Journalist KM Basheer's Widow Moves Kerala High Court Against Transfer Of 2019 Rash Driving Case Against IAS Officer Sriram Venkitaraman
The widow of journalist K.M. Basheer has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the transfer of the trial in the 2019 rash driving case against IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman and raising concerns over the manner in which the prosecution is being conducted.Basheer was allegedly killed when a vehicle driven by Venkitaraman ran over him at high speed, at Museum Junction in Thiruvananthapuram...
The widow of journalist K.M. Basheer has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the transfer of the trial in the 2019 rash driving case against IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman and raising concerns over the manner in which the prosecution is being conducted.
Basheer was allegedly killed when a vehicle driven by Venkitaraman ran over him at high speed, at Museum Junction in Thiruvananthapuram in 2019.
The petition seeks to quash the January 20, 2025 order of the Sessions Judge, Thiruvananthapuram, transferring the Sessions Case from the Additional District and Sessions Court-I to the Additional District and Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram.
According to the petition, the transfer was ordered after the accused's senior counsel cited health issues and difficulty accessing the first-floor courtroom due to the absence of a lift in the district court building. Accepting the plea, the Sessions Court had observed that the accused had a right to be represented by counsel of his choice and that transferring the case to a ground-floor court would serve the ends of justice.
The petitioner contends that the transfer exceeds the scope of Section 448 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), arguing that the health condition of defence counsel is not a legally recognised ground for transferring a criminal trial.
Relying on the Kerala High Court's decision in Ramesh K. v. State of Kerala (2025), the petition submits that courts should instead consider alternatives such as hybrid hearings or engagement of another counsel rather than transferring proceedings.
Apart from challenging the transfer order, the petition raises concerns over the conduct of the prosecution. It alleges that repeated adjournments, changes in prosecutors and the appointment of a relatively inexperienced prosecutor have undermined confidence in the effective prosecution of a case involving nearly 100 witnesses and numerous documentary exhibits. According to the petitioner, these developments have created a genuine apprehension that the trial may not be conducted effectively.
The petition notes that the trial commenced before the transferee court on August 1, 2026, when the chief examination of the first prosecution witness (CW1) was recorded. Cross-examination was deferred to August 3 owing to the absence of the defence's senior counsel.
The petition seeks quashing of the transfer order, restoration of the trial to the Additional District and Sessions Court-I, Thiruvananthapuram, and a direction to the State to ensure that the prosecution is conducted by a senior prosecutor with proven credentials and an impeccable track record.
Case Title: Jaseela C v Sriram Venkittaraman and Anr.
Case No: Crl.MC 6560/ 2026
Counsel for Petitioner: M. Revikrishnan