Why the Kerala Government’s Formation of a Special Investigation Team on 2023 Political Violence Raises Questions of Executive Power, Judicial Review, and Fundamental Rights

The Kerala Chief Minister, identified as Satheesan, has ordered the creation of a Special Investigation Team with the explicit purpose of examining the violent incidents that occurred in 2023 involving Congress party workers during the period when the state was governed by a Left-led administration. In the year 2023, a confrontation arose when a group of Congress activists displayed black flags in proximity to the motorcade of Vijayan, an act that provoked a physical response resulting in the alleged thrashing of those activists. The incident generated a fierce political face-off between two rival factions within the coastal state, characterized by an intense exchange of accusations and heightened rhetorical attacks that have persisted in the public discourse. Senior Congress leader MM Hassan publicly labelled Vijayan as the state’s “most cruel” home minister and asserted that Youth Congress protestors suffered beatings specifically because they were waving black flags at the chief minister’s motorcade. The decision by the current chief minister to appoint a Special Investigation Team therefore reflects an administrative response aimed at probing alleged unlawful conduct, assessing the accountability of officials involved, and potentially addressing claims of violation of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and personal liberty. The formation of the SIT also raises questions regarding the scope of executive power to direct investigative agencies, the procedural safeguards required to ensure impartiality, and the potential for judicial review should the investigative process be perceived as arbitrary or biased. Given that the alleged events involved political dissent expressed through the symbolic act of flag waving, the inquiry may need to consider whether any criminal charges, such as those pertaining to assault or public disorder, are justified under the prevailing criminal statutes without infringing on constitutionally protected political expression. The political dimension of the case, underscored by senior party leaders’ public statements and the inter-party rivalry, may also influence how evidence is collected, how witnesses are protected, and whether the investigative mandate includes assessing possible misuse of state machinery during the period of the Left regime.

One question is whether the chief minister’s decision to constitute a Special Investigation Team adheres to the established statutory framework that governs the delegation of investigative powers to ad-hoc bodies within the executive branch of the state government. The legal assessment may turn on whether the formation order references a specific provision of the police or criminal procedure statutes that authorize the chief minister to direct a separate investigative team, or whether the action relies solely on executive discretion without express legislative sanction. If the order lacks a clear statutory basis, the courts may scrutinise the appointment for potential overreach, applying principles of purposive interpretation and the doctrine of ultra-vires to determine whether the executive has exceeded its permissible authority.

Another possible view is that the Special Investigation Team’s mandate may be subject to judicial review on grounds of arbitrariness and denial of natural justice if affected parties are not afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard prior to the exercise of investigative powers. The courts may also evaluate whether the composition of the team, its reporting hierarchy, and the scope of its terms of reference respect the principle of equality before law, ensuring that no particular political faction receives preferential investigative treatment. Should the team’s formation be perceived as a politically motivated instrument, petitioners may invoke the doctrine of proportionality to argue that the intrusion into the privacy and liberty of individuals involved exceeds the legitimate aim of maintaining public order.

Perhaps the more important legal issue is whether the alleged assault on Congress workers for displaying black flags implicates the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by the Constitution, and if so, how the state may lawfully balance that right against the duty to preserve public peace. The courts have historically applied a reasonableness test to determine whether restrictions on expressive conduct are narrowly tailored to serve a legitimate state interest, and any investigative action must therefore be proportionate, non-discriminatory, and anchored in a demonstrable threat to law and order. If evidence shows that the response to the flag waving exceeded the permissible limits of a lawful crowd-control measure, affected individuals may seek redress through compensation claims or constitutional petitions asserting violation of their personal liberty.

Perhaps a competing view is that the alleged thashing of protestors triggers criminal liability under provisions dealing with assault, criminal intimidation, and disturbance of public tranquility, thereby obligating law-enforcement agencies to register a First Information Report and initiate a thorough inquiry. The investigative mandate of the Special Investigation Team may overlap with the police’s statutory duty to collect evidence, interrogate suspects, and file charge-sheets, raising the question of whether duplication of effort could dilute procedural safeguards or, conversely, enhance the robustness of the prosecution’s case. Should the team discover that senior officials directed or condoned the violent response, a case for criminal conspiracy could emerge, demanding that the prosecution demonstrate a clear nexus between the official orders and the unlawful acts committed by the perpetrators.

The final legal consideration may revolve around the broader impact of the inquiry on political accountability, where the judiciary, if approached, would examine whether the investigative process serves the public interest without becoming a tool for partisan retribution, thereby upholding the rule of law. A comprehensive assessment of the Special Investigation Team’s findings, procedural integrity, and any subsequent prosecutorial decisions will be essential for ensuring that the principles of fairness, equality, and constitutional protection are meaningfully applied in the politically charged context.