kerala.

Taking note of the decisions of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar and Ors. V M. K. Aiyappa (2013) and L Narayana Swamy v State of Karnataka (2016), relied upon by Abraham, the Court noted that the Magistrate cannot direct registration of an FIR under Section 156 CrPC without prior sanction.

The Kerala High Court, by an order dated April 11, 2025, set aside the Special Judge’s 2017 decision rejecting a complaint against retired IAS officer K.M. Abraham and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register an FIR and probe allegations that he amassed wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income.

The High Court was hearing a petition filed by activist Jomon Puthenpurackal, who alleged that Abraham acquired, among other assets, a ₹3 crore apartment in Mumbai, a ₹1 crore flat in Thiruvananthapuram, and one-third ownership in a ₹8 crore shopping complex in Kollam. Justice K. Babu found that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) had arbitrarily excluded the period during which the Kollam complex was constructed from the check period, stating, “There is no general rule or criterion, valid for all cases, regarding the choice of the period for which accounts are taken. It shall be determined based on the allegations. A period must be taken so as to obtain a true and comprehensive picture of the known sources of income, pecuniary resources, and property in possession of the public servant, which is alleged to be disproportionate. The period selected has a direct bearing on the acquisitive activities of the public servant in amassing wealth. The prosecution cannot exclude the period during which the public servant allegedly acquired a substantial asset. Such a situation would amount to ignoring or avoiding a true picture of the property in possession of the public servant.”

The Court concluded that there was enough material to warrant an investigation by an independent agency. It noted, “the funds stated to have been transferred by his brothers would not account for the entire expenditure of Rs.2.05 Crores” and that “the exclusion of the period... relying on the recitals in the MOU, which go against the powers-of-attorney... persuade this Court to infer that the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is doubtful.” “This does not instil confidence to conclude that the Enquiry Officer made an independent and impartial enquiry”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court had ordered a CBI probe.