Kerala High Court Acquits All Police Officers in 20-Year-Old Udayakumar Custodial Death Case, Citing Lack of Proof - 2025-09-01

Kerala High Court Overturns Convictions in 20-Year-Old Udayakumar Custodial Death Case, Citing Failure of Proof

KOCHI, KERALA – In a landmark judgment concluding a two-decade-long legal battle, the Kerala High Court has acquitted all police officers previously convicted in the sensational 2005 Udayakumar custodial death case. The decision, which overturns a trial court's verdict, marks a pivotal moment in one of the state's most high-profile cases of alleged police brutality. This development was the highlight of a week that also saw the court deliver significant rulings on the controversial 'Safe Kerala' AI camera project, the state's power to order further investigation, and the interpretation of bail provisions under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the verdict in State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 530), holding that the prosecution had fundamentally failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused officers were responsible for Udayakumar's death in custody. The ruling brings a dramatic close to a case that has remained in the public consciousness for 20 years, raising profound questions about evidence, accountability, and the standards of proof in custodial violence cases.

Court Dismisses Challenge to AI Traffic Cameras, Upholds 'Safe Kerala' Project

In another significant ruling with wide-ranging implications, a Division Bench led by Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed a writ petition filed by Congress leaders, including Leader of the Opposition V.D. Satheeshan, challenging the installation of AI-enabled traffic cameras under the 'Safe Kerala' project. The petitioners had sought a court-monitored enquiry, alleging corruption and procedural impropriety.

However, the court found no merit in these allegations. In its judgment for V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Others v State of Kerala and Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 524), the Bench stated, "Having thoroughly reviewed the claims in writ petition, the counter affidavit and the legal arguments from both counsels, we are compelled to conclude that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence from which this Court could reasonably infer the existence of malafides, illegality, corruption or procedural impropriety in the contract for the AI camera installation under the Safe Kerala Project."

The court also specifically addressed and ruled out privacy concerns, noting that the images captured are encrypted, transmitted only to government-controlled servers, and processed through secure national applications, thereby finding no violation of citizens' privacy rights in the interest of public safety.

Scrutiny on State Power and Sanction for Prosecution

The court also delivered critical judgments concerning the executive's powers of investigation and prosecution. In a major setback for the state government, a Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian set aside a 2021 government order that had sanctioned a further investigation into a disproportionate assets case against retired DGP Tomin J. Thachankary.

The order in Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 529) was scathing in its assessment of the state's actions, noting the probe was ordered four years after the final report was filed, based on information provided by an accused. The Bench declared the government's action was "clearly vitiated by legal mala fides," questioning the very source of the power exercised by the state.

Similarly, in Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520), the court set aside the government's refusal to grant sanction to the CBI for prosecuting former officials of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) in a corruption case. Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath directed the state to reconsider the CBI's request within three months, reinforcing the principle that the decision to grant or refuse sanction must be based on a proper application of mind.

Key Developments in Criminal and Procedural Law

The past week witnessed several other crucial rulings impacting criminal jurisprudence and court procedure:

• Bail under New BNSS: In Vishnu v. State of Kerala (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536), Justice V.G. Arun clarified a key provision of the new criminal code, holding that there is no prohibition on a committal court considering bail applications under the second proviso to Section 232 of the BNSS. The court reasoned that interpreting the proviso as a bar would "deprive the accused of his right to seek bail" until the case is formally committed to the Sessions Court.

• PILs and Litigant Credentials: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar's bench continued its strict stance on the misuse of public interest litigation. In Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523), the court imposed a fine of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant for suppressing personal interest in the matter, emphasizing that full credentials must be disclosed at the threshold to prevent the abuse of the court's jurisdiction.

• Election Bribery Case: The court paved the way for the state to prefer an appeal against the discharge of BJP leader K. Surendran in the Manjeswaram election bribery case. In State of Kerala v. K. Surendran (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 528), Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the state to withdraw its revision petition, noting that under the SC/ST Act, the appropriate remedy against a discharge order is an appeal, not a revision.

• Citizenship and Renunciation: A Division Bench in Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano and Ors. (2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 525) held that Indian citizenship cannot be granted to a foreign national without a formal Renunciation Certificate from their country of origin. The court ruled that the mere surrender of a passport (in this case, Pakistani) is insufficient to meet the statutory requirement, setting aside a single judge's contrary order.

The judgments from the final week of August underscore the Kerala High Court's active role in shaping legal discourse across a spectrum of issues, from high-stakes criminal acquittals and administrative accountability to the nuanced interpretation of new laws and the safeguarding of procedural integrity.