W.P.(C) No. _____ of 2026 — Synopsis of Writ Petition
In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam — Civil Writ JurisdictionThis Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking:
The present case raises a fundamental question of law:
The continued reliance on such a discredited report amounts to State-ratified fraud and abuse of process.
The Petitioner is a former Non-Resident Indian entrepreneur who conducted lawful business in Abu Dhabi for over two decades and is the absolute owner of business entities in the UAE, as affirmed by:
The Petitioner executed a Power of Attorney (2004), which underwent sovereign authentication at three levels:
The Petitioner filed a complaint against his Power of Attorney holder (Respondent No. 4) alleging misappropriation of assets valued at AED 30 Million (₹75 Crores at current exchange rates).
The matter was registered as Crime No. 437/2008 at Guruvayur Police Station.
The Investigating Officer submitted a report falsely stating that:
In 2017, through an RTI reply (Annexure 4):
This constitutes official State acknowledgment that:
Despite this, the State:
Between 2009 and 2025, multiple judicial orders relied upon the same discredited police report:
By virtue of the Government of India Notification dated 17.01.2020 under Section 44A CPC:
The refusal to recognize UAE judicial determinations violates:
The present case constitutes a constitutional tort arising from:
The Petitioner has suffered:
It is a settled principle of law, reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reddy Veerana v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2025), that:
Accordingly:
After the 2017 RTI findings, the State was constitutionally obligated to:
The claim for ₹25 Crores is justified on account of:
The following questions arise directly from the facts on record. They are posed not rhetorically, but as substantive grounds which the State is constitutionally obliged to address before this Hon'ble Court. The State's inability to answer any one of them is, by itself, sufficient to sustain the present petition.
The State cannot simultaneously punish the author of a report for professional misconduct and continue to rely upon that same report as a credible foundation for judicial proceedings. That contradiction is itself a constitutional injury.
Evidence that has been physically destroyed cannot simultaneously sustain a criminal characterisation in a court of law. The State's continued reliance on a literally non-existent record is not merely legally untenable — it is a fiction presented to this Hon'ble Court as fact.
A litigant who withholds material facts from a court commits fraud upon the court. Where that litigant is the State itself — endowed with constitutional duties of candour and fairness — the moral and legal gravity of such concealment is exponentially greater. The State's silence after 2017 is not neutrality; it is active deception by omission.
The right to life under Article 21 encompasses the right to reputation, dignity, and the protection of one's name from State-authored falsehoods. The Petitioner was recognised by the UAE Apex Court (1996) as a whistleblower and a victim of police crime. For the Kerala police and its courts to thereafter label him a convict is not a matter of erroneous assessment — it is a targeted inversion of settled judicial truth, which no democratic State can justify.
Wilful blindness in law is treated as equivalent to actual knowledge. The State had before it — since 1997 — the Supreme Court of India's recognition of the Petitioner's standing, the Delhi High Court's affirmation of his ownership, and the UAE Apex Court's exoneration. To ignore all of this and persist with a narrative of conviction is not an oversight. It is a deliberate choice. That choice cost the Petitioner ₹75 Crores and two decades of his life. The ₹25 Crores claimed in this petition is not a windfall — it is a fraction of what justice demands.
In light of the above, the Petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
The Complainant has suffered institutional torture at the hands of the very system meant to protect him. He was well respected by the judiciary in the UAE — exonerated, and ordered compensation by the Apex Court in Abu Dhabi. He was recognised as a hero and a whistleblower by a sovereign foreign court.
Yet in his home state of Kerala, the State machinery that swore to uphold the Constitution has mistreated him, defamed him, and — for over two decades — revictimised him. It is not justice that has been delayed here. It is justice that has been weaponised against its own citizen.
Safeguard the Rule of Law by ensuring Justice, Freedom and Peace in society.