State Opposes Ex-DGP’s Appeal in Disproportionate Assets Case
The Kerala State government has firmly contested an appeal by former Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin Thachankery, who is challenging his conviction and a four-year imprisonment sentence in a disproportionate assets case. The appeal is currently under consideration by the Kerala High Court, titled Tomin J Thachakary v. State of Kerala.
Court Proceedings and State’s Objections
Justice A Badharudeen presided over the hearing, directing the State to present its counterarguments by September 24. During the session, the State expressed its intent to submit written objections against Thachankery’s plea to suspend his sentence while the appeal remains unresolved. Thachankery’s legal team opposed this move, arguing that it is unconventional for the prosecution to file such objections when the sentence is under ten years.
Justice Badharudeen noted the lack of an absolute right for the State to file written objections in cases with sentences below ten years. Nevertheless, the State contended that Thachankery’s case, given his high-ranking position and the nature of the allegations, warranted a robust opposition.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint by Bobby Kuruvila, an anti-corruption activist, who alleged that Thachankery amassed assets disproportionate to his known income during his tenure. A vigilance probe confirmed that Thachankery accumulated assets exceeding ₹64 lakh from 2003 to 2007, which were disproportionate to his declared income.
Thachankery was convicted and sentenced by the Kottayam Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), KV Rajaneesh, last week. The trial court identified disproportionate income amounting to approximately ₹30 lakh, exceeding 50% of his known earnings during the period. The court also imposed a fine of ₹30.84 lakh, equivalent to the identified disproportionate assets.
Appeal Arguments
In his appeal, Thachankery argues that the trial court’s verdict is flawed and asserts that the sanction order from the government, based on a supplementary investigation report, was issued without due consideration. He claims that the earlier sanction order, subsequently withdrawn, indicated a lower figure of disproportionate assets at around ₹20 lakh.
Thachankery also disputes the trial court’s methodology in calculating his income, arguing that his wife’s earnings were not adequately considered. Additionally, he highlights that although a further investigation was ordered by the State, it was nullified by the High Court in 2025. Despite the High Court allowing the use of evidence collected during this investigation, Thachankery alleges that the prosecution failed to present such evidence at trial.
Representing Thachankery in the High Court are advocates S Rajeev, MS Aneer, Sarath KP, Anilkumar CR, KS Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V, Akash Cherian Thomas, TP Araving, Azad Sunil, Akshara S, Nivedita Rajeev, and Ebee Antony.
More Read
As the Kerala High Court continues to deliberate on this appeal, the legal community closely watches the proceedings, given the high-profile nature of the case.
