M.K. Damodaran and Pinarayi Vijayan. File PhotoThiruvananthapuram: He was in the centre of a controversy for 41 days, and he himself put the row to rest.
Senior advocate M. K. Damodaran was instrumental in steering Pinarayi Vijayan clear of the SNC Lavalin case, paving the way for the latter to assume power as the chief minister.
The same advocate kicked up a row after he was appointed as the legal advisor to the chief minister. As the controversy raged, it was sure that Damodaran would relinquish the post, but the question of when lingered.
Damodaran’s decision to turn down the government offer did not drag on, especially when it was clear that CPI would protest the appointment in yesterday’s LDF meeting. Meanwhile, BJP state president Kummanam Rajasekharan joined the issue, filing a petition at the high court.
The initial plan was to appoint Damodaran, close to Vijayan and CPM state secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, as the advocate-general. The advocate, however, cited the large number of cases he has been handling to turn down the offer.
Considering the personal rapport he has with the party leadership, Damodaran was then appointed as the legal advisor. Though he was not keen on the post, Damodaran did not make any conditions since the chief minister himself had made the offer. And no one alerted the chief minister that Damodaran would be handling cases against the government as well.
The advocate, however, offered to relinquish the post once his accepting Santiago Martin’s case became a controversy. But Balakrishnan jumped into the defence of Damodaran, saying the case was not against the government.
Controversies, however, followed. Questions over the propriety of such an appointment were raised against the government. The issue went out of the government’s control when Damodaran appeared for quarry owners. A section of CPM leaders, too, opposed the appointment and CPI made no effort to hide its displeasure.
With the opposition against Damodaran as chief minister’s legal advisor gaining strength, the next effort was to settle the issue in such a manner that would be acceptable to the senior advocate.
The efforts culminated in the government informing the high court that he was not keen on accepting the post. Incidentally, V. S. Achuthanandan, considered to be a critic of Damodaran, maintained a stoic and conspicuous silence.
The issue, however, might find its echo in the party state committee meeting scheduled for August 5 and 6.
Though the Opposition UDF used the issue against the government, it failed in arriving at a consensus to move a privilege motion in the state Assembly.
The Muslim League was apparently against the move, which the Congress parliamentary party leaders have informed KPCC president V. M. Sudheeran, who questioned the failure in public.
Sudheeran, however, is not satisfied with the explanation, especially since he had taken a strong stand in the issue. He, however, told opposition leader Ramesh Chennithala that he had not taken a stand in public as reported by TV news channels. A UDF meeting slated for July 25 might discuss this issue also.
