Project Chintan

Kerala High Court orders ACS to explain delay on complaint against DGP S. Sreejith

The Kerala High Court summoned the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to justify delays in acting on a complaint against DGP S. Sreejith. The court had earlier set aside a prior finding that the complaint was false, and directed a joint hearing with the DGP, which did not occur as planned.

· 3 min read

Key takeaways

  • The Kerala High Court has required the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to explain why it did not act promptly on a complaint against the DGP.
  • The complaint was filed by Dipin Edavana, alleging the DGP attended a private entity's inaugural function abroad in official attire.
  • The court previously overruled a finding that the complaint was false and vexatious and ordered further consideration with a joint hearing.
  • Edavana declined to attend the scheduled joint hearing, citing fairness concerns, and the petition was closed on July 28.

What Happened

The Kerala High Court directed Minhaj Alam, the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), to personally appear before the court and explain why the state has not complied with its order to consider a complaint against DGP S. Sreejith. The complaint was filed by Dipin Edavana, an Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector from Malappuram, alleging that the DGP attended an inaugural function of a private entity abroad in his official attire.

The court had previously set aside an order by the then Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Biswanath Sinha, which had stated that the complaint was false and vexatious, and had directed that Edavana be given an opportunity to be heard. The court ordered a joint hearing involving Edavana and Sreejith to deliberate on the allegations as part of an inquiry into a related petition. Edavana declined to participate, arguing that it would be unfair to discuss his charges in the presence of the official concerned. The petition was closed on July 28, and when the State requested more time to comply with the order, Edavana argued that the three-week period had already elapsed and that any extension should have been sought earlier. The report was published August 18, 2026.

Why It Matters

The case centers on accountability within state leadership and the timely handling of complaints against a senior police official. A delay in responding to the court’s order raises questions about systemic compliance with judicial directions and could affect public trust in the police oversight process. The court’s demand for an explanation underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring due process in internal complaints against high-ranking officials.

Background

The dispute arose from a complaint filed by an assistant motor vehicle inspector alleging improper conduct by the DGP, linked to an official appearance at a foreign event. The Kerala High Court had previously set aside a lower-order finding that the complaint lacked merit and instructed the matter to be heard and examined further. A joint hearing involving the complainant and the DGP was ordered as part of the inquiry into a related petition. The complainant did not attend the scheduled hearing, citing fairness concerns.

Key Facts

  • Complainant: Dipin Edavana, Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector, Malappuram
  • Subject of complaint: DGP S. Sreejith
  • Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court
  • Judicial action: Court directed Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Minhaj Alam to appear in person and explain delay
  • Earlier order: The court had set aside a prior conclusion that the complaint was false and vexatious
  • Hearing directive: A joint hearing with S. Sreejith was instructed to consider the allegations
  • Status: Complainant declined to attend, citing unfairness to discuss in the presence of the official
  • Timeline: The petition was closed on July 28; the state sought more time to comply; the three-week period previously allotted had elapsed

What Happens Next

The court has mandated the appearance of the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to account for the delay in acting on the complaint. The outcome of this appearance could influence whether the matter proceeds to a formal hearing or further judicial directions are issued regarding the processing of the Edavana complaint and the DGP’s conduct.

Sources reviewed

Project Chintan independently synthesized and analyzed information cross-checked across the sources listed above.

Related stories