The Crime Branch inquiry into the allegations, launched two weeks ago, seems increasingly at risk of stalling because none of the survivors have filed formal complaints. Their refusal to take legal steps, survivors say, is not out of fear but out of disillusionment with a judicial system they believe will drag on endlessly and threaten their futures.
Published Sep 15, 2025 | 8:00 AM ⚊ Updated Sep 15, 2025 | 8:00 AM
Palakkad MLA and former Youth Congress president Rahul Mamkootathil
Synopsis: Weeks after numerous women alleged sexual misconduct against Palakkad MLA and former Youth Congress President Rahul Mamkootathil, none have come forward to register formal complaints. A Crime Branch inquiry, launched two weeks ago, has yet to record any survivor statements, leaving the investigation at a standstill despite nearly a dozen third-party complaints. Experts say that without formal survivor testimony, the case cannot progress, reflecting a pattern seen earlier in the Hema Committee cases.
“My intention was only to alert society that our elected representative carries a troubling nature and dangerous sexual frustration. I raised my voice in every possible space, even before the leading media. But I chose not to file a formal complaint because I am preparing to migrate abroad, and I cannot let endless case delays destroy my future,” said Avanthika, a transgender woman, speaking to South First.
She is among the numerous women who have accused Palakkad MLA and former Youth Congress president Rahul Mamkootathil of sexual misconduct.
Since the allegations first came to light, Mamkootathil’s fall from grace was swift: he was asked to step down as Youth Congress president and suspended from the Congress primary membership.
Yet he still remains an MLA, while a Crime Branch inquiry into the allegations, launched two weeks ago, seems increasingly at risk of stalling because none of the survivors have filed formal complaints.
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) has yet to record any survivor statements. One survivor has asked for time to undergo therapy before deciding, while others, like Avanthika, are battling waves of online harassment and cyberbullying for speaking out.
Their refusal to take legal steps, survivors say, is not out of fear but out of disillusionment with a judicial system they believe will drag on endlessly and threaten their futures.
“The Crime Branch officials called me and asked if I was willing to give a statement. I told them no, not because I am afraid, but because many other survivors have already handed over their proofs and testimonies against the MLA,” Avanthika said.
Her voice trembled, yet she gathered herself to complete her words:
“No complaint does not mean no crime. Why should I sacrifice my tomorrow by getting entangled in this? I am not scared of anyone, but I will not step into a formal complaint process.”
So far, nearly a dozen third-party complaints have been received, but without direct testimony, the investigation is staring at a legal dead end.
Advocate Fathima Sulfath of the Kerala High Court told South First that in cases of sexual harassment, the process hinges on the survivor’s own account.
“It is ultimately the survivor who must narrate her ordeal. Unless she comes forward with a complaint, the investigation team will not be in a position to file a chargesheet. Even a Section 164 statement before a magistrate does not by itself qualify as admissible evidence in court,” she explained.
She referenced the Supreme Court’s landmark Lalita Kumari judgment, which makes it mandatory for police to register a First Information Report (FIR) under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code whenever information points to a cognisable offence.
The ruling aimed to prevent police from delaying or refusing FIR registration, ensuring that criminal investigations begin promptly.
Although the 2023 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNSS) introduced timelines for preliminary inquiries, the principle established in the Lalita Kumari case—that FIRs must be registered for cognisable offences—remains intact.
However, an FIR alone does not imply guilt. For the case to progress meaningfully, the survivor must still formally present her account. Survivors can file complaints even years after the alleged incident, though they must provide a reason for the delay.
“In such offences, the state is technically the complainant, but the system cannot move forward unless the actual survivor takes formal steps. Without her complaint, justice cannot be ensured,” she added.
Advocate N Lal Kumar of the Kerala High Court explained how the process unfolds:
“For a case to proceed, a formal complaint is essential. The police will register an FIR, followed by a chargesheet submitted to the court. The court then frames charges. At that stage, there must be an accused—and equally important, a survivor,” he said.
“The survivor needs to testify in court, stating that the accused committed rape, molestation, or other illegal acts. Without such testimony, the court cannot bridge the evidentiary gaps; otherwise, the survivor is essentially fighting in a vacuum,” he added.
The hurdles faced during the Mamkootathil case mirror patterns seen in other high-profile investigations.
“This is something we have seen in several of the Hema Committee-related cases as well. Many survivors share their experiences before the committee or even with the media, but when the investigation team approaches them, they hesitate to file a formal complaint,” a member of the SIT told South First.
The SIT member explained that officers have actively reached out to survivors, encouraging them to submit formal complaints. “Since none came forward, we proceeded with registering the case on the instructions of DGP Ravada Chandrasekhar.”
The case has been registered under Sections 78 (stalking) and 351 (criminal intimidation) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, along with Section 120(O) of the Kerala Police Act, which covers causing nuisance through repeated or undesirable calls, letters, writings, or messages.
While acknowledging the delicate nature of the situation, the SIT member said they cannot put undue pressure on survivors but will continue to seek legal advice and encourage formal complaints.
In the meantime, the Crime Branch is preparing to seek legal guidance regarding an actress’s statement against the MLA. She had provided investigators with screenshots of messages allegedly sent by Mamkootathil, firmly standing by her claims. However, she made it clear that she was not interested in pursuing formal legal action. Similarly, two other women who have raised allegations against him have also declined to initiate proceedings.
With no direct complaints from survivors, the Crime Branch is exploring the legal options available to move the case forward.
For survivors, taking that legal step is not simple. Another survivor, who wished to remain unnamed, described a pervasive fear and sense of powerlessness.
“It’s all about power. Once the sensation fades, no one will stand with us. Harassment, rape… it’s about control. The first place I should feel safe is my own state. But if I speak out, I will face a media trial. My career, my future, my family—everything will struggle. My morals will be questioned. The trauma I carry will never leave me,” she told South First.
“I don’t trust men anymore. I am the only one responsible for healing this wound,” she added, underscoring the personal burden many bear when navigating justice.
She stressed that ultimately, survivors will have to stand on their own against societal scrutiny that can be overwhelming.
“It’s easy for people to debate in a newsroom, easy to turn my allegation into a political weapon. But it’s not easy to stand with me, to say I was right. So why should I destroy my life in a year-long legal battle?”
Survivors face additional hurdles due to social pressures and online harassment.
“This is a major problem. Survivors often face severe cyberattacks and verbal abuse, which discourages them from filing formal complaints. Society unfairly labels them as immoral, but every person deserves justice,” Advocate Kumar said.
“These attacks, both online and offline, make it extremely difficult for survivors to come forward. The fundamental challenge for the SIT is that the case cannot move without the victim’s presence and testimony. Only when she speaks can the police, the system, and the court take action.”
The aforementioned SIT member stressed the role of public perception on the survivors’ decisions, noting:
“The media also has a role here. Survivors have private lives, and they fear social judgment. The media should approach such cases with greater sensitivity.”
(Edited by Dese Gowda)
