Kerala HC rejects former Congress leader's police protection plea against CM Satheesan

Kochi: The Kerala High Court has dismissed a plea by former AICC member and former Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) member Simmy Rosebell John seeking police protection for her life and property from Chief Minister V D Satheesan, his brother V D Ajayakumar and their associates, holding that there was no material to substantiate her apprehension of a threat.

A single bench chaired by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, considering her writ petition, said John had failed to produce any tangible evidence linking Satheesan or Ajayakumar to the incidents she cited as the basis for seeking police protection.

The plea followed a bitter political fallout between John and the Congress leadership in 2024. John had publicly accused senior party functionaries of operating an exclusionary “power group” within the Ernakulam unit and alleged that women leaders were being systematically marginalised and subjected to favouritism. Satheesan, who is from Ernakulam, was the Opposition Leader then. She claimed that patronage from powerful leaders was necessary for career advancement within the party.

John had also spoken about what she described as a “casting couch” culture in the Congress organisation, drawing a parallel with allegations of exploitation in the film industry. She alleged that some women party workers had to secure the patronage of powerful leaders to advance politically and said women who resisted such practices were sidelined. She had said women had shared their experiences with her, while clarifying that she had not personally faced such exploitation.

The KPCC rejected her allegations, describing them as defamatory to women party workers, and subsequently expelled her from the party’s primary membership.

Following her expulsion, John approached the High Court alleging that she faced an imminent threat to her life from Satheesan, Ajayakumar and their associates.

She cited an alleged physical assault on her son in Delhi, which she claimed had been orchestrated at the behest of Satheesan. She also referred to an alleged assault on her associate Athul Thomas. She submitted the FIR registered at Aluva East Police Station, photographs of his injuries and related Supreme Court proceedings.

However, a statement submitted before the High Court by the Inspector of Police, Ernakulam Town South Police Station, did not support her apprehension.

The police inquiry found no serious instance indicating an existing threat to John. It concluded that the assault on Thomas arose from an unrelated family dispute rather than political retaliation.

The police also reported that there were “no verifiable records regarding any alleged attack on petitioner's son at Delhi”. During the verification, John had declined to disclose specific details of the alleged incident, following which the police concluded that special court-directed protection was not warranted.

‘No materials’ linking Satheesan to alleged attacks
The High Court noted that despite the serious allegations against the political leaders, John had not produced material establishing a connection between the alleged incidents and Satheesan or Ajayakumar.

On the alleged attack on her son, the court observed, “Petitioner alleges that she is facing threats from respondents 4 (Ajayakumar) and 5 (Satheesan). However, no materials have been produced or placed on record to indicate an instance of any such threats. One of the instances of threat alleged is that of an attack made against her son. However, concededly, such an attack was at Delhi, and neither has any crime been registered, nor is there any material to show that any complaint was filed at the instance of petitioner's son.”

The court said that even if an attack had occurred, there was no material connecting it to Satheesan or Ajayakumar.

“Even otherwise, merely because some attack was made against the petitioner's son at Delhi, in the absence of any material to connect the said attack to respondents 4 and 5, it is not proper for this Court to direct grant of police protection against any acts of respondents 4 and 5.”

The court also took note of the political circumstances surrounding the dispute.

“In this context, it needs to be mentioned that the 5th respondent was, at the time of filing the writ petition, the Leader of Opposition in the State Assembly and is presently the Chief Minister of Kerala. The petitioner was a former All India Congress Committee Member and a former PSC Member and subsequently expelled, allegedly at the instance of the 5th respondent. It is an indication that there could be a personal grudge against the 5th respondent," the court observed in the order.

Finding no material indicating a threat from the respondents and taking into account the police inquiry, the court declined to order protection.

“In the absence of any material to indicate any threat from the part of respondents 4 and 5, and in the light of the enquiry conducted by the police, this Court is of the view that grant of police protection is not proper. Accordingly, I find no merit in this writ petition, and it is dismissed.”