HC clears Chandy of sexual charges levelled by Saritha

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday expunged the Solar Commission's findings and observations against former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy based on a letter allegedly written by Saritha S. Nair, one of the accused in the Solar cases, levelling allegation of sexual exploitation against him.

Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar passed the verdict while partly allowing a writ petition filed by Mr. Chandy challenging the commission findings with respect to the allegations against him.

The court also ordered the government to review any action taken by it based on the commission’s findings, including the press note incorporating the contents of the letter.

The court, however, dismissed a petition filed by former Home Minister Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishn against the commission's findings against him. The finding of the commission against Mr. Radhakrishnanan was that he had made all efforts to ensure that Mr. Chandy was extricated from criminal liability through the police officers under him.

Mr. Chandy contended in his petition that the commission had erroneously relied on a 25-page letter allegedly written by Saritha, a prime accused in the solar cases, from the jail and made part of the report, without examining its authenticity and genuineness and indicting him and other former Ministers in the serious allegation of rape and molestation.

The commission’s observations had caused “serious injuries to his reputation and violated his right to privacy”. The commission had observed that the allegations revealed cognizable offences which should be investigated.

The other findings of the commission was that Mr. Chandy, the then Chief Minister, and through him his personal staff Tenny Joppan, Jikkumon Jacob, his gunman Salim Raj and his aide in Delhi had assisted Saritha to cheat their customers.

Expunging the commission’s observations, the court noted that the terms of the reference of the commission did not have any reference to the allegation regarding the sexual conduct of the petitioner or offering of sexual gratification in lieu of favours from the government.

The court also pointed that a fresh notice was not issued to the petitioner before making adverse observations against him based on the letter. What the commission did was sending of a copy of the letter to the petitioner. This action could not be seen as satisfactory compliance with the requirement under section 8B( hearing of the person affected) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, more so when the sexual content of the letter had no nexus with the terms of reference.