Published Oct 02, 2026 | 8:00 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 02, 2026 | 8:00 PM
The deceased journalist, KM Basheer (Left), and the accused IAS officer, Sriram Venkitaraman.
Synopsis: A Saifuddin Haji, ‘Siraj’ director and state vice-president of Kerala Muslim Jamaat, told a news conference that the Chief Minister intervened to overturn the Home Department’s move to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, despite the government having informed the Kerala High Court that it had decided in principle to appoint A Santhosh Kumar to conduct the case.
The management of Siraj, a Malayalam daily, has levelled serious allegations against the state government, claiming that the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary intervened to block the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor in the KM Basheer death case.
A Saifuddin Haji, Siraj director and state vice-president of Kerala Muslim Jamaat, told a news conference that the Chief Minister intervened to overturn the Home Department’s move to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor, despite the government having informed the Kerala High Court that it had decided in principle to appoint A Santhosh Kumar to conduct the case.
The allegation comes amid a fresh intervention by the High Court.
On Thursday, 1 October, the court directed the Public Prosecutor to place before it the file that culminated in the Home Department’s 17 September order rejecting the request to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor.
The court also stayed further proceedings in S.C. No. 595/2021 before the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram, until 27 October, when the case will be considered again.
Basheer, the Thiruvananthapuram unit chief of Siraj, was killed after a speeding car hit him in Thiruvananthapuram in August 2019.
IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman is the prime accused in the case.
Basheer’s wife, C Jaseela, had sought the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor, citing concerns over the conduct and progress of the trial.
Also Read: Kerala IAS officer to stand trial nearly 7 years after journalist’s death
The government had subsequently informed the High Court that it had decided in principle to appoint advocate Santhosh Kumar.
The court then stayed the trial proceedings pending issuance of the formal appointment order.
However, in an order dated 17 September signed by Home Secretary Minhaj Alam, the Home Department rejected the representations submitted by Jaseela.
The order stated that the request for a Special Public Prosecutor was essentially aimed at expediting the trial, but the representations did not attribute the delay to any act of omission or commission by the present Public Prosecutor.
It also said that no specific shortcoming, weakness, incompetence or inefficiency had been pointed out and that there was no report or other material indicating any lack of performance by the present prosecutor.
The order further noted that, although the Public Prosecutor had submitted before the High Court that the government had, in principle, decided to appoint Santhosh Kumar as Special Public Prosecutor, the government had not issued any decision or instruction authorising the appointment.
Saifuddin Haji alleged that the Chief Minister and Chief Secretary had intervened because the prime accused was an IAS officer and that the Home Minister was unable to act independently. He alleged that the government’s position was helping efforts to delay the trial, even seven years after Basheer’s death.
He also claimed that the Chief Secretary had recalled the file from the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) and recorded a dissenting view, which eventually led to the rejection of the request.
The Siraj management maintained that appointing a Special Public Prosecutor at the request of a victim or the victim’s family was normal procedure.
Saifuddin Haji said the Muslim Jamaat would consider further action if the government did not reconsider its position. He also said Basheer’s widow and children were prepared to launch a protest.
(Edited by Majnu Babu).
