New Delhi: Former vigilance director Jacob Thomas on Saturday moved the Supreme Court seeking protection against contempt proceedings initiated against him by the Kerala High Court for making allegations against two High Court judges in a letter to the Central Vigilance Commissioner (CVC).

The suspended IPS officer has clarified in his petition that his complaint to the CVC was “clearly against the prosecutors and the investigators who have misled the judicial system in arriving at a certain conclusion in high profile corruption cases involving politicians and ministers of the state.”

In his petition, filed through advocate Haris Beeran, Mr. Thomas said he did not intend to “cast any allegations or aspersions against the Hon’ble Judges and that what he clearly intends by the said complaint is an enquiry into the way the high-profile corruption cases have been handled by the investigators and conducted by the prosecution.”

Mr. Thomas had said in his complaint that several high-profile cases “derailed or were closed or negligently proceeded” as a result of the deficient representation by the prosecutors and investigators before the High Court judges Justice P. Ubaid and Justice Abraham Mathew during 2017 and 2018. This may be enquired thoroughly for possible conspiracy, abuse of power and obstruction of justice, his complaint had said.

“The High Court, without reading the complaint as a whole, had picked up random sentences and entered a finding that the petitioner has prima facie committed contempt,” his petition stated.

On March 20, the Kerala High Court initiated the contempt proceedings on a petition filed by lawyer B.H. Mansoor after it found that he made allegations which constituted criminal contempt as defined by the Contempt of Courts Act.

Observing that it was necessary to take further action on the petition, the court issued notice to Mr. Thomas and directed him to appear in person before the court on April 2.

According to the petition by Mr. Mansoor before the high court, portions of the complaint were leaked and made public by Mr. Thomas “intentionally and dishonestly” to scandalise and lower the authority of the court. It further alleged that being a senior public servant, he was well aware that the CVC had no authority to probe any of the allegations contained in the complaint. Despite all these, he had chosen to send the complaint containing derogatory and false statements to the CVC.

However, Mr. Thomas has claimed that he acted as a whistle blower in the case and sought protection from the contempt proceedings initiated against him.