The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, 22 September 2026, granted the state government two days to file its objections to former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary's plea seeking suspension of his four-year prison sentence in a disproportionate assets case. The matter has been posted for hearing on 24 September, after the prosecution described it as an exceptional case involving a former police chief.

What the Court Heard

Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the state's request for time after the public prosecutor sought an opportunity to file a written counter opposing Thachankary's plea to suspend the sentence pending his appeal against conviction. However, the request immediately triggered a sharp legal debate over whether the prosecution even holds a right to file written objections when the sentence is below 10 years.

Thachankary's senior counsel B. Raman Pillai opposed the state's request, arguing it was the first instance of the prosecution seeking to file written objections in a case involving a sentence of less than 10 years. The court itself questioned the legal foundation of the state's position, observing: 'You don't have an absolute right to file an objection in a case where the sentence is less than 10 years.'

The Legal Basis Under CrPC

Justice Badharudeen noted that under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the prosecution is specifically granted an opportunity to file written objections only when the sentence exceeds 10 years. The state, however, argued that the gravity and circumstances of this particular case warranted an exception, with the prosecutor stressing that the accused had occupied the high-profile post of DGP and that the allegations were serious in nature.

Court's Broader Observation

While granting the state two days, Justice Badharudeen made a pointed oral remark that went well beyond the procedural dispute. 'So this is a message to all DGPs, Chief Secretaries, even Chief Ministers, etc., that law is not so feeble even to book highly potential persons without any discrimination to their status,' the judge observed, underscoring the court's view of the case's wider significance.

The Conviction and the Charges

Thachankary was convicted last week by the Kottayam Vigilance Court under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to four years' imprisonment and a fine of ₹30.84 lakh. The trial court determined that, even after accounting for discrepancies in the evidence in his favour, his assets were 52.33 per cent disproportionate to his known income.

Thachankary, who retired from service in 2023, has challenged his conviction on multiple grounds — including the validity of the sanction for prosecution, the method used to calculate his income, and the treatment of his wife's income in the disproportionate assets calculation. Alongside the appeal, he has sought a suspension of the sentence during its pendency.

The next hearing on 24 September will determine whether the state can formally place its objections before the court, and whether Thachankary walks free on bail during the appeal process — a question that carries significant implications for accountability norms governing senior public servants.