P Rajeev Alleges Conspiracy Behind K B Pradeep’s Appointment as Devaswom Special Pleader

Thiruvananthapuram: Former Law Minister P Rajeev alleged that there was a deliberate conspiracy behind the UDF government’s decision to appoint K B Pradeep as Devaswom Special Pleader — a lawyer who had represented an accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case.

Speaking to the media, Rajeev said the matter should not end with a resignation and argued that the circumstances surrounding the appointment require deeper examination.

According to him, if the appointee had not officially taken charge, the government could simply have cancelled the order. Since a resignation became necessary, Rajeev questioned whether the lawyer had already assumed office and gained access to official files before stepping down.

He further alleged that once charge had been assumed, files connected to the matter may already have reached the lawyer’s office, raising questions about whether the resignation came only after access had been obtained. He called for an examination of what documents, if any, had been accessed.

Rajeev also stated that K B Pradeep had previously defended the accused company’s position not only in court but publicly through media statements. He questioned the rationale behind appointing such a person as Special Pleader for the Devaswom Department and noted that previous governments had not maintained a separate special pleader position for the department.

He questioned who held responsibility for the appointment and whether the normal administrative process had been followed. According to Rajeev, appointments of Special Pleaders should involve recommendation by the Advocate General, scrutiny by the Law Secretary, submission to the Law Minister, and approval through the cabinet process before reaching the Chief Minister.

Rajeev asked whether those procedures had actually taken place or whether the appointment had been made to serve a particular interest outside normal procedure.

He also raised concerns that documents connected to the case, including reports submitted by the SIT, may have become accessible to the lawyer and said this should be investigated.

Rajeev also criticised the UDF government’s early decisions, referring to other controversies and alleging that there were signs of a pattern of governance concerns. He claimed there were grounds to suspect attempts to influence or undermine the case and called for a detailed investigation into the matter.