Thiruvananthapuram: In an unusual move, the Lok Ayukta on Monday issued a clarification over its harsh remarks against the complainant in the case pertaining to the misappropriation of Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF).  

The Lok Ayukta clarified that it had not called the complainant 'a rabid dog'.

"We remarked that no one will stick a rod into a rabid dog's mouth, if  they spot one on the streets. It was misinterpreted by the media," the press release said.

On Tuesday, while hearing a review petition, the Lok Ayukta had chided petitioner RS Sasikumar, accusing him of defaming the body by demanding the transfer of the CMDRF case to a full bench. The bench pointed out that the complainant did not have confidence in the bench but still approached it with the review petition.
The ombudsman also pointed out an alleged statement of the complainant that the Chief Minister had influenced it and asked what prompted him to make such an allegation.

It was widely reported in the media that the Lok Ayukta compared the petitioner’s remark as that of a “rabid dog".

It is quite unusual for the anti-graft ombudsman to issue a press release for clarifying its observations.

On participation in CM's iftar

The press note also offers an explanation for the participation of the judges in the iftar organised by the Chief Minister.

"Judges can't make orders according to any party's wish," the press note stated. 

"We attended the Chief Minister's iftar, not Pinarayi Vijayan's. The Chief Minister and the Lok Ayukta did not engage in a private conversation. It is ridiculous to think that by attending the feast, the verdict will favor the government," the note said while arguing that attending the banquet does not violate any code of conduct.

Petitioner's response

Meanwhile, petitioner Sasikumar said that the Lok Ayukta is trying to cover up its lapse. 

The Lok Ayukta, on March 31, had issued a split verdict on the alleged CMDRF misuse case and referred the matter to a larger bench. When the review petition in the matter came up for hearing, the bench said the complainant was tarnishing the reputation of the members. 

Both the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta made strong statements against the complainant in the open court.

The matter was referred to a larger bench as there was a difference of opinion on whether the decisions of the State Cabinet could be subjected to its investigation, and also whether it could examine the merits of the case.