Public Office Carries Accountability, Especially When Public Funds Are Involved: Kerala High Court Refuses to Quash Corruption Charges Against Educational Body President

“Prima Facie Evidence of Manipulation in Teacher Appointments Justifies Trial”, Kerala High Court in a significant ruling upheld the trial court’s decision to frame charges against M.S. Muraleedharan, the former President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala). Justice A. Badharudeen, while dismissing the revision petition, firmly declared that public office bearers of grant-aided educational institutions fall within the definition of ‘public servant’ under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Court observed, “When public funds fuel an institution’s operations, transparency in public duties is non-negotiable, and those at the helm cannot escape accountability under the law.”

The Court was examining the petitioner’s challenge against framing of charges under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, along with IPC offences like criminal conspiracy and forgery, concerning alleged manipulation in teacher appointments by accepting illegal gratification.

The CBI prosecuted the President (3rd accused), Treasurer (1st accused), and Secretary (4th accused) of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha, alongside a private individual, alleging a criminal conspiracy to accept bribes for appointing two candidates—Preethi Anilkumar and Judy Joseph—as teachers at Mahatma Gandhi Public School, Chottanikkara. The CBI alleged falsification of score sheets and manipulation of appointment records, which resulted in the exclusion of more meritorious candidates.

The petitioner challenged his inclusion under the P.C. Act, claiming the Sabha was an autonomous educational body, and argued that no bribe was received by him personally. Additionally, it was contended that no sanction to prosecute him was obtained.

The central legal question was whether the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha qualifies as a ‘public servant’ under Section 2(c)(xii) of the P.C. Act. The Court noted that as per Section 2(c)(xii), anyone holding office in an educational institution receiving government assistance is deemed a public servant. It was observed:

“Explanation 1 to Section 2 of the P.C. Act clarifies that persons falling under the sub-clauses are public servants, whether appointed by the Government or not.”

The Court further recorded documentary evidence proving the Sabha received substantial financial grants from the Central Government between 2008 to 2012. Justice Badharudeen stated:

“Prima facie, it appears that Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala) has been receiving or having received financial assistance from the Central Government, and the petitioner, as President, is liable as a public servant.”

On the issue of sanction, the Court observed that where public funds are involved and where the person qualifies as a public servant under the P.C. Act, absence of sanction is not fatal to the proceedings at the stage of charge framing.

Rejecting the argument that the petitioner did not directly accept bribes, the Court observed: “Corrupt intent is not limited to personal pecuniary gains; collusion to distort merit-based appointments in educational institutions is a serious breach of public trust.”

The High Court meticulously examined the CBI’s case that appointments were manipulated by forging score sheets and creating false minutes to accommodate those who paid bribes. Justice Badharudeen noted:

“The falsification of records, wrongful appointments and exclusion of meritorious candidates—accompanied by financial gratification—are grave allegations sufficient to establish prima facie material for trial under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act and the IPC sections on cheating, forgery, and conspiracy.”

The Court reiterated settled law on charge framing, observing: “At the stage of charge, a detailed evaluation of evidence is unwarranted; if the Court, based on records, finds reasonable ground to presume guilt, it must proceed to trial.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded: “The trial court’s order framing charges reflects proper appreciation of material records and requires no interference.”

In unequivocal terms, the Kerala High Court fortified the principle that public accountability extends to all individuals controlling institutions funded by public money. Dismissing the revision petition, the Court declared:

“Public positions cannot be cloaked with private immunity when misfeasance results in the erosion of merit and promotes corruption. Where prima facie case exists, the rule of law mandates a full-fledged trial.”

Date of Decision: 7th July 2025