Kerala High Court pauses trial in IAS officer rash driving

So Weber • October 1, 2026 • 2 min read

The Kerala High Court has paused the trial against IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman in the 2019 rash driving case, after the victim’s widow challenged the state

Kerala High Court pauses trial in IAS officer rash driving - ias officer rash driving — Venkitaraman faces charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, including rash and negligent driving and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The Kerala High Court has paused the criminal trial against IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman in the 2019 rash driving case. The court stayed the further proceedings on Thursday in response to a plea filed by the victim’s widow, Jaseela C, challenging the state government’s decision not to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) for the trial.

Background of the incident and trial

The case involves allegations that Venkitaraman drove recklessly while under the influence of alcohol and struck a motorcycle driven by journalist KM Basheer, resulting in Basheer’s death. Venkitaraman faces charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Motor Vehicles Act, including rash and negligent driving and driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs.

The trial began on August 1 this year, seven years after Basheer’s death. It was initially held before the Additional District and Sessions Court-I in Thiruvananthapuram before being transferred to the Additional Sessions Court-IV. This transfer followed concerns raised by Venkitaraman’s lawyer, senior counsel B Raman Pillai, about difficulties accessing the earlier courtroom on the first floor.

Jaseela C had initially challenged this transfer before the High Court but later withdrew that objection. She continued to seek the appointment of an SPP to represent the prosecution. The State in August assured the Court that it would appoint advocate A Santosh Kumar as the SPP. Justice CS Dias, by an order dated August 18, had deferred the trial proceedings until the notification appointing the SPP was issued. The Court also granted one month’s time to the State to issue the notification.

However, the government subsequently decided not to proceed with the appointment of the SPP. This decision was communicated through a government order dated September 17, a day before the one-month period set by the court was to expire.