Judge unduly favoured Dileep, made derogatory remarks against survivor at trial: Adv Mini in petition to Kerala Chief Justice

Advocate T B Mini, the survivor's counsel in the case related to the abduction and rape of a famous Malayalam actor, has made damning accusations against the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court Judge Honey M Varghese in her petition to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court.

Mini submitted the petition seeking contempt of court proceedings against Honey Varghese after the trial court judge had made derisive remarks against Mini saying that she would doze off in the court and was lax in handling the actress assault case.

Mini, who termed these comments false, contemptuous and defamatory, alleged in her petition (accessed by Onmanorama) that Honey Varghese unduly favoured Dileep, the actor and producer who was the 8th accused in the case.

In her verdict pronounced in December 2025, Honey Varghese had acquitted Dileep and three other accused in the case and sentenced six convicts to imprisonment. The verdict sparked a huge uproar but Mini had refrained from making any public remarks against the Judge and had said that the verdict was disappointing. Mini has now levelled serious accusations against the Judge when the High Court is set to begin hearing on the bail pleas submitted by the six convicts on February 4.

The petition further cites that from the very initial stage of the trial, Honey Varghese made derogatory comments against the survivor and behaved discourteously towards the prosecution, which eventually resulted in the resignation of the two Special Public Prosecutors. According to Mini, the undue favour shown by Honey Varghese to Dileep resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice and a disgrace to the judicial system.

She stated in the petition that it was the regular practice of Honey Varghese to make derogatory comments about the survivor and about the prosecution witnesses. There were many occasions, when the Special Public Prosecutor had to remind the Judge that such conduct was against the directions of the Supreme Court.

Mini also cast doubts on the nature of inquiry by Honey Varghese into the illegal access of the memory card containing visuals of sexual assault. The memory card, a crucial piece of evidence, which was kept in the custody of the Sessions court, was illegally accessed and unlawfully tampered with, resulting in the change of the hash value. The examination at the State Forensic Science Lab revealed that the card was accessed on January 9, 2018, December 13, 2018, and July 19, 2021, when it was kept in the safe custody of different courts.

Mini cited in the petition that the memory card was illegally accessed in July 2021 for about half-an-hour when it was in the custody of the court presided over by Honey Varghese. When the survivor moved the High Court citing breach of privacy, the HC directed Honey Varghese to conduct an inquiry. Mini alleged that the judge conducted a perfunctory inquiry violating the directions of the High Court.

Mini has requested legal action against Honey Varghese, noting that if a lawyer is defamed in open court with false allegations, the Judge is liable to be proceeded against by the High Court. She has said in the petition that though she has a very limited role in the trial as the survivor's lawyer, she regularly attended the trial since November 2022.