The Kerala High Court has disposed of a petition seeking a vigilance inquiry into the appointment of two bodybuilders, Chitharesh Natesan and Shinu Chovva, as Armed Police Inspectors in the Kerala Police. Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order on October 16, 2026, in a criminal writ petition filed by advocate K.M. Shajahan, who alleged irregularities in the appointments and sought an investigation by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
The Court noted that the government had refused prior approval for an inquiry under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Since the petitioner had not amended the plea to challenge that government order, the Court disposed of the petition while leaving the petitioner or any other aggrieved person free to challenge the order in accordance with law.
Background
The dispute arose from the Kerala Government’s decision to appoint the two bodybuilders as Armed Police Inspectors by creating two additional posts, with their appointments to be regularised against future vacancies.
According to the petitioner, the appointments raised questions about compliance with recruitment rules and physical eligibility requirements. The petition alleged that Chitharesh Natesan did not attend the prescribed physical efficiency test, while Shinu Chovva participated but qualified in only four out of eight events.
The government, in its submissions, explained that the appointments followed a Cabinet decision recognising the candidates’ achievements in international bodybuilding competitions. It also stated that their training had subsequently been stopped while the matter was being reconsidered.
During the proceedings, the High Court directed the government to consider prior approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, as amended in 2018. The government subsequently rejected the request through G.O. (Rt.) No. 170/2026/VIG dated August 8, 2026.
The petitioner argued that a preliminary vigilance inquiry could still be ordered and relied on earlier judicial decisions concerning the applicability of Section 17A. The State opposed the plea, submitting that alleged violations of recruitment rules would not, by themselves, establish a corruption offence.
The judgment also referred to the legal principle that dishonest intention is necessary to attract criminal misconduct provisions in the circumstances discussed before the Court.
In its concluding paragraph, the High Court recorded the position regarding the government order and the absence of a specific challenge to its legality:
"As of now, as per G.O.(Rt).No.170/2026/VIG dated 08.08.2026, the prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act was denied by the competent authority. However, no relief sought for to set aside the same by amending this writ petition."
The Court then disposed of the writ petition, leaving the petitioner or any other person aggrieved by the government order at liberty to challenge its legality in accordance with law.
