In a dramatic twist, the Kerala High Court has slammed the brakes on a judicial inquiry that threatened to put Dr. VA Arun Kumar, son of veteran leader and former Chief Minister VS Achuthanandan, under the political microscope.
A Division Bench led by Justices Anil K Narendran and Muralee Krishna S stepped in with a stay order, temporarily blocking a single judge’s directive that had called for a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) into Kumar’s appointment as Director-in-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development (IHRD). The reason? Kumar wasn’t even in the courtroom when the match began.
The original spark came not from a petition against Kumar but from a completely different legal scuffle. Dr. Vinu Thomas, Dean at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, had knocked on the court’s door seeking access to audit records in a disciplinary case against him. But mid-hearing, the conversation veered off-course—Thomas’s counsel dropped heavy hints about Kumar’s qualifications and alleged political hand-holding, claiming the ex-CM’s son had glided from ‘clerk’ to ‘Director’ on the wings of influence.
That was all it took. Justice DK Singh, visibly unimpressed, decided to take suo motu action, musing aloud in his order how a mere clerk could have climbed the ladder to lead a state-level academic institution without some invisible help.
Kumar, blindsided and uninvited to the courtroom fireworks, swiftly approached the Division Bench, armed with a dossier of qualifications: MCA, LLB, PhD—and a job history dating back to 1997 as Assistant Director (Software). He contended that every promotion—Principal, Joint Director, Additional Director—was above board and by the book.
His appeal didn’t stop at credentials. He attacked the very foundation of the suo motu case, stating that the original plea had nothing to do with his appointment and that the single judge’s biting remarks were based on hearsay, not evidence. Worse, he argued, the comments violated natural justice—he was condemned without ever being heard.
Represented by a legal team including Senior Advocate N Raghuraj, Kumar’s side pressed hard against what they called judicial overreach.
The Division Bench agreed—at least for now. Calling out the procedural lapse, the judges ruled that the single-judge order had overstepped, especially since Kumar hadn’t even been a party to the original case. With that, they froze the order in place, pending further review.
As for the truth behind Kumar’s career trajectory—politics or merit—the courtroom curtain remains drawn, at least for the moment.
