The Kerala Justice Sham

Binding Judicial Truth Already Settled

Long before the Kerala police narrative emerged, the legal position stood conclusively settled:

• Supreme Court of India (1997): Recognised the complainant's legal standing arising from UAE judicial proceedings.
• Delhi High Court (1997 & 2007): Affirmed full ownership of UAE entities, business operations, and authenticated Powers of Attorney.
• Apex Court of Abu Dhabi, UAE (1996): Completely exonerated the complainant and branded him a Whistleblower Hero, not a convict.

High-Level Collusion & Shadow Settlements

How does the "Wilful Blindness" of the system turn victims into villains to protect the powerful? The case exposes a "toxic nexus" between law enforcement and criminal elements:

• Extortion (2008): The Circle Inspector tried to force the Complainant into "settlement packages."
• Threats: When he refused to play ball, police threatened to fabricate criminal charges against him, effectively turning the victim into the accused.
• The Scandal (2009): Instead of ordering a probe into the destruction of evidence, the Kerala High Court responded not with inquiry—but with obedience.
• Procedural Sabotage: Courts repeatedly quashed proceedings without notifying the complainant, violating the most basic tenets of the CrPC and Natural Justice.
• Judicial Shielding: For twenty years, High Court quashings functioned as a legal firewall, allowing the accused to evade trial and perpetuating the unlawful retention of ₹75 crore.
• The 2025 Farce: Even as late as 2025, a Magistrate echoed the 17-year-old police lie, accusing the victim of "hiding the truth" while the court itself sat on 30 years of authenticated evidence.
• Precedent Defiance: This systemic failure mocks Supreme Court mandates (Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police), where fraud is supposed to vitiate all acts. Here, fraud was the foundation.

Courts are meant to correct injustice, not manufacture it. But when a discredited lie is revived by Kerala's highest benches to relabel an exonerated whistleblower as a "convict," the judiciary crosses a fatal line. This is not character assassination—it is judicial erasure.

The Transnational Contract — Heroism Vs. Hostility

The psychological and legal violence inflicted upon the complainant is underscored by a staggering irony:

• The UAE Apex Court Benchmark (1996): In a landmark, seismic ruling, the UAE Supreme Court branded the complainant a Whistleblower Hero. It documented his arbitrary detention and brutal torture, awarded him compensation, and ordered probes into the police perpetrators.
• State Ratified Fraud and Constitutional Tort (2017): Annexure 4 exposes the rot. The State confessed that its own officer fabricated evidence, claiming vital records were eaten by "termites and ants." That confession should have triggered withdrawal of the false report and restoration of rights. Instead, the State did nothing. The RTI order is the smoking gun that reveals how justice itself was weaponized. View featured article →
• The Kerala Bench Benchmark (2008–2025): In a supposedly democratic "Rule of Law" environment, Kerala's judges have spent two decades doing what the UAE's police-state failed to do: destroying his reputation. By endorsing the label of "convict abroad" without a single scrap of evidence, these benches have engaged in a "criminal repetition" of slander, turning him into a legal ghost.

The Emotional Toll

How does a judgment-creditor—an exonerated torture survivor who defeated a powerful transnational network—feel when his own home state treats him as a fugitive? It is a "Constitutional Catastrophe" where the victim is forced to relive his trauma through the very pens of the state-officials sworn to protect him.

Statement of Facts

1. The Factual Ownership: The Petitioner is the absolute owner of assets and business entities in the UAE, a fact recognized by the Supreme Court of the UAE (1996) and the High Court of Delhi (2007).
2. The Diplomatic Proof: In 2004, the Petitioner executed a Power of Attorney (PoA) which underwent a rigorous triple-verification process — Domestic Level (Government of Maharashtra), Consular Level (UAE Consulate General, Mumbai), and Sovereign Level (Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UAE).
3. The "Apostille" Logic: Under international law, a Ministry of Foreign Affairs will never attest a PoA for the management of a business unless the principal's ownership is first verified through state records and trade licenses. If the assets didn't exist, why did two sovereign governments seal the document?
4. The Impossible Police Claim: Despite this sovereign verification—which is a "State Act" under the Indian Evidence Act—the Kerala Police in Crime No. 437/2008 asserted that the Petitioner had "no ownership."
5. The "Termite" Fraud: This police report was later revealed as a fabrication. In 2017, the authoring officer was disciplined after an RTI inquiry exposed his claim that the case files were "eaten by ants and termites."
6. The Perverse Judicial Outcome: The High Court of Kerala, across six sequential rulings (2009–2025), has treated this "termite-eaten" report as superior to the Sovereign Seals of two nations, thereby quashing the Petitioner's pursuit of justice for an AED 30 Million embezzlement.

