Here's a breakdown of the recent court decision involving M.R. Ajith Kumar and the State of Kerala. The case is about allegations of corruption against a high-ranking police officer.
M.R. Ajith Kumar, a senior police officer in Kerala, was accused of getting a lot of wealth through corrupt means. The case was brought to the court in Thiruvananthapuram by Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj, who said he was acting for the public good.
The complaint claimed that Ajith Kumar, during his time in office from 1994 to 2024, gathered wealth far beyond what he could have earned legally. This included properties near the fancy Kowdiar Palace in Thiruvananthapuram. The complaint also linked him to gold smuggling and other illegal activities.
"Ajith Kumar got lots of wealth during that time, bought land for Rs. 7 Crores..."
The case was heard by Judge A. Badharudeen on November 21, 2025. The court had to decide whether the complaint could move forward without permission under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
For Ajith Kumar: His lawyer said the complaint should be dismissed because it didn't have the necessary permission. They mentioned past decisions saying a court can't move against a public worker without this permission.
For Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj: Lawyer M.P. Shameem Ahamed argued that the complaint should continue, pointing out that the Special Judge hadn't officially started the case yet, so permission wasn't needed at this point.
The court canceled the order by the Special Judge to continue with the complaint, because there was no permission. The judge also removed comments made against the Chief Minister, who had accepted earlier reports clearing Ajith Kumar.
"The challenged order...doesn't count legally and should be canceled."
The court has allowed Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj to ask for permission from the right authority and refile the complaint if needed. Meanwhile, the results of previous investigations remain unchallenged in court.
The court decided not to move forward with the complaint against Ajith Kumar due to the lack of required permission. However, it left the option open for the complainant to seek permission and try again.
