In a confidential letter to the Chief Justice, the judge stressed the immediate need for restructuring the vigilance investigation procedure which gave enough room for the government to influence the final outcome of cases.

The powers bestowed on the government were so overwhelming that the government could save an official or a public servant found to be corrupt by the investigating official.

The immediate provocation for the letter was the government stand in a corruption case against A K Sasikumar, who was CI of police at Konni police station in Pathanamthitta district in the period between January, 1993, and June, 1995.

He arrested one Reji Samuel on a complaint filed by his wifeAsha Reji. The CI allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 10,000 from Reji Samuel's brother for releasing him from custody. Reji's brother Samuel James gave Rs 8,000 to the CI at his residence and moved a petition with the Vigilance.

Pathanamthitta Vigilance DySP Varghese George registered a case against the CI.

He conducted a detailed inquiry and found the CI guilty of charges under Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA).

However, on June 18, 1998, the Vigilance Director filed a petition seeking the transfer of the case to the Vigilance Tribunal.

The Director's letter pointed out that the case was not strong enough to be charged under the CrPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(The Vigilance Tribunal is not empowered to try criminal cases. The maximum punishment to be given by it would be termination from service, in extreme cases).

When the petition came up for hearing, the Judge refused to transfer the case on the basis of the petition filed by the Vigilance Director who was acting obviously underorders from the government. He demanded the case diary and the report of the DySP.

The case diary and the detailed report revealed that the investigating officer recommended the prosecution of the CI, who was found guilty of accepting bribe for releasing Reji Samuel from illegal detention.

It was also revealed that the recommendation for prosecution was reversed at the government-level, when the Vigilance Director wrote to the Home Department for sanction, which was a statutory requirement for proceeding against government officials in criminal cases.

The judge reportedly pointed out that he had come across at least 17 cases in which the government approached the court either for dropping criminal prosecution or for transferring cases to the Tribunal.

The Vigilance Special Judge and Inquiry Commissioner, who recently assumed office as Thiruvananthapuram District Judge, sought a second look at changes brought about in the investigation procedure by the Karunakaran Government in 1992.

According to aGovernment Order, which is still in force, an FIR could be registered only after a preliminary investigation and that too with the prior sanction of the government.

Government sanction is also required for filing chargesheet after investigation.