Kerala High Court | PIL Against Appointment of Former Finance Minister T. M. Thomas Isaac as Advisor Dismissed | State’s Power Affirmed Under Article 162 and Rules of Business
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivered a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed in public interest that sought to invalidate a government order relating to the appointment of an advisor. The Court declared that the writ petition was “entirely misconceived” and directed its dismissal. The Bench further recorded that the State Government was within its powers to engage the services of the individual appointed as Advisor to the Vijnana Keralam Project and held that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any failure of public interest. The Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs only due to the assistance rendered by the Amicus Curiae.
The matter arose from a government order dated 12 December 2024, appointing an individual as Advisor to the Vijnana Keralam Project. The Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM) had been initiated to provide employment to educated job seekers in the State. In a meeting on 7 September 2024, it was decided to expand the activities of KKEM under the title “Vijnana Keralam.” For coordination, the Government appointed the fifth respondent as Advisor. The Advisor agreed to render services free of charge, except for reimbursement of expenses. The government order provided an allowance of ₹70,000 per month to cover travel and driver expenses.
The petitioner challenged the validity of the appointment, contending primarily that the order was issued by a non-existent department titled “Planning, Finance (Development and Innovation).” The petitioner argued that since such a department did not exist, the order was void. The petitioner further alleged that the order was signed by an ex officio Secretary without requisite authority. The petition was filed with minimal particulars, stating only that the petitioner was a public activist.
Upon enquiry, the petitioner submitted an affidavit stating he was a driver and RTI activist. The State contested his credentials, alleging a pattern of filing complaints and public interest litigations for pecuniary gain. Several past incidents and allegations of extortion were cited, including cases registered against him. The petitioner denied these allegations.
Given the doubts surrounding the petitioner’s bona fides, the Court appointed an Amicus Curiae, Ms. Anjali Menon, by order dated 20 March 2025. The Amicus examined the issues and submitted a detailed note. She contended that the appointment had been made under a non-existent department. The State, however, placed on record the Rules of Business and clarified that the relevant department was the Department of Planning and Economic Affairs, under which K-DISC (Kerala Development and Innovation Strategic Council) functioned. The English translation of the order contained a typographical error, but the underlying authority was valid. The Advocate General argued that the Government had plenary power under Article 162 of the Constitution to issue such orders.
The Court examined the Rules of Business and noted that the Planning and Economic Affairs Department was listed in the First Schedule, with functions covering integration of planning, manpower planning, research, and oversight of K-DISC. K-DISC, originally constituted in 2013, had been restructured in 2018 under this department. The Court accepted the State’s explanation that the English translation contained errors but the authority remained lawful.
The Amicus also raised the issue of the authority of the ex officio Secretary who signed the order. The Court held this argument was beyond the scope of the petition, since the signatory was not made a party and the pleadings did not include any challenge to their appointment. To settle the matter, the State filed a memo confirming that the order should be treated as one issued by the Government through the Special Secretary to the Planning and Economic Affairs Department.
The Court noted that the petition contained no allegations that the project itself lacked public interest or that the Advisor was unqualified. On the contrary, the fifth respondent held a Master’s degree and Doctorate in Economics, had served as Member of the Legislative Assembly from 2001 to 2021, as Finance Minister of Kerala, and as Member of the State Planning Board. He had also been associated with decentralised planning initiatives and authored books, one of which won the Kerala Sahitya Akademi Award. He had contributed to the Vijnana Pathanamthitta project, the precursor to Vijnana Keralam, which was successful.
The State clarified that his role was advisory and voluntary, with no administrative powers. The Court recorded that the Government had engaged an expert for a public project, with expenses reimbursed but no remuneration. The Court found that the petition was filed without proper research, unsupported by statutory references, and carried undertones of malice. The Bench stated that it was unfortunate that the respondent was compelled to file affidavits to prove his credentials.
The Court stated: “Before proceeding, the Courts have to carefully examine the credentials of the petitioner invoking the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) jurisdiction, since a public interest litigant occupies a position of trust, and the Court has to ensure that he is worthy of such trust.” The Bench recorded that the petitioner had only described himself as a public activist without further particulars.
The Court recorded: “The question is not whether the Petitioner is guilty of the alleged offences, but whether he is worthy of being treated as a public interest litigant. Having seen the material in totality, we have doubts about the bona fides of this Petitioner.” The Court nevertheless appointed an Amicus Curiae to independently assist.
In considering the main grounds, the Court noted the petitioner’s argument regarding the non-existent department. The judgment recorded: “The learned Advocate General placed before us the Rules of Business along with the correct English translation of Exhibit-P1 Government Order. It was submitted that the relevant department is the Department of Planning and Economic Affairs under which the K-DISC functions as a sub-department. In the English translation of Exhibit-P1 Government Order placed on record, the department is described as the ‘Planning Finance (Development and Innovation) Department’. This, according to the learned Advocate General, was due to a typographical error in the translation.”
The Court further stated: “We have examined the Rules of Business. Under the Rules of Business of the Government of Kerala, Section I of Part I deals with the allocation and disposal of business. Rule 4 under Section I provides that the business of the Government shall be transacted in the Departments specified in the First Schedule. The First Schedule under Rule 4 of Section I lists several Departments, and for the present case, the relevant Department is at Serial No. 32 – the Planning and Economic Affairs Department.”
On the issue of the ex officio Secretary, the Court observed: “This argument is entirely beyond the scope of the present Public Interest Litigation. The said Ex officio Secretary has not even been made a party to the writ petition.” The Court noted that the State had placed on record a clarificatory order, confirming the authority of the Government.
The Court also observed: “Apart from these legal issues, which are without merit, the primary question is what is the failure of public interest in this case. There is not even a whisper in the Petition that this Project is not in public interest or that Respondent No. 5 is not suitable or qualified to be an advisor.”
Regarding the Advisor’s role, the Court recorded: “Respondent No. 5 has volunteered his services and experience without remuneration, except for reimbursement of travel and out-of-pocket expenses.” The Court noted his extensive credentials and association with decentralised planning and research.
The judgment recorded: “Thus, the State Government has engaged the services of an expert in the field with experience, as an Advisor, who has agreed to work on a voluntary basis with only his expenses reimbursed for a project that is in the public interest. The State Government was well within its powers to engage an Advisor. The Petition is entirely misconceived.”
The Court concluded that the writ petition was filed without impleading necessary parties, lacked statutory support, and was motivated. It expressed appreciation for the Amicus Curiae and refrained from imposing costs.
The Court issued its final directives stating: “The Writ Petition is dismissed.” It further recorded: “It is only because of the efforts put in by the learned Amicus Curiae, which we appreciate, that we refrain from imposing exemplary costs on the Petitioner.” The Court directed that pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. The judgment thus concluded the matter, upholding the validity of the appointment of the Advisor to the Vijnana Keralam Project.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri. Akhil Suseendran, Advocate
For the Respondents: Advocate General Sri. K. Gopalakrishna Kurup, State Attorney Sri. N. Manoj Kumar, Special Government Pleader Sri. V. Manu, Sri. N. Reghuraj (Sr.), Sri. Vivek Menon, Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup, Sri. Rance R., Sri. S.M.
Rajeevan
Amicus Curiae: Ms. Anjali Menon
Case Title: Navas A. v. State of Kerala & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:64427
Case Number: WP(C) 45335/2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar; Justice Basant Balaji
