Kerala HC Orders Sealed-Cover Production of Appointment Files, Cites Risk of Record Tampering
Justice A. Badharudeen directed the Principal Secretary, Home Department, to produce appointment files in a sealed cover after counsel warned of likely record manipulation pending the next hearing.
The Kerala High Court, on 29 June 2025, passed an interim direction in Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala & Others requiring the Principal Secretary to the Home Department to place the complete files relating to two sets of appointments before the court in a sealed cover. Justice A. Badharudeen, sitting singly, acted on a specific submission by the petitioner's counsel that the appointments reflected in Exhibits P1 and P2 were made in gross violation of norms and the law settled by the Supreme Court, and that the filing of the writ petition itself created a real risk that the underlying records could be destroyed or manipulated. The matter is listed for further steps on 3 July 2026.
The Dispute Before the Court
The petitioner, Adv. K.M. Shajahan, filed WP(Crl.) No. 968 of 2026 challenging appointments evidenced by Exhibits P1 and P2. The petition also references Exhibits P8 and P9, on which the Public Prosecutor sought time to obtain instructions and a report on steps already taken in response to those documents.
The petitioner was represented by Sri V. Sethunath, Shri Thomas Abraham, and Shri Sreeganesh U. The State was represented by the learned Public Prosecutor, who appeared before the court and sought an adjournment to gather instructions on the allegations and to report on action taken regarding Exhibits P8 and P9.
The Legal Issue: Norm Violations and Record Integrity
The central legal contention raised at this stage was that the appointments documented in Exhibits P1 and P2 were made in gross violation of the norms and the settled law laid down by the Supreme Court. Counsel did not elaborate on the specific appointments on the record available at this hearing, but pressed the court for immediate protective relief.
The specific concern was that once the respondents became aware of the writ petition, there was a likelihood of the records pertaining to those appointments being destroyed or manipulated. This apprehension formed the basis for the interim direction sought.
How the Court Reasoned
Justice Badharudeen accepted the petitioner's submission on the risk of record tampering as sufficient ground to act at this interim stage. Rather than waiting for the Public Prosecutor to return with instructions, the court directed the production of the entire files leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 in a sealed cover. The sealed-cover mechanism ensures that the records are preserved in their current state and are available for the court's verification at the next hearing, without being accessible to the parties in the meantime.
The direction is addressed specifically to the ninth respondent — the Principal Secretary to the Home Department — making the obligation to produce the files a personal one on that officer.
Order
Justice A. Badharudeen directed the ninth respondent, the Principal Secretary to the Home Department, to produce the entire files leading to Exhibits P1 and P2 in a sealed cover before the Kerala High Court for verification and further steps. The matter is posted for 3 July 2026.