In a dramatic turn of events, the Kerala High Court’s Division Bench has halted the single-judge’s critical observation against former Director General of Police (DGP) Siby Mathews, who was accused of disclosing sensitive information about the Sooryanelli rape survivor in his book, Nirbhayam. The legal twist came to light on June 21, granting Mathews temporary reprieve.
The controversy ignited on June 6 when a single judge highlighted that, despite not naming the survivor, Mathews’ book included enough details to unmask her identity. This led to the recommendation of potential criminal charges under Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, which safeguards the anonymity of rape victims.
The single judge didn’t stop there—he instructed the police to follow Supreme Court directives and register a First Information Report (FIR) based on Lalitha Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. precedent.
However, Mathews wasn’t ready to surrender to this judgment. He appealed, prompting the Division Bench to step in. Chief Justice AJ Desai and Justice VG Arun observed that the single judge’s comments would effectively force the police to act against Mathews, thereby staying the single-judge’s observation.
In their words: “The observations made by the learned Single Judge recording that there is a prima facie case, in our opinion, is required to be stayed, since there would be no alternative for the investigating agency to proceed further, in accordance with law, in connection with the FIR registered in this case. Hence, till the next date of hearing, there would be a stay.”
The case traces back to a petition by KK Joshwa, a former police officer and one-time investigator in the Sooryanelli rape case. Displeased with the police’s initial dismissal of his complaints about Mathews’ book, Joshwa moved to the High Court in 2019, leading to the single-judge’s directive for an FIR.
Mathews argued against the single-judge ruling, claiming neither the survivor nor her parents objected to the book, and Joshwa, lacking personal grievance, had no grounds to challenge it. Mathews further insinuated a vendetta, pointing out Joshwa’s role in the original investigation.
With the FIR already registered post-single-judge ruling, the Division Bench’s stay doesn’t quash it but leaves Mathews room to challenge it legally. The case will see its next court date on August 12, keeping the legal and public eyes on the unfolding judicial saga.
