Keralam Vigilance probe into CEC Gyanesh Kumar goes on, Chennithala says new petitions are coming in

The Vigilance inquiry into Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar is going on and gathering new complaints, Keralam’s Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala said in Thiruvananthapuram on Wednesday, November 11, 2026. The inquiry looks into an allegation from about 20 years ago, when Kumar was the state’s Public Works Department (PWD) Secretary.

“New developments are emerging and petitions are being filed,” Chennithala told a news agency. He said he would not step into the bureau’s work: “I will not interfere in the affairs of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau. Let the law take its own course and let the inquiry be conducted.”

What the inquiry is about

The allegation goes back to the rebuilding of the Main Central (MC) Road between Thiruvananthapuram and Angamaly under the Kerala State Transport Project. The work was carried out by PATI-BEL, a consortium of a Malaysian company and a Kerala firm.

V.O. Sajan, who supplied materials to the consortium, alleges that Kumar, then PWD Secretary, demanded ₹2 crore to clear pending bills. Sajan has said four bills worth about ₹14 crore were held up. His account is second-hand: he says Lee See Been, a senior manager of the consortium, and a PATI-BEL engineer told him about the demand.

Lee See Been died in Malaysia in November 2006. Reports at the time said he had left notes naming Kumar. Chennithala said in October that he had not seen any note himself and was relying on media reports. The Vigilance case of that time was closed with no irregularity found, and the family never made the notes public.

How the case reached this point

The fresh inquiry began with a complaint from Malayinkeezhu Venugopal, a Congress (KPCC) leader, in early October. On October 4, Chennithala said he had found merit in it and, after speaking to the Chief Minister, had directed the Vigilance Director to take lawful steps. “This is a case that was hushed up,” he said then.

Venugopal went back to the bureau on October 28, asking for an immediate probe and saying that people from the project were ready to give statements. On the evening of November 3 the state government granted sanction under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which requires the approval of the government before any inquiry into a public servant’s official decisions. “For that, a sanction is needed according to the PC Act 17A,” Chennithala said on November 4, adding that the legal opinion the government had taken allowed an inquiry once sanction was given.

On Monday, November 9, Vigilance officers recorded Sajan’s statement in the preliminary inquiry, according to one report. Sajan has also filed his own complaint with the Vigilance Director.

The question of the CEC’s protection

The Chief Election Commissioner holds a constitutional office and can be removed only in the manner of a Supreme Court judge. Chennithala’s position is that this protection does not reach back to 2006. “The investigation pertains to an incident from the time he served as the PWD Secretary of Kerala in 2006,” he said in October. “Therefore, he will not get the protection attached to the post of Chief Election Commissioner.”

No court has ruled on that question, and the sanction itself has not been made public.

What the other side says

No response from Gyanesh Kumar or the Election Commission to the inquiry has been reported. People connected to the project have been reported as saying they knew of no bribe demand and that the bills were held up by the finance department, not the PWD.

The inquiry comes at a time of open conflict between the opposition and the Election Commission over the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. The Congress, which leads the government in Keralam and to which Chennithala belongs, has been part of the opposition protests against the revision. Chennithala said the inquiry should go ahead independently.

Why it matters

The inquiry is into the man who now heads the body that runs India’s elections, and it is being run by a state government whose party is in open dispute with that body. Its outcome will also test how far the protection given to the office reaches back into an officer’s earlier career.

What happens next

The bureau is at the stage of a preliminary inquiry. Under the Vigilance Manual it will first decide whether there is enough to register a case. No date has been given for its report, and none of the people named has been charged.

This report will be updated when the Vigilance bureau, Gyanesh Kumar or the Election Commission says more.