Former Indian Forest Service officer Prakriti Srivastava has moved the Supreme Court with a review petition against the High Court’s acquittal of Dr A Neelalohithadasan Nadar in her sexual assault case. She has alleged that the Kerala government did not support her earlier challenge, despite his conviction in two lower courts.
“The state government had not supported the Special Leave Petition I filed against the HC judgement. The government should ideally have backed me up. But I am now approaching the apex court again with a review petition in the hope that I will get justice,” Prakriti told TNM.
The case relates to an incident that occurred on February 27, 1999. Prakriti Srivastava was at the start of her career and posted in the Forest Department. She alleged that Neelalohithadasan, the then Forest Minister, sexually assaulted her at the Kozhikode government guest house. She also said he later made “vulgar phone calls” and “misused his power” to corner her.
Neelalohithadasan Nadar was the lone Janata Dal (S) member in the cabinet led by CPM’s EK Nayanar. Two years after the alleged assault on Prakriti Srivastava, another woman civil servant also accused him of sexual assault.
On the day of the incident, Prakriti sought an appointment with the then Kozhikode City Police Commissioner Neera Rawat and met her the following day. After hearing her account, Neera advised her to file a complaint and approach the Women’s Commission.
Prakriti then met renowned poet Sugatha Kumari, who was chairperson of the Commission, and narrated the incident. She also confided in her mother and a close friend, describing the assault.
In 2000, Prakriti wrote to the Kerala government, seeking the creation of a grievance redressal forum under the Vishaka guidelines, as the assault occurred at her workplace. She received no response.
A complaint of sexual assault was filed in 2001. In 2004, the Kozhikode Judicial First-Class Magistrate-IV found Neelalohithadasan guilty of outraging her modesty under Section 354 of the IPC. The Kozhikode Sessions Court upheld the conviction in 2005.
Neelalohithadasan then moved the Kerala High Court with a criminal revision petition. It remained pending for nearly 20 years. In September 2025, the High Court acquitted him.
Prakriti then approached the Supreme Court with a revision petition against the Kerala High Court order. It was dismissed in January 2026. She has now filed a review petition against that dismissal.
Her review petition flags several irregularities in the High Court’s acquittal. It notes that her mother, a close friend, police officers, and Sugatha Kumari all said she had disclosed the assault in February 1999. Despite this, the court questioned the delay in filing a formal complaint.
This contradicts settled jurisprudence, which states that delay in sexual-offence reporting is not fatal where the victim demonstrates trauma, fear, power asymmetry and institutional vulnerability.
‘Kerala HC erred gravely’
The review petition points out that while acquitting the accused, the Kerala High Court “erroneously elevated minor omissions in Petitioner’s initial Section 161 CrPC statement to material contradictions, ignoring that such omissions do not ipso facto discredit a witness.”
One of the key reasons cited by the High Court for the acquittal was that Prakriti was not a “sterling witness.” In law, a sterling witness is one whose testimony is natural, consistent on key facts, and does not require corroboration.
The petition argues that despite Prakriti informing the Women’s Commission chief, police officers, her mother, and a close friend about the incident, and later filing a complaint, the court relied on minor discrepancies to discredit her testimony.
“The testimony of Petitioner (PW 1) withstood extensive cross-examination and was duly corroborated by her immediate disclosures to her mother (PW-5) and friend (PW-14), as well as subsequent oral complaints to the Chairperson, Kerala Women’s Commission (PW-6), the Forest Conservator (PW-8), and the Chief Conservator (Vigilance) (PW-9)...” the review petition reiterates.
The petition further argues that the High Court erred in dismissing these testimonies as hearsay, thereby “failing to appreciate its statutory relevance in proving the making of the complaint and the victim’s immediate and subsequent conduct post-incident.”
It also argues that the High Court misjudged the delay in filing the complaint. “While noting a delay in lodging the written complaint, the High Court failed to appreciate that the Petitioner had, in fact, promptly reported the incident to the CCF (Vigilance) and the Chairperson of the Women’s Commission on 08.03.1999, within a week of its occurrence. This fact stands corroborated by both witnesses before the Trial Court,” the petition states.
The petition argues that the incident must be understood in its professional context. The survivor was a junior officer, while the accused was the minister heading the department.
“Once she filed the complaint, the Respondent-accused immediately defended himself by raising false and self-serving allegations of the Petitioner-victim colluding with the forest mafia (and filing a false complaint of sexual assault against him). The fear of a junior officer at the very inception of her career against the might of a senior Minister wielding immense power and authority can only be imagined and must be viewed with sympathy and understanding,” the petition notes.
‘Perpetuating a culture of impunity’
The review petition warns that upholding the acquittal, despite two prior convictions, could discourage survivors from coming forward and reinforce a culture of impunity.
At the time of the offence, Prakriti was a single mother living alone with her daughter. She was at the start of her career. Neelalohithadasan, meanwhile, wielded significant power as the Forest Minister.
The petition argues that such an approach risks deterring complaints against powerful public officials. “...in upholding the High Court’s unwarranted interference with soundly reasoned concurrent judgments of conviction, [it] has the regrettable but undeniable effect of discouraging the reporting of sexual assault by public officials wielding substantial power and influence,” it states.
It further says the High Court’s approach “trivialises the testimony of a woman public servant” and risks enabling abuse of power by those in office.