Kerala High Court: Tomin Thachankary Foreign Travel Plea Questioned on Health

• Former Kerala DGP Tomin J Thachankary requested permission from the Kerala High Court to travel internationally for employment.
• This application followed his previous assertions of various medical conditions when facing potential imprisonment.
• Justice A Badharudeen of the Kerala High Court questioned the stark contradiction between these two positions.
• Thachankary's plea seeks to relax conditions set in October when the High Court suspended his four-year prison sentence in a disproportionate assets case.
• The judge highlighted concerns that such inconsistent claims could undermine public trust in the judicial system.

The judge’s pointed remarks reflect a concern not only for the specific case but also for the broader perception of justice.

Former Kerala Director General of Police (DGP) Tomin J Thachankary recently approached the Kerala High Court, seeking authorization to travel internationally for professional reasons. This application, however, has drawn scrutiny from the court due to a stark contrast with his previous representations. Thachankary had earlier asserted that he suffered from numerous medical conditions when he faced the prospect of incarceration, using these health claims to argue for leniency during his sentencing.

Justice A Badharudeen, presiding over the matter, highlighted this apparent inconsistency during the proceedings. The judge pointed out the discrepancy between Thachankary's prior assertions of ill health while facing jail time and his current request for permission to undertake foreign travel for employment. This situation presents a clear example of contradictory medical claims before the court, prompting judicial inquiry into the justification for such divergent stances.

The current application by Tomin Thachankary aims to modify specific conditions that were imposed by the High Court in October. At that time, the court had suspended a four-year prison sentence that a trial court had previously handed down to Thachankary. This sentence stemmed from a case involving disproportionate assets, where he was found guilty.

The suspension of the sentence in October came with certain stipulations, which Thachankary now seeks to have relaxed to facilitate his foreign travel. His request for permission to travel abroad for work directly challenges these existing restrictions, which are a direct consequence of his conviction in the disproportionate assets case. The court is now tasked with evaluating whether to grant this relaxation, particularly in light of his past conduct.

Justice A Badharudeen expressed significant reservations regarding the seemingly conflicting positions adopted by Thachankary. The judge recounted how Thachankary had previously cited various health issues to the trial court in an effort to secure a more lenient sentence. Now, the same individual is requesting to go abroad for a job, which Justice Badharudeen found to be an "absolutely contrary view."

The judge questioned the rationale behind such inconsistent claims, asking, "How can he go abroad and do the job?" Justice A Badharudeen further elaborated on the perceived contradiction, noting, "Once he goes to the jail, he feels as having so many diseases so that he must get admitted to the hospital and on getting released, he wants to go abroad and do job. This is absolutely contrary views. How can it be justified?" These Justice A Badharudeen remarks underscore the court's concern that such contradictory representations could significantly erode public confidence in the integrity and fairness of the judiciary.

The case of Tomin Thachankary’s foreign travel plea highlights the critical importance of consistent and truthful representations to the court. When individuals present one set of facts, such as severe medical ailments, to secure leniency in sentencing or bail conditions, and then later present a completely different picture to seek permission for activities like foreign travel, it raises serious questions about credibility. Such contradictory medical claims before the court can undermine the very foundation of judicial proceedings.

Courts, as demonstrated by the Kerala High Court in this instance, are vigilant in scrutinizing these inconsistencies. The judge’s pointed remarks reflect a concern not only for the specific case but also for the broader perception of justice. Allowing such stark contradictions to pass without challenge could, as Justice Badharudeen noted, diminish public trust in the judicial system, suggesting that legal outcomes might be swayed by opportunistic claims rather than consistent facts. This scenario serves as a reminder of the rigorous standards expected from all parties engaging with the legal process.

Lawyers should advise clients on the risks of making contradictory representations to the court, particularly regarding health claims for leniency versus subsequent requests for travel. Courts, as demonstrated by the Kerala High Court in this instance, will scrutinize such inconsistencies, which can undermine credibility and negatively impact future applications for bail, sentence modification, or permission to travel.

Source: Original reporting via news reports