Kerala High Court Rejects Congress Leaders’ Plea Against Safe Kerala AI Camera Project | Allegations of Corruption and Nepotism Held Unsubstantiated
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the implementation of the Safe Kerala Project, a fully automated traffic enforcement system involving artificial intelligence (AI) cameras. The court held that the petitioners had failed to substantiate allegations of mala fides, corruption, and procedural irregularities, and concluded that there was no prima facie case warranting judicial intervention or a court-monitored investigation. The final judicial action was the dismissal of the petition, with the court declaring that the allegations did not meet the threshold for invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petition was filed by two elected members of the Kerala Legislative Assembly seeking reliefs including quashing of government orders sanctioning the Safe Kerala Project, a declaration that the seventh respondent was unqualified to participate in the tender process, and a court-monitored inquiry into the project’s implementation. The petitioners alleged that the contract awarded for the procurement and installation of AI cameras was marred by corruption, lacked transparency, and was structured in a manner detrimental to public interest.
The petitioners contended that the project, originally proposed as a Build, Own, Operate, Transfer (BOOT) model, was manipulated to restrict competition and inflate costs. They claimed that although a capital expenditure model would have cost approximately ₹79 crores, the BOOT model escalated the expenditure to around ₹150 crores. They further alleged that the Finance Department had objected to the 6th respondent acting as Project Management Consultant, citing a government order disqualifying it from that role. The petitioners argued that only four companies participated in the tender process, with three qualifying technically, and alleged that the seventh respondent lacked the required expertise. Additionally, they contended that subcontracting conditions were violated, as core activities had been outsourced in contravention of the tender provisions.
The petitioners raised concerns regarding inflated costs, outdated technology, and violations of privacy rights under the Constitution, arguing that personal data such as driving licenses were vulnerable in the hands of private entities. They alleged that the project was structured to benefit entities associated with the ruling political party, describing it as a scheme to defraud the public.
Counter-affidavits were filed by various respondents. The Advocate General, representing the State, defended the project as a crucial road safety initiative implemented in compliance with the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety’s recommendations. The Advocate General stated that the tender process was conducted transparently and in accordance with procurement rules. It was further argued that the petition was politically motivated, filed after an unexplained delay, and lacked substantive evidence of corruption or mala fides. The State pointed out that the petitioners, as legislators, had not raised objections when the project was sanctioned and only approached the court after its implementation.
The 6th respondent (Kerala State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd.) submitted that it had acted in compliance with government directives, and the project’s financial models were evaluated before the BOOT model was adopted. The 7th respondent, who was awarded the contract, asserted that it satisfied all eligibility criteria and followed due procedures in forming consortiums and subcontracting arrangements, with full knowledge and approval of the 6th respondent. Other respondents, including companies initially part of the consortium, also filed affidavits either clarifying their role or withdrawing from the project.
The petitioners relied on various exhibits, including government orders, service agreements, tender documents, technical evaluation reports, financial evaluation reports, and communications among respondents. The respondents presented documents such as project proposals, committee meeting minutes, government orders granting sanction, letters of intent, subcontracting agreements, and verification reports of installations.
The petitioners sought the quashing of key government orders (Exhibits P3 and P27), invalidation of agreements between respondents, and a declaration that the seventh respondent was unqualified. They further sought a direction for a court-monitored inquiry into the project.
The Bench recorded that allegations in the writ petition were general and unsupported by credible evidence. It observed: “For this court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in a contractual matter, it must be satisfied that the allegations are supported to a reasonable extent. It is a well-established principle that judicial review, especially under its extraordinary jurisdiction, does not act as an appellate authority over administrative or contractual decisions.”
The court stated that allegations of mala fides, nepotism, and corruption cannot be entertained without specific and substantiated pleadings: “Vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the court to conduct an inquiry into their veracity.”
On the question of delay, the Bench recorded that the petition was filed three years after the administrative sanction was granted and only after the project was implemented: “The delay in approaching the court with this PIL is considered fatal to their case.” It observed that petitioners, as legislators, had the opportunity to raise concerns earlier but failed to do so.
The court addressed the claim that the tender notification did not disclose the BOOT model, stating: “Clause 11 of the same notification explicitly states that payment would be in 20 quarterly installments. This clearly indicates that any potential bidder was made aware of the BOOT model and the payment structure.”
On subcontracting allegations, the Bench observed that the seventh respondent had consistently informed the sixth respondent of changes in consortium partners and subcontracting arrangements: “This sequence of events demonstrates that the 7th Respondent consistently kept the 6th Respondent informed about each stage of subcontracting, contradicting the Petitioners’ claims of a violation of the tender conditions.”
Addressing privacy concerns, the court stated: “All information is securely stored on a server located in the State control room, which is under the exclusive control of the MV Department... there is no possibility of data being transferred to private servers.”
On mala fides, the Bench noted: “Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances... Vague and general allegations unsupported by the requisite particulars do not provide a sound basis for the court to conduct an inquiry.”
The court also noted the inclusion of private companies as respondents without specific allegations or prayers against them, observing that this raised suspicion as to the nature of the petition.
The Bench relied on several precedents, including Secretary, Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services v. Sahngoo Ram Arya, State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, and Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, noting that the extraordinary jurisdiction of directing a CBI inquiry can only be exercised when prima facie evidence of wrongdoing is established.
The court concluded: “Based on the discussions above, it is our considered view that this Public Interest Litigation Petition lacks substantive merit and does not meet the established legal threshold for judicial intervention in the State’s contractual matters. As such, we are not inclined to order a court-monitored enquiry into the allegations that the Petitioners have raised. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri. George Poonthottam (Senior Counsel), Smt. Nisha George, Sri. Arun Chandran, Sri. J. Vishnu, Sri. A.L. Navaneeth Krishnan, Shri. Sidharth R. Wariyar
For the Respondents: Advocate General Shri. Gopalakrishna Kurup, Shri. N. Manoj Kumar (State Attorney), Smt. M.A. Zohra, Shri. Shyam Padman (Senior Counsel), Shri. P. Binod, Shri. P. Sreekumar (Senior Counsel), Shri. Aditya Unnikrishnan, Sri. Mansoor Ali, Shri. Rajeesh V.R., Shri. C.M. Andrews, Smt. Boby M. Sekhar, Smt. Laya Mary Joseph, Shri. Harish Abraham, Smt. Nichu Willington, Smt. Ashwathi Shyam, Shri. Muhammed Suhail P.A., Smt. Helen P.A., Smt. Stephanie Sharon, Shri. Athul Roy, Sri. P.S. Murali, Smt. Haritha Harinath, Shri. V. Manu (Senior Government Pleader), Smt. Saritha K.S., Smt. Binisha Baby, Shri. Aravind Rajagopalan Menon.
Case Title: V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Another v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:64935
Case Number: WP(C) No. 19992 of 2023
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Basant Balaji
