Kerala High Court orders probe into litigant who challenged appointment of Thomas Isaac as KKEM advisor

The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State government to probe the credentials of a litigant named Navas A, who had filed a public interest litigation (PIL) plea challenging the appointment of former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac as an advisor to the Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM) [Navas A v State of Kerala & ors]..The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S Manu asked the State counsel to review the additional affidavit filed by the litigant (petitioner) and submit a report.The Bench remarked that the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner merely stated that he is a driver and an RTI activist, without offering further details about his education, employment, or qualifications."The least that is expected is that the PIL litigant must understand what is written in the petition and the intricacies thereon," the Bench remarked.The Court also questioned the basis on which the petitioner challenged the government's actions. It orally remarked that such public interest litigations should not be entertained."It is time to prevent the filing of such public interest litigations," the Court said yesterday while directing the government to conduct a thorough inquiry on the identity of the petitioner..The petitioner, Navas A, has questioned Dr Thomas Isaac's appointment as an advisor to the KKEM, which operates under the 'Vijnana Keralam' initiative. Navas has urged the Court to set aside the government order appointing Isaac as an advisor, terming it arbitrary and illegal.According to the petition, the Kerala Development and Innovation Strategic Council (K-DISC) under which KKEM operates is a registered charitable society, designed to enhance employment opportunities and promote socio-economic development in Kerala.The petitioner alleged that the government issued a notification appointing Isaac as an advisor of KKEM under a non-existent department, namely the 'Planning and Economic Affairs (Development and Innovation) Department.'He submitted that only the 'Planning and Economic Affairs Department' exists, not the one mentioned in the government order dated December 12, 2024.Additionally, the petitioner claimed that Isaac's appointment involved improper financial allocations, including the allocation of ₹70,000 per month for fuel charges and driver expenses. He has argued that such a misuse of public funds constituted nepotism and favoritism."It is a clear example of nepotism and favouritism. More than Lakh rupees are spent every month for an advisor for a post under an imaginary department and project. It is a great loss for the Government exchequer," stated the plea.The petitioner added that the decision to appoint Isaac as an advisor was made without necessary consultation with the Finance Department, which is mandatory when public funds are involved..The plea was filed through Advocate Akhil Suseendran.