The Supreme Court of India on 8 May 2026 summoned the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), Ernakulam district, Kerala, directing him to personally appear before the court on 15 May 2026 to explain why a formal First Information Report (FIR) was not registered despite a complaint being received by post as far back as 8 January 2026. The bench expressed strong dissatisfaction over the Kerala Police's handling of the matter, calling the state's explanatory affidavit "thoroughly unsatisfactory."

What the Supreme Court Said

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan took sharp exception to the Kerala government's counter-affidavit, noting that it failed to address the core question at hand. "We find the same to be thoroughly unsatisfactory as the basic point, as to why, immediately upon receipt of the complaint filed by the petitioner, a formal FIR was not registered, has not been answered," the bench observed in its order.

The court recorded that it was an admitted fact that the complaint, sent through post, had been received by the ACP, Ernakulam, on 8 January 2026. Despite this, no FIR was registered — a lapse the bench found difficult to justify.

Personal Appearance Ordered for 15 May

The apex court issued a direct summons, ordering the Assistant Commissioner of Police, District Ernakulam, Kerala, to be personally present before it on 15 May 2026. The officer is required to explain why no formal FIR was registered upon receipt of the complaint through post. Such a personal summons of a senior police officer by the Supreme Court is an unusual and significant step, underscoring the gravity with which the bench views the alleged inaction.

Interim Protection Extended for Petitioner

The court also extended the interim protection previously granted to the petitioner on 19 February 2026, keeping it in force until the next date of hearing. The protection restrains any coercive action against the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 10 of 2026, registered at Panangad Police Station in Ernakulam City, subject to his cooperation in the investigation and trial.

Background: Allegations of Police Inaction

During a previous hearing on 2 April 2026, the Supreme Court had already questioned the Kerala Police over allegations that a complaint filed by a co-accused person — relating to the same incident and alleging outraging of modesty of a woman belonging to the SC/ST community, supported by a medical report showing injuries — had not been acted upon. The bench had remarked: "We are at a loss to understand, as to how, when a counter affidavit is being filed, and the said issue has been raised at more than one place in the pleadings, there is no answer given in the counter affidavit on this issue."

Notably, the court had flagged the broader implications of such alleged police inaction, observing that the issue carried a "larger implication as it relates to the faith of the general public in the police when they approach it with any complaint supported by some evidence." It had also warned that if dereliction of duty was established, it would "take a strict view of the same."

What Happens Next

With the ACP, Ernakulam, now required to appear in person before the Supreme Court on 15 May 2026, the Kerala Police faces significant institutional scrutiny. The case raises pointed questions about accountability in complaint registration — particularly in matters involving vulnerable communities — and the court's willingness to intervene signals that procedural lapses will not go unaddressed at the highest judicial level.