Kerala High Court.
Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu PIL to Probe Alleged Political Influence in IHRD Director’s Appointment: Kochi, India – The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 27) directed its Registry to register a suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to investigate whether Dr. V. A. Arun Kumar, the current Director of the Institute of Human Resource Development (IHRD), secured his position due to political connections. Dr. V. A. Arun Kumar is the son of former Chief Minister V. S. Achuthanandan.
The Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD) is an autonomous educational institution established by the Kerala Government in 1987, registered under The Travancore – Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act. It oversees 87 institutions, including various engineering colleges affiliated with the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
Justice D. K. Singh questioned Dr. Arun Kumar’s qualifications for the Director’s post, especially in light of allegations that he was initially appointed as a clerk within the institution and has no teaching experience. The Court noted that the position of Director of IHRD is equivalent to that of a Vice Chancellor of a University. Expressing surprise, the Court wondered how an individual with no teaching experience could be appointed as a Director when, according to UGC Regulations, a Vice Chancellor should possess a minimum of seven years of teaching experience.
The Court also expressed strong displeasure with the Institute’s Director-in-charge for not allowing the petitioner, Dr. Vinu Thomas (Dean of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University), to access relevant documents from an audit report. The Court stated:
“This attitude of the in-Charge Director for not even allowing the petitioner to take digital copy of the relevant pages of the Audit Report appears to be nothing but a vindictiveness of the Director who is said to be not qualified to hold the post inasmuch as he was appointed as a Clerk in the Institution and who has not taught a single day… This Court finds it strange that a ‘clerk’ got ‘promotion’ because of his political influence and now he is holding the charge of such a prestigious institution (IHRD) as Director. Whether the present Director-in-Charge is entitled to hold the post of Director of IHRD is to be looked into by the learned Division Bench which is dealing with the Public Interest Litigation.”
The Court further clarified that the suo motu registered PIL would specifically examine the qualifications of the present Director-in-Charge to hold the post and whether his continuation in the position is solely attributable to political connections.
The directive from the Court stated
“The Registry is therefore directed to register suo motu PIL in Dr. Vinu Thomas v Dr. V. A. Arun Kumar, the Director in Charge of IHRD and place the matter before the Division Bench for decision of the said issue whether the present Director in Charge of IHRD should be allowed to usurp the post of Director of IHRD because of his political influence as he is said to be the son of the erstwhile Chief Minister of the State.”
The Court observed that the Division Bench handling the Public Interest Litigation would determine whether the present Director-in-Charge is entitled to hold the post of Director of IHRD or if he has usurped the position.
It added: “Therefore, while directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to take the digital copy of the relevant pages, suo motu case is registered for examining the qualifications of the present Director-in-Charge of IHRD to hold the post Additional Director/Director in Charge of the IHRD.”
This order was issued while the Court was adjudicating a writ petition filed by Dr. Vinu Thomas, who serves as the Dean (Academic) and in-charge Dean (Research) of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University. IHRD had issued a charge memo against Dr. Vinu Thomas, alleging financial misappropriation during his tenure as the Principal (in-charge) of the Model Engineering College, Ernakulam. Dr. Vinu approached the High Court, asserting that he was denied access to digital copies of relevant pages relied upon in the Statement of Allegation, which he deemed necessary for preparing his defense.
The Institute defended its action by referencing a Division Bench judgment that had set aside a Single Judge’s decision directing the institute to provide Dr. Vinu with copies of the relevant documents. However, the petitioner contended that the Single Judge had merely stated that the petitioner was not entitled to demand the documents, but had not prohibited him from taking copies. The High Court ultimately allowed the petition, directing the institution to permit Dr. Thomas to take digital copies of the relevant documents.
The Court concluded by stating: “The conduct of the respondents not allowing the petitioner to take digital copy of the relied on documents which are relevant for preparing the defence of the petitioner is totally against the law and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Unless and until the incriminating material is put to the delinquent employee, it would not be possible for the delinquent employee to prepare his defence/response to the charges,” thereby disposing of the plea.
It is noteworthy that Dr. Vinu Thomas had previously approached the High Court to seek the removal of Dr. Arun Kumar from the post of Additional Director of the institution.
Case No: WP(C) 3291 of 2025
Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v State of Kerala and Others
Counsel for the Petitioners: Advocates Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha, Archana K. S., Mohammed Shafi K., Noel Elias
Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. M. Rajagopalan Nair