The Quashing Spree

Six sequential judicial actions founded on the same fraudulent police report, even after the officer's punishment was made a matter of public record:

1. 2009 (HC): Dismissal based on unverified police claims.
2. 2009 (HC): Rejection of CBI probe despite evidence of local police bias, sworn and authenticated evidence.
3. 2017 (HC): Quashing of a Magistrate's cognizance under Sections 190–204 CrPC by resurrecting the "termite-eaten" report.
4. 2019 (HC): Another bench repeats the reliance, overlooking authenticated PoAs, trade licenses, and the UAE reciprocity notification.
5. 2024 (HC): Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan revokes magistrate order on bogus pretexts with "authoritative instructions" to dismiss the case.
6. 2025: A new Magistrate Saarika Sathyan V. parrots the ancient slander, accusing the victim of "hiding truth," as a flagrant abdication of duty.

The Kerala High Court's reliance on a discredited police report to quash magistrate proceedings repeatedly (Six Strikes Over 20 Years: 2008–2025) constitutes a transnational legal heist.

1. Weaponizing Slander by Decree: Adopting the "convict" label was not a clerical slip; it was a calculated move to strip the complainant of his Locus Standi. If the victim is a "criminal," his AED 30M claim becomes "tainted."
2. The "Ant-Termite" Poison: The 2017 RTI Order proved that the police report was a fabrication. For the Kerala High Court to rely on this "poisoned report" for seven additional years after the officer was punished is not "interpreting law"—it is facilitating fraud.
3. The Treaty Betrayal: By snubbing the 2020 India-UAE Treaty (Section 44A CPC), the Kerala High Court prioritized a local Sub-Inspector's lie over a Sovereign Pact between two nations. This is a direct violation of Article 51(c) (International Respect).
4. Defiance of Article 141: The court's actions constitute a procedural coup, operating in open rebellion against the 1997 Supreme Court and 2007 Delhi High Court mandates.
5. International Legal Consequence: When courts repeatedly endorse a narrative that cannot coexist with sovereign diplomatic and consular attestations, the issue escalates beyond domestic error into international legal and diplomatic fraud by implication.
6. Persistence of Harm: Continuing crimes persist through fraudulent records, denial of recognition, or enforcement of unlawful status. Judicial neutrality is impossible when such conditions are knowingly upheld; complicity follows.

The court isn't just defaming a man; they are abducting his legal status. By secretly "erasing" his exoneration from the record, they have facilitated an Enforced Disappearance of his rights. When the highest benches adopt the lies of perpetrators to silence a victim, the justice system isn't just broken—it's being used to hide a Crime Against Humanity.

Why the "Holy Grail" Strategy Was Used?

How did a demonstrably false report rewrite the truth six times over 20 years despite binding Supreme Court and High Court precedents?

• To Quash Justice Like Clockwork: By making the police report the "final word," the courts avoided scrutinizing the AED 30 million asset heist.
• The Procedural Shield: Using a police "Final Report" as an absolute truth allows higher benches to dismiss complex transnational fraud as "already investigated," even when the investigation itself was a criminal act.
• Character Assassination as Strategy: By repeatedly endorsing a police assertion labelling the Complainant a "convict abroad," they reversed a settled judicial truth and transformed vindication into stigma.

The Diplomatic Paradox

The most recent dismissal in 2025 accused the Complainant of "hiding the truth." Yet the truth—authenticated ownership, sovereign verification, revocation authority, and legal standing—has been on record for decades.

Every Signature that Sustains Fraud Echoes as a Crime Against Humanity Everywhere.

→ Read the UN Petition: WGAD Questionnaire to the UN Human Rights Office

This case is not a mere property dispute. It is a textbook case of constitutional tort, where State machinery manufactured and sustained a fraudulent narrative to override binding apex court decrees and sovereignly authenticated ownership.

The "Smoking Gun": Official State Confirmation of Fabrication

Through the Official RTI Reply (Annexure 4), the State admitted that the investigating officer falsely claimed the case records were "destroyed by termites and ants." This disciplinary finding constitutes formal State confirmation that the investigation was compromised, unreliable, and legally contaminated.

State's Mandatory Duties After 2017 SIC Order

From that moment, the State was under a constitutional obligation to:

• Withdraw the fabricated police report;
• Notify courts of the proven fabrication;
• Initiate corrective legal proceedings; and
• Restore the Petitioner's lawful rights.

Legal Consequence: Constitutional Injury

The Petitioner has suffered twenty years of judicial erasure caused directly by State fabrication and inaction. This has resulted in:

• Economic devastation through the loss of assets valued at ₹75 Crores.
• Reputational injury through malicious labelling as a "convict" despite UAE Apex Court recognition as a whistleblower hero.
• Constitutional Violations under Articles 14 (equality), 19(1)(g) (profession), and 21 (life with dignity) violated systematically for two decades.

Grounds for State Liability

• Malicious Prosecution: Crime No. 437/2008 initiated without probable cause, fabricated to obstruct justice.
• Gross Negligence: State's failure to withdraw the condemned report after 2017 SIC order constitutes reckless disregard for constitutional rights.
• State-Sponsored Defamation: Judicial orders repeating the "UAE convict" label carry state authority, causing maximum reputational damage.
• Continuing Tort: Each post-2017 judicial reliance (2024 High Court, 2025 Magistrate) is a fresh, separate injury flowing from State's failure to correct the record.
• Vicarious Liability: The State is vicariously liable for police abuse of process under Articles 21 and 300A.

→ View featured article on State Liability & the Smoking Gun