If BJP’s electoral victory in Thiruvananthapuram corporation was historic, one of its councillors, R Sugathan, is also making history in his own way. Recently, he became the first municipal councillor in Kerala’s history to retake the oath from a prison. Three days ago, he also became the first civic body representative in the state to be granted long-term leave because he is a KAAPA detainee in the Viyyur high-security prison.
He filed his leave application via the prison superintendent. What could have been a mere procedural decision by the corporation council has ballooned into a political row involving two government departments – Home and the Local Self-Government Department. It could even result in disciplinary action against a bureaucrat.
Never before has any government department been dragged into decisions pertaining to leave since councils act as independent bodies under decentralised governance. The council is empowered by the Municipality Act to grant leave not exceeding six months to the members to avoid disqualification. Usually, such applications are processed for local body members who wish to go abroad.
In Sugathan’s case, Mayor V V Rajesh cited a circular issued by the Home Department to silence the UDF councillors who questioned the manner in which leave was granted to a jailed civic body member. The circular said that Sugathan has the right to file a leave application and once it is approved by vote in the council, he can prevent disqualification. Questions have been raised as to how the Home Department issued a circular that almost read like giving legal advice for Sugathan. Internal departmental probes are now underway against two Under-Secretaries of the LSGD and the Home Department.
File notes and statements from officials concerned indicate that both the LSGD and the Home Department officials unnecessarily got themselves embroiled in a matter which entirely came under the corporation council’s purview. A note accessed by Onmanorama shows that the LSGD under-secretary, currently facing departmental probe, forwarded a file seeking the LSGD Minister’s opinion on allowing escort parole for Sugathan to attend council meetings. Officials admit that it was unwarranted since matters on parole come under Home Affairs.
The note shows that the LSGD official gave two recommendations to the minister – to reject the request citing prison rules since parole is given on humanitarian grounds, or to permit the councillor to file a leave application via the prison superintendent. It was also recommended that if the leave request is approved in the council, he can’t be disqualified and that the problem can be solved without giving him parole.
As per the note, both the LSG Minister K M Shaji and Special Secretary S Shanavas noted on July 8 that Sugathan’s prayer for leave shall be rejected. Later, on July 18, the Section Assistant prepared an unofficial note (U.O), and the LSGD Under Secretary signed off on the note on the same day, and it was forwarded to the Home Department. File scrutiny showed that the Under Secretary recorded the recommendation on filing the leave application without discussion. This is being cited as a grave lapse on the part of the official since the Minister and the Special Secretary had rejected Sugathan’s petition as such.
A U.O note is a form of correspondence done to obtain concurrence, opinion or remarks of another department of the Secretariat and it may not form part of the official proceedings, as per the Kerala Secretariat Office Manual. This U.O was included in the circular issued by the Home Department Under Secretary.
Former civic body secretaries & LSGD officials Onmanorama spoke to said that even the Minister and the Special Secretary infringed upon the powers of the council to give an opinion on a councillor’s leave. Sources in the Home Department said that the Prison Superintendent had forwarded Sugathan’s request for escort parole to attend the council only for an informative purpose.
“Such communications are part of routine. Any request from a prisoner of sensitive nature is communicated to the department. Sugathan’s request was also forwarded, but it was made into a file, forwarded to the LSGD, and the opinion was inserted in the circular. All that was uncalled for,” a senior official in the Home department said.
Veteran BJP councillor M R Gopan said the party didn’t need a circular to invoke provisions of the Municipality Act. “The council has the right to grant leave to councillors; why would we need a circular for that?” he asked, brushing aside allegations that BJP was aided by an official to secure leave for Sugathan.
BJP also banks on another factor. There is no provision in the Act that lays down specific grounds on which leave can be granted for councillors. So, whether a councillor applies for leave from prison or home, it’s the council’s discretion to approve it. The LDF insists that Sugathan’s leave will not hold legal scrutiny.
Former State Election Commission officials told Onmanorama that the Commission can only decide on disqualification if a councillor doesn’t attend three consecutive council meetings. “If he/she is granted leave and approved by the council, the rules do not lay down provisions for the SEC to question the grounds on which leave was granted,” a former Election Commissioner said.
Sugathan’s leave application was put to a vote and passed in the council with 51 votes. Independent councillor Sudheesh Kumar and the Mayor’s casting vote helped the BJP achieve the required number of votes.
