Published Jul 19, 2026 | 7:00 AM ⚊ Updated Jul 19, 2026 | 7:00 AM
KSU objected to the appointment of a few advocates as pleaders, saying some had earlier been associated with rival outfits.
Kerala politics thrives on irony. But few episodes have matched the spectacle that unfolded this week.
The Congress’s student wing, the Kerala Students’ Union (KSU), found itself publicly brushed aside by a Congress Chief Minister, backed by senior Congress veterans, contradicted by leaders within its own organisation and, in the most unexpected twist, defended by the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) — its traditional ideological adversary and arch-rival.
The controversy began with what appeared to be a routine government decision: the appointment of 31 Senior Government Pleaders.
The KSU leadership objected to the inclusion of a few advocates, arguing that some had earlier been associated with the RSS, ABVP and the SFI.
For KSU activists, the issue was political rather than professional. They questioned why a Congress-led government was appointing lawyers who had once belonged to organisations they had fought against on campuses for years.
The government, however, viewed the matter differently.
Chief Minister VD Satheesan firmly defended the appointments, insisting they had been made on merit. In the process, he also questioned why the student organisation was involving itself in appointments made by the Law Department.
His remarks may have been intended to shut down the debate. Instead, they ensured that it dominated the political conversation.
Also Read: More than a storm in IUML’s teacup
The controversy quickly acquired a visual symbol at Sacred Heart College at Thevara in Kochi on 16 July.
After addressing a programme at his alma mater, Satheesan walked through the crowd greeting those around him. Standing nearby was KSU state president Aloshious Xavier, who had stepped forward hoping to meet the Chief Minister. The expected handshake never came.
Whether Satheesan genuinely failed to notice him or was simply rushing to another engagement became almost irrelevant. Videos circulated widely. Politics, after all, often runs on images rather than explanations.
KPCC president Sunny Joseph, also a minister in the Cabinet headed by Satheesan, later attributed the hurried exit to the Chief Minister’s scheduled online meeting with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But by then the narrative had escaped organisational control.
Xavier responded cautiously but refused to retreat.
He said he would continue voicing the concerns of KSU workers, arguing that those who had allegedly led attacks against KSU activists should not be rewarded with government positions.
“If the government thinks raising this issue is a mistake, I will repeat that mistake,” he declared.
The disagreement quickly moved beyond one student leader’s grievance.
Veteran Congress leader VM Sudheeran publicly praised Xavier during an Oommen Chandy remembrance programme on 18 July, urging him to continue expressing his convictions without fear.
Without naming Satheesan, Sudheeran’s remarks were widely interpreted as an endorsement of the KSU’s stand and an unmistakable message to the party leadership.
Home Minister Ramesh Chennithala adopted a more measured tone but still underlined that KSU workers had every right to voice their opinions. He suggested that Satheesan should take the initiative to meet them and resolve the issue, while simultaneously insisting that the Congress had no serious internal crisis.
Within the organisation, the divisions were becoming increasingly visible.
The Congress, it appeared, had entered the familiar phase where every faction claimed to be protecting the party while disagreeing with almost everyone else.
Meanwhile, AICC general secretary KC Venugopal stepped in with the predictable organisational prescription — stop washing dirty linen in public, resolve differences internally and avoid demoralising ordinary workers.
Then came the week’s most delicious irony.
The loudest expression of sympathy for Xavier did not come from another Congress leader. It came from the SFI.
State president M Sivaprasad criticised Satheesan for allegedly ignoring the KSU leader in public and refusing to lend his a listening ear. Maintaining political differences, Sivaprasad remarked, did not justify disrespecting the head of a student organisation.
Adding another layer to the drama, Idukki MP Dean Kuriakose publicly acknowledged that he had personally recommended Advocate Jeona James for appointment, one of the controversial appointments.
He defended the decision without hesitation, arguing that appointments were based on merit rather than past affiliations.
Kuriakose dismissed criticism over James’s earlier association with the SFI, noting that she had been active in the Congress-affiliated Indian Lawyers Congress since 2022. Judging individuals solely by their former political identities, he argued, ignored their present commitment.
The bottom line is that what began as a dispute over legal appointments has now become a window into the Congress’s internal contradictions.
A student wing demanding ideological consistency, senior leaders publicly contradicting one another, district-level workers taking opposing positions, the central leadership urging restraint, and political rivals gleefully watching from the sidelines have combined to produce an unusually revealing moment.
