The Supreme Court upheld anticipatory bail granted to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in a rape case but removed adverse remarks made by the Kerala High Court against the survivor. The Court said such observations were unnecessary and ordered them to be expunged.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld the anticipatory bail granted by the Kerala High Court to Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) and former Congress leader Rahul Mamkootathil in one of the three rape cases registered against him. The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the complainant challenging the Kerala High Court’s decision to grant him anticipatory bail.
A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh refused to interfere with the anticipatory bail granted by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court did find an issue with some of the observations made by the High Court against the complainant and decided to remove those remarks from the record.
“Though we are not inclined to interfere in the ultimate conclusion of the high court, the observations made qua the petitioner are not necessary. Accordingly they stand expunged,”
the Bench directed.
The case was registered after the survivor and her family submitted a written complaint directly to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan on November 27, 2025. In the complaint, the survivor accused the MLA of rape, pregnancy through sexual assault and forced abortion. She also made serious allegations that Mamkootathil recorded their intimate videos without her consent and later threatened to circulate the videos if she did not comply with his demands.
Earlier, on February 12, Kerala High Court single-judge Justice Kauser Edappagath had granted anticipatory bail to Mamkootathil in this case.
The survivor then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court. In her petition, the survivor argued that the MLA’s actions clearly fall under the definition of rape under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
She also strongly objected to certain observations made by the High Court in its order. The High Court had made remarks suggesting that there was a consensual relationship between the survivor and Mamkootathil and had referred to the fact that she had repeatedly visited the MLA.
The survivor argued that such observations were unnecessary and were wrongly used as a reason to grant anticipatory bail. According to her, these remarks indirectly questioned her character.
ALSO READ: Kerala Govt Challenges Anticipatory Bail to MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in Second Rape Case
In her plea, the survivor clearly stated,
“The Hon’ble High Court erred to appreciate that no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room. Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault,”
She also argued before the Court that even if there was a past relationship or past consensual sexual intercourse, that does not mean there is permanent or blanket consent for any future sexual act. Consent has to be taken every time, and without consent, any sexual act amounts to an offence under the law.
Another important argument raised by the survivor was regarding forced abortion. She told the Court that the accused forced her to consume medication to terminate the pregnancy by repeatedly threatening suicide. She argued that this act clearly falls under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which deals with causing miscarriage without a woman’s consent.
The survivor also made further serious allegations in her plea. She claimed that Mamkootathil has a pattern of targeting vulnerable women, especially women who are in distress, facing troubled marriages, or living separately from their husbands. She also informed the Court that three rape cases have already been registered against Mamkootathil. Additionally, she claimed that as per information provided by the authorities, nearly ten victims have been identified, and one of them is a minor.
After hearing the matter, the Supreme Court decided not to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the MLA, but it made it clear that the observations made by the High Court against the survivor were not necessary and therefore had to be removed. This means the anticipatory bail will continue, but the remarks made against the complainant will not remain part of the High Court’s order.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Rahul Mamkootathil
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
