15 July 2025 |  New Delhi

 

In a development that signals judicial caution against misuse of public interest litigation, the Supreme Court of India on Monday dismissed a petition challenging the removal of former Kerala High Court judge, Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair, from a series of FIRs linked to the alleged CSR fund scam involving fraudulent disbursement of Corporate Social Responsibility allocations.

 

The two-judge bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta found no legal infirmity in the earlier Kerala High Court order that directed the exclusion of Justice Nair’s name from the police investigations. The Court also questioned the intentions behind the PIL, suggesting that the litigation may have been motivated by personal or professional bias.

 

 

The case revolves around a multi-crore scam allegedly perpetrated by a private organisation that promised CSR-linked aid, including low-cost laptops and scooters to NGOs and cooperative societies in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. Funds were collected under the guise of government partnership, with promises of subsidized goods under CSR schemes.

 

Justice C.N. Ramachandran Nair, a former judge of the Kerala High Court, was initially listed among the trustees of the NGO involved. However, during police investigation, and based on a report submitted by the Director General of Prosecution (DGP), no concrete evidence linking him directly to the fraud was found. Consequently, the Kerala High Court ordered his exclusion from all FIRs, noting that “mere honorary association” without proof of complicity cannot justify criminal proceedings.

 

 

The PIL was filed by an NGO named Joint Voluntary Action for Legal Alternatives (JVALA), challenging the Kerala HC’s February 2025 order and seeking to reinstate the judge’s name in the list of accused. The petitioner alleged that Justice Nair’s association, even if passive, required further investigation.

 

However, the Supreme Court was unconvinced.

 

“Are you here for justice, or is this petition a tool for vengeance?” asked Justice Mehta, directly questioning the motivations of the petitioner.

 

The bench observed that once the DGP had given a clean chit to the former judge and the High Court had found no prosecutable material against him, there was no justification to keep him named in a criminal proceeding.

 

The Court warned that PILs should not become instruments of character assassination, particularly against public figures like retired judges, without strong supporting evidence.

 

• No Place for Vindictive Litigation: The Supreme Court’s message is clear  PILs must be grounded in public interest, not personal agendas.

• Judicial Trust in Prosecution Findings: The decision reflects confidence in the prosecution’s professional assessment that Justice Nair’s link to the scam was purely titular.

• High Standard for Naming Former Judges in FIRs: The case reaffirms that mere association with an organisation is not sufficient to trigger criminal liability unless supported by evidence of wrongful intent or involvement.

 

This verdict marks a strong institutional response to attempts at dragging retired judges into litigation without robust grounds. It also reinforces the principle that criminal law must be evidence-driven, not reputation-driven.

 

Moreover, the decision preserves the integrity of the judiciary, which can suffer immense reputational harm even from unfounded allegations

especially when amplified through public interest litigation.