Major setback for Oppn as Kerala HC dismisses PIL against Safe Kerala Project

The Congress-led opposition in Kerala suffered a major political jolt on Wednesday (August 27) when the Kerala High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation alleging massive corruption in the state government’s flagship ‘Safe Kerala Project’.

The court’s dismissal, seen as a decisive victory for the ruling LDF, not only undercuts the opposition’s long-standing corruption narrative but also reinforces the government’s claim that the project is both transparent and beneficial.

Petitioners failed to establish claims: HC

The petition, filed by the Leader of Opposition VD Satheeshan and former Leader of Opposition Ramesh Chennithala, sought a court-monitored inquiry into the project, which aims to install Artificial Intelligence (AI) cameras across the state to enhance traffic enforcement. A division bench, presided over by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, concluded that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claims with concrete evidence, leading to the rejection of their plea.

Also read: Kerala: Ruling LDF, UDF exchange barbs over installation of AI cameras

The Safe Kerala Project was initiated by the state government as a critical measure to combat Kerala's persistently high rate of road accidents, which currently ranks fifth nationally. The initiative involves the establishment of an advanced automated traffic enforcement system, integrating AI camera systems, radar-based speed enforcement mechanisms, and a network of central and district control rooms, along with comprehensive facility management services.

The petitioners' central demand was to quash the administrative sanctions for the project, declare the primary contractor SRIT India Pvt. Ltd. unqualified, and mandate a judicial investigation into the project's implementation.

What petitioners alleged?

The petitioners had levelled serious allegations, contending that the contract, involving substantial public funds, was "fundamentally flawed due to its procurement process." They alleged that established public procurement procedures were manipulated, leading to private enrichment and considerable financial losses for the state. Concerns were raised about the secretive nature of the contractual arrangement, with claims that objections from the Finance Department were overlooked.

Also read: Video of V Muraleedharan with influencer Jyoti Malhotra leaves Kerala BJP red-faced

A significant cost disparity was highlighted, with an initial CAPEX model estimated at ₹79 crore escalating to ₹150 crore under the Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT) model, and a total project cost by state-owned KELTRON of ₹235.82 crore, which the petitioners believed was inflated from a real cost of only ₹75 crore.

Further allegations included KELTRON's ‘ineligibility’ to act as a project management consultant, a purported deliberate restriction of competition through the project's BOOT structure, and claims that SRIT India Pvt. Ltd. was unqualified and had violated subcontracting clauses by "leasing over its entire role" for a commission.

Project meticulously planned: Govt tells court

The project was even characterised as a "giant pyramid scheme" designed to defraud the public, purportedly using outdated cameras priced at four times their market value. Fundamental right to privacy violations were also asserted, suggesting confidential personal data could be vulnerable to private entities. Finally, the petitioners alleged that two entities gained access to the project through "back doors" and were "closely associated with the ruling political party," urging the court to "lift the veil" to uncover their involvement.

Also read: Kerala: Bharat Mata image sparks ideological clash, worsens governor-govt feud

However, the state's advocate general firmly refuted these assertions, maintaining that the Safe Kerala Project was a meticulously planned initiative for public safety, executed with strict adherence to all relevant laws and procurement guidelines, ensuring fairness and transparency. The advocate general also highlighted the absence of any audit report or official query from a competent authority – a stark contrast to a similar dismissed PIL concerning the KFON project.

Court’s stand against ‘fishing, roving’ inquiry

In its detailed judgment, the high court thoroughly examined the claims and counter-affidavits. The court found that the petitioners' claims of mala fides, nepotism, illegality, corruption, or procedural impropriety were merely "bald statements rather than specific, substantiated allegations."

The judiciary's role in contractual matters, the court emphasised, is limited to reviewing the decision-making process for arbitrariness or unlawfulness, not to substitute its own commercial or technical judgment for that of the executive.

Also read: Confident of LDF's third term in Kerala; efforts on for Left parties' unity: CPM chief Baby

The court concluded that initiating a broad judicial probe without a prima facie demonstration of wrongdoing, supported by concrete evidence, would amount to an "unwarranted 'fishing and roving inquiry'," which is not the purpose of a public interest litigation.

Furthermore, the court deemed the "delay in approaching the court with this PIL as fatal to their case." It raised suspicion regarding the inclusion of several private companies as respondents without specific prayers against them, noting that some of these companies even filed counter-affidavits that partially supported the petitioners despite having no final role in the project. Allegations of cartel formation or direct links between companies and the government were found unsubstantiated.

‘Bald statement not sufficient’, says court

The court reiterated the "heavy burden" on those alleging mala fides, requiring "proof of high degree of credibility" based on admitted or satisfactorily established facts, stating that "mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient."

Justice Basant Balaji, delivering the judgment, articulated the court's definitive stance:

"Having thoroughly reviewed the claims in the petition, the counter-affidavits, and the detailed arguments from both counsels, we are compelled to conclude that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence from which this court could reasonably infer the existence of mala fides, illegality, corruption, or procedural impropriety in the contract for the AI camera installation under the Safe Kerala Project. The allegations, despite their serious nature, remain unsubstantiated by factual pleadings that would justify invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a court-monitored inquiry."

Also read: Kerala govt faces backlash for hosting travel vlogger arrested for alleged spying