Supreme Court: Wait-Listed Candidates Have No Vested Right After List Expiry || SC: Reserved Candidates Scoring Above General Cut-Off Must be Considered For Open Posts || SC: AICTE Regulations Do Not Govern Direct Recruitment of Engineering Professors by State PSCs || Supreme Court: High Courts To Decide Article 226(3) Applications Within Two Weeks || SC: State Agencies are Competent To Probe Corruption Cases Against Central Government Officers || Allahabad High Court: Wife May Claim Education Expenses; Adverse Inference If Husband Hides Income || Patna High Court: Cruelty Claims Against In-Laws are Unlikely Without Shared Residence or Interaction || Patna HC: Aadhaar and GPS-Based Attendance For Medical College Faculty Does Not Violate Privacy || Allahabad HC: Victim Compensation under POCSO Act Cannot be Withheld For Lack of Injury Report || MP HC: Diverting Goods From Delivery Point is Misappropriation under S.407 IPC

Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau and ors v. Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj and ors - (High Court of Kerala) (09 Nov 2015)

Justice not only done but also seen to be done: Kerala HC

Criminal

Kerala High Court held that the Director of Vigilance can give ‘timely directions’ while conducting investigation, but not after. Observations and findings on merits of the court below on the investigation below were set aside. The matter pertained to a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau of Kerala investigation into an alleged demand of Rs. 5 crores to renew bar licences by Kerala’s Finance Minister. The Court cautioned against the possibility of an improper investigation by State a department when the accused endured as a Minister in the government.

Tags : VIGILANCE MINISTER IMPROPER INVESTIGATION

Share :