The Kerala High Court on August 18, 2026 directed that further trial proceedings in the 2019 rash driving case involving IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman be deferred for one month. The order was passed by Justice C.S. Dias in a petition filed by Jaseela C, the widow of journalist K.M. Basheer, who died after being allegedly knocked down by a vehicle driven by Venkitaraman at high speed in Thiruvananthapuram in August 2019. The immediate reason for postponing the proceedings was to enable the Kerala Government to formally appoint a Special Public Prosecutor who would conduct the prosecution in the case.
The case originates from the death of journalist K.M. Basheer at Museum Junction in Thiruvananthapuram in 2019. Basheer was allegedly hit by a vehicle being driven by Sriram Venkitaraman, who was then an IAS officer. The incident attracted considerable public attention because of the allegations surrounding the manner in which the vehicle was being driven and the subsequent investigation. The criminal proceedings arising from the incident have continued for several years and have involved multiple stages before the trial court and the Kerala High Court.
The latest proceedings before the High Court were initiated by Basheer's widow. She had challenged an order dated January 20, 2025 passed by the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, by which the case was transferred from the Additional District and Sessions Court-I to the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV. The petition originally sought to challenge this transfer. However, during the hearing on August 11, 2026, the petitioner's counsel informed the High Court that the petitioner would restrict the challenge to another relief sought in the petition.
The principal relief that remained before the High Court concerned the manner in which the prosecution should be conducted. The petitioner's side sought a direction to the State Government to ensure that the case was prosecuted by a senior prosecutor possessing appropriate experience, credentials and an impeccable professional record. The request was based on the petitioner's concern about the conduct of the prosecution in a case involving the death of a journalist and an accused who is a senior government officer.
The petitioner had also submitted representations before the Additional Chief Secretary and the Home Minister seeking appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor for the case. The request was therefore not merely for a change of counsel at the trial level, but for the State Government to formally designate a prosecutor with the specific responsibility of handling the criminal trial. The appointment was intended to ensure that the prosecution would be conducted by the prosecutor selected by the government for this particular case.
When the matter came before Justice C.S. Dias on August 18, the Public Prosecutor informed the High Court that the government had already taken an in-principle decision to appoint advocate A.I. Santhosh Kumar as the Special Public Prosecutor. However, the formal government notification appointing him had not yet been issued. Because the appointment had not been formally completed, the new prosecutor could not immediately take over the conduct of the trial. This administrative delay became the principal reason for the High Court's decision to temporarily defer the trial proceedings.
Taking note of the government's submission, the High Court confirmed the earlier transfer order concerning the trial. Therefore, the proceedings would continue before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, rather than being returned to the earlier court. At the same time, the High Court directed the transferee court to defer further proceedings in the case for one month. This was intended to create sufficient time for the government to complete the formal process of appointing the Special Public Prosecutor.
The High Court further directed that immediately after the government issues the formal notification appointing A.I. Santhosh Kumar, he should conduct the trial on behalf of the State as Special Public Prosecutor. Thus, the one-month deferment is not an indefinite stay of the criminal proceedings. Instead, it is a limited postponement designed to facilitate the appointment and ensure that the designated Special Public Prosecutor is able to take charge before the trial proceeds further.
The Court's approach is significant because it attempts to balance two competing considerations. On one side is the need for the criminal trial to proceed without unnecessary delay, particularly because the case dates back to 2019. On the other side is the petitioner's request that the prosecution be handled by a senior and specially appointed prosecutor. Rather than allowing the case to remain in prolonged uncertainty, the High Court fixed a limited period of one month for the appointment process while directing the trial court to defer proceedings only during that period.
The present order must also be understood in the context of the long procedural history of the case. Earlier proceedings had raised questions regarding the charges against Venkitaraman. In October 2022, the Additional District and Sessions Court in Thiruvananthapuram had dismissed culpable homicide charges framed against Venkitaraman and Wafa Firoz in connection with the death of Basheer. The State Government subsequently approached the Kerala High Court challenging that decision.
In November 2022, the Kerala High Court stayed the order that had dropped the culpable homicide charges against Venkitaraman. The High Court's intervention meant that the legal questions concerning the charges could continue to be examined at the higher judicial level. The proceedings also resulted in a further clarification in December 2022 that the trial proceedings themselves would remain stayed along with the earlier interim protection concerning the Sessions Court order.
The investigation and prosecution had also previously attracted judicial scrutiny. In August 2019, the Kerala High Court had criticised the police investigation into the incident, describing it as inadequate and pointing to significant omissions, including issues concerning the timing of breath and blood tests. At that stage, the High Court declined the State Government's request to cancel the bail granted to Venkitaraman, while expressing serious concerns regarding the quality of the investigation.
These earlier developments help explain why the manner in which the prosecution is conducted has become an important issue in the case. The latest petition filed by Basheer's widow specifically sought to ensure that the prosecution was entrusted to a senior prosecutor with appropriate credentials. The High Court's order now provides a mechanism for that request to be implemented, with the government having already indicated its decision to appoint A.I. Santhosh Kumar as Special Public Prosecutor.
The widow's petition also illustrates the role that victims and their families can play in criminal proceedings. The request was directed toward ensuring that the prosecution adequately represents the State's case and that the proceedings are conducted by an experienced prosecutor. Although the High Court did not immediately commence or accelerate the trial, it took note of the State's assurance regarding the Special Public Prosecutor and issued a specific direction to facilitate his appointment.
It is important to note that the latest High Court order does not determine Venkitaraman's guilt or innocence. The Court has neither convicted nor acquitted him through this proceeding. The order is primarily procedural and concerns the conduct and scheduling of the trial. The underlying criminal case remains pending before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, and the eventual merits of the prosecution case will have to be determined through the trial process.
The Court's confirmation of the transfer order is another important aspect of the decision. The petitioner had originally challenged the January 20, 2025 transfer of the case from Additional District and Sessions Court-I to Additional District and Sessions Court-IV. However, since the petitioner's counsel ultimately confined the challenge to the request concerning appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, the High Court confirmed the transfer rather than interfering with it. The trial will therefore remain before Additional Sessions Court-IV.
The one-month period granted by the High Court is intended to avoid further procedural uncertainty. If the government issues the appointment notification within this period, A.I. Santhosh Kumar will assume responsibility for conducting the prosecution. The trial can then resume under the supervision of the designated Special Public Prosecutor. The Court's direction therefore places a clear responsibility on the State Government to complete the formal appointment process rather than allowing the matter to remain pending indefinitely.
The decision is particularly relevant because the criminal proceedings have already been pending for several years. The incident occurred in 2019, while the latest High Court proceedings concern developments arising from a 2025 transfer order. The repeated litigation concerning charges, investigation, trial proceedings and prosecution arrangements demonstrates the complexity of the case. The latest order seeks to resolve one of those procedural issues by providing a specific mechanism for appointing a Special Public Prosecutor.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court has deferred the trial in the 2019 rash driving case involving IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman for one month to facilitate the formal appointment of advocate A.I. Santhosh Kumar as Special Public Prosecutor. Justice C.S. Dias confirmed the transfer of the case to Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, while directing that court to postpone further proceedings for one month. Once the government issues the appointment notification, the designated Special Public Prosecutor is expected to conduct the trial on behalf of the State. The order does not decide the underlying criminal allegations, but it represents an important procedural development in a case that has remained before the courts for several years.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.