Published May 02, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated May 02, 2026 | 7:00 AM
A demonstration in support of the survivor. (File Photo)
Synopsis: A Kerala High Court lawyer has opposed the registration of the Avalkoppam (With Her) Legal Support Trust, set up to support the survivor in the 2017 actor assault case, saying it could undermine the judicial process even as the state’s appeal is already under way. Opinion in the legal community is divided, with some calling the trust—which aims to fund the survivor’s legal fight following the controversial verdict by a sessions court in December 2025—unnecessary, while others say such support is lawful and beneficial to the survivor.
Days after a collective of activists, lawyers and public figures announced the formation of the Avalkoppam (With Her) Legal Support Trust to coordinate sustained legal and financial support for the survivor of the 2017 actor assault case and pursue remedies in higher courts, a Kerala High Court lawyer and public activist, Adv Kulathur Jaisingh, has filed a complaint with the Registration Inspector General against granting it recognition.
Announced on 27 April, the trust plans to file a writ petition before the Kerala High Court focusing on alleged lapses in the handling of digital evidence during the trial.
In his complaint, Jaisingh contends that creating a trust to rally people against a court verdict undermines the judicial process. He points out that the government has already filed an appeal against the trial court’s acquittal of actor Dileep, and the High Court has admitted it.
Given this, he argues, there is no immediate need for the victim to bear additional legal expenses or for parallel public campaigns.
The complaint further alleges that the trust could become a platform for spreading misconceptions about the trial court’s proceedings and the judge’s verdict.
He says such efforts risk eroding public confidence in the judiciary by presenting a skewed narrative.
Jaisingh has urged authorities to examine the intent behind the proposed trust and to prevent any initiative that could trigger unnecessary confusion or unrest.
Activist K Ajitha of Anweshi, one of those leading the initiative, told South First that the trust and the survivor are aligned on its purpose and direction. She added that all registration formalities are complete.
The trust, she said, was born out of urgency after the trial and its outcome.
In its verdict on 8 December 2025, the Ernakulam Sessions Court convicted those directly involved. It acquitted several others, including actor Dileep, who were accused of conspiracy, citing lack of evidence. The survivor has decided to challenge the verdict in the High Court. The prosecution has already filed its appeal.
“The survivor should not have to fight this battle alone,” Ajitha said. “There are heavy financial and legal burdens involved. Public support matters.”
The trust has begun mobilising support. To collect contributions, it has opened a bank account at the Nellikode branch of Union Bank of India in Kozhikode and started a fund drive using a QR code.
Responding to claims that the initiative could be misused for financial gain, Ajitha said funds will be used strictly for the case, and income and expenditure details will be made public.
“This is not just about one survivor. Justice in this case matters to society as a whole,” she said, urging citizens to contribute.
For the next phase of the legal battle, the survivor will be represented by senior Supreme Court advocate Vrinda Grover, along with advocates Bhadrakumari and J Sandhya.
Ajitha said the legal team will function collectively. The trust’s role, she said, will not be limited to a single case.
It plans to identify and support survivors in other sexual assault cases, based on defined criteria and committee scrutiny. This case remains its starting point.
“This is about standing with someone who chose to fight,” she said.
Also Read: Inside Dileep’s acquittal: What the trial court found missing in the prosecution’s case
Some see the initiative as unnecessary, given that the state is already pursuing legal remedies on the survivor’s behalf.
“What’s the need to form such a trust?” a public prosecutor, who did not want to be named, told South First. He said the survivor already has the option to file a victim appeal independently and that the initiative risks sending the wrong message.
“The very intention behind forming this may be questionable,” he said.
Former Director General of Prosecution T Asaf Ali also told South First that reforms under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) have strengthened safeguards for survivors.
Courts and the state are obligated to protect the survivor’s interests, even when the survivor does not pursue an appeal.
He said a change in government would not dilute that responsibility. “To form a trust for prosecuting a victim appeal is unheard of. It is unnecessary,” he said, calling the idea “meaningless.”
Others in the legal community say there is nothing improper about setting up a trust to support a survivor, even as the state continues its prosecution.
Under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, a trust can be created for any lawful purpose, as long as it does not violate existing laws or public policy.
A prosecutor said aiding a survivor’s recovery through financial support, medical care or psychological assistance falls within lawful and socially beneficial aims.
He added that the focus on victim welfare, strengthened after the 2012 Nirbhaya case, has deepened in recent years. There are procedural requirements.
If the trust collects public donations, it must be registered, comply with tax provisions and follow transparency norms. Trustees are bound by fiduciary duties, including responsible handling of funds and maintaining clear accounts.
Legal experts stress that such a trust does not interfere with the judicial process. Criminal proceedings remain between the state and the accused.
Support for the survivor, they said, does not amount to influencing witnesses or obstructing justice. It runs alongside the system, not in place of it.
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
