The recent release of CCTV footage showing custodial violence against Kerala Youth Congress leader Sujith V. S. inside the Kunnamkulam police station has reignited debate over police brutality in the state.
Police officials allegedly assaulted Sujith after being taken into custody for questioning officers who were intimidating his friends standing by the roadside in Chovannur. The footage shows Sujith shirtless and being manhandled by police officers. The assault left the young political worker with partial hearing loss.
The full gravity of the assault he faced on April 6, 2023, however, came to light only through the provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act and an order issued by State Information Commissioner Sonichan P. Joseph. This is how the RTI became Sujith’s last resort in exposing police brutality.
Long fight
Sujith submitted his first RTI application on April 10, 2023, demanding the CCTV footage from the police station between midnight and 7 am on April 6. Nearly a month later, the Kunnamkulam SHO rejected the request, citing that on April 5 at 11:52 pm a case had been registered under the POCSO Act.
#WATCH | Kochi Police use water cannons to disperse members of Kerala Youth Congress, who have been protesting over the alleged assault of Youth Congress leader Sujith V inside the Kunnamkulam Police Station in 2023. pic.twitter.com/43iovWUjLF
— ANI (@ANI) September 9, 2025
Since procedures related to that case were happening in the station during the requested timeframe, the footage could not be released in order to protect the identity of the POCSO survivor. Sections 8, 9, and 10 of the RTI Act—which deal with exemptions from disclosure and grounds for rejection—were cited in the rejection. The police also referred to Sections 23 and 24 of the POCSO Act, along with Section 74(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which protects the identity of children.
After both his request and his initial appeal were rejected, Sujith approached the State Information Commission on September 26, 2023. The Commission then sought a report from the police, which was submitted on November 1, 2023. On May 9, 2024, the Commission held a hearing at the Thrissur Collectorate.
During the hearing, the police claimed that, as per the RAID 5 storage policy—commonly used to balance performance, fault tolerance, and efficiency—the CCTV data from the police station had been erased and was no longer available.
However, the Commission observed that the requested data had been available when the police first responded to Sujith’s RTI. In its order dated May 15, 2024, State Information Commissioner K. M. Dileep ruled in favour of Sujith, stating that the information he sought was not exempt from disclosure. The SIC directed the police to provide the footage within a month and further instructed that, if the data was no longer available at the police station, the police should obtain it from the telecommunication department. Despite this order, the police still attempted not to provide the requested footage to Sujith.
New reasons for rejection
The police cited that the station was under renovation, and the materials had been copied and moved during that process. Because of this, they said the footage could not be provided. However, they did not inform the Information Commission. Instead, they sent Sujith a reply stating that the materials had been copied and were now in the custody of the district cyber cell, and since they had been shifted from the station due to renovation, they could not provide them.
Also Read
- Allegations of secret BJP-LDF deal heat up Kerala polls as UDF claims vote-splitting strategy in key seats
- Kumbh Mela fame Monalisa alleges director Sanoj Mishra misbehaved with her on film set, punched multiple times
- Congress announces Kerala candidates for all 95 seats as K. Sudhakaran relents; check complete list here
In October 2024, Sujith filed a subsequent RTI with the district police office, asking whether the Kunnamkulam station had submitted the footage from April 6, 2023, to the cyber cell, and also seeking a copy of it. This request was also rejected, with the police citing that when the telecommunication department handed over the footage to the cyber cell, it did not provide a hash value. Because of this, the cyber cell said it could not confirm whether any alterations had been made to the files or whether they were exact copies of the original CCTV footage. On this basis, the request was denied.
The SIC then held another hearing on Sujith’s quest for the CCTV footage. During the hearing, Sujith described the severe assault he had suffered and explained why he needed a copy of the footage to pursue legal action. Ilango R., IPS, the current Police Commissioner of Thrissur City and the first appellate authority in the second RTI, argued that since the hash value was unknown, the footage could not be released. However, SIC Sonichan P. Joseph ordered the release of the footage on August 5.
As the footage entered the public domain, it shocked Kerala’s collective conscience and put both the state police and the home department on the defensive.
In the aftermath of Sujith’s footage being released, the State Information Commission has received a wave of appeals seeking CCTV visuals from police stations across the state. Reportedly, one of these applicants is a police officer who is fighting a legal battle to disprove allegations of custodial death against him.
