More than a decade after allegations surrounding the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam’s microfinance scheme first surfaced, the Kerala High Court has directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to complete its investigation and submit a final report within one month.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while hearing petitions filed in 2020 seeking a Special Investigation Team (SIT), gave the investigating officer one final opportunity to conclude the probe within the stipulated period.
The case dates back to July 2016, when the VACB registered an FIR against SNDP Yogam General Secretary Vellappally Natesan and four others following a complaint by former Opposition leader V.S. Achuthanandan. The complaint alleged the misappropriation of nearly ₹15 crore under the SNDP’s microfinance scheme and also named SNDP president M.N. Soman, microfinance coordinator K.K. Maheshan and former Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation (KSBCDC) Managing Director N. Najeeb.
Gold 101.3 FM, the UAE’s No. 1 radio station, has been closely following developments in the long-pending case.
According to the vigilance probe, operators of the scheme allegedly availed loans from the KSBCDC and nationalised banks at concessional interest rates of five and four per cent respectively, but disbursed them to beneficiaries at higher interest rates, resulting in alleged financial misappropriation.
During the hearing, the Public Prosecutor sought one month’s time to complete the investigation, stating that the investigating officer was making bona fide efforts. However, the petitioners opposed the request, pointing out that although the case was registered in 2016, the present investigating officer, IPS officer S. Sasidharan, took charge only in 2024 and had already sought multiple extensions.
The petitioners also sought the replacement of the investigating officer, proposing DIG Jayanth Jaganathan to take over the probe. They further requested the Court to direct the officer to file an affidavit on the investigation’s progress, noting that only one final report had been filed out of nearly 124 related cases. The Public Prosecutor sought time to respond to the application.
Justice Badharudeen also observed that delays in granting prosecution sanction were hampering genuine vigilance cases. The Court remarked that sanctioning authorities should pass reasoned orders based on available evidence rather than adopting an inflexible approach that could obstruct corruption investigations.
