Kerala High Court stays suo motu case against son of ex-CM VS Achuthanandan

The Kerala High Court on Thursday stayed the operation of a single judge's order to register a suo motu case against Dr. VA Arun Kumar, son of former Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan. [Dr VA Arun Kumar v Dr Vinu Thomas].The suo motu case was ordered to examine allegations of political influence in Kumar's appointment as Director-in-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD).A Division bench of Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S stayed the single-judge's order after noting that Kumar was not heard before the decision was made. .The Division Bench passed its order on an appeal moved by Kumar challenging the June 27 order passed by single-judge Justice DK Singh directing the registration of a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) to examine whether Kumar's appointment as Director-in-Charge of IHRD was a result of political influence.Justice Singh passed the order while considering a petition filed by the Dean of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, Dr. Vinu Thomas, challenging the denial of access to audit documents related to a charge memo issued against him by the IHRD.During arguments, Thomas's counsel made allegations about Kumar's lack of qualifications and political influence, prompting Justice Singh to take suo motu cognizance of the issue. "This Court finds it strange that a ‘clerk’ got ‘promotion’ because of his political influence and now he is holding the charge of such a prestigious institution (IHRD) as Director," Justice Singh said in the order. .Kumar then filed the appeal before the Division Bench stating that he holds an MCA, a Bachelor's in Law, and a PhD, and had been appointed as Assistant Director (Software) in 1997..He claimed that his promotions to Principal, Joint Director, and finally Additional Director were made as per the special service rules applicable to IHRD."The finding of the learned single-judge that the appellant got promotion from Clerk to Director-in-Charge on account of political influence is without any factual basis," the appeal stated. Kumar also contended that the observations made by the single-judge were unnecessary for the disposal of the original writ petition, which was concerned only with Thomas's access to audit documents..Appearing for Kumar before the Division Bench, Senior Advocate N Raghuraj argued that Kumar had not been made a party to the original petition nor was he given an opportunity to be heard. Raghuraj objected to the the single-judge making such scathing remarks, that too based solely on oral submissions. .The Division Bench observed that the single-judge's order violated principles of natural justice by condemning Kumar unheard. It, therefore, deemed it fit to order an interim stay on its operation. .Kumar was also represented by advocates Vivek Menon and Rance R.