Thiruvananthapuram (Keralam) [India], July 15 (ANI): Keralam Chief Minister VD Satheesan on Wednesday defended his meeting with leaders of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP)-linked Hindu Aikya Vedi, saying there was “nothing secret” about the interaction and asserting that, as the Chief Minister of the state, he could not refuse to meet people who sought an appointment.
The remarks came after criticism from the opposition over the meeting, with Satheeshan rejecting allegations that he had held any private discussions with the leaders.
Addressing the press conferences, Satheeshan said, “I heard a former minister alleging that BJP leaders are frequently visiting the Chief Minister’s Office. Leaders of the Hindu Aikya Vedi had sought an appointment with me, and I gave them time. They met me along with members of the public who had come to submit representations.”
He said the delegation had come to submit a memorandum and was received like any other group that sought an appointment.
“I received them in my office. Two of those leaders have been among those who have consistently campaigned against me. Should I have refused to meet them just because of that? They came to submit a memorandum, and I accepted it,” he said.
The Chief Minister said he regularly meets various organisations, including those protesting against his government and asserted that he is not the Chief Minister only of the Congress or the UDF.
“Yesterday, leaders of the NGO Union, Gazetted Officers’ Association and teachers’ organisations, all of whom are protesting against the government, also met me. They were seated in the same chairs and I spoke to them as well. I am not the Chief Minister only of the Congress or the UDF; I am the Chief Minister of Kerala. Should I tell people not to come and meet me? That would have been the real mistake,” he said.
Taking a swipe at former minister PA Mohammed Riyas, Satheeshan said the meeting was held openly and contrasted it with an alleged meeting between Keralam Leader of Opposition (LoP) Pinarayi Vijayan and RSS leaders.
“Former minister P.A. Mohammed Riyas says many people are coming to meet me. I am not meeting anyone secretly. Unlike Pinarayi Vijayan, who met RSS leaders privately at Mascot Hotel in another vehicle without informing anyone or allowing the media, I met them openly. That is my reply to Riyas,” he said.
Reiterating that there was no secrecy surrounding the meeting, Satheeshan said, “There was nothing secret about the meeting. They came along with hundreds of other people who had appointments, submitted their memorandum, and I spoke to them. It would have become news only if I had refused to meet them.”
On the proposed high-speed rail project, the Chief Minister said the state government had constituted an expert committee to examine the interim report submitted by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation.
“The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation had submitted an interim report on the proposed high-speed rail project. We appointed an expert committee to examine it, comprising a financial expert, a railway expert, an environmental expert, along with the Transport Secretary and officials from my office. The committee submitted its report today,” he said.
Satheeshan added that the committee found major gaps in the report. “The committee’s assessment is that the report is incomplete. It does not adequately address Kerala’s limited financial resources, accurately estimate passenger demand, or include any environmental or social impact assessment. In its present form, the report cannot be accepted,” he said.
He said the committee had recommended against initiating any preliminary work until comprehensive studies were completed.
“The committee has recommended that no preliminary steps, such as land acquisition notifications or surface-level construction activities, should begin at this stage. A proper economic model, realistic passenger projections, and environmental studies must be completed first. We should not repeat the mistakes made in the K-Rail project, where land acquisition was initiated before conducting the required studies,” Satheeshan said.
The Chief Minister said the state should also examine the feasibility of freight movement under the project.
“The state government should independently conduct further studies on several aspects, including the potential for freight transportation. The current proposal focuses only on passenger services. Considering our plans for port-led and airport-led development, logistics movement must also be integrated. Relying solely on passenger traffic may not generate enough revenue to repay the massive investment required for the project,” he said.
He added that the committee had also recommended studying alternative options and integration with existing transport systems.
“The committee has also recommended studying alternative options, assessing land availability, and examining integration with existing and future transport systems such as metro rail and inland waterways. Only if these studies establish the project’s necessity and its broader economic significance should we proceed to preparing a Detailed Project Report (DPR),” he said.
“The government will study the committee’s findings in detail before taking a final decision. The current proposal does not present a viable economic model. Passenger numbers have not been properly estimated, and freight movement has not been factored in. Integrating logistics through rail could reduce traffic congestion on our roads, but the project also involves substantial borrowing, and the report does not adequately address how those loans would be repaid. At present, this is only an incomplete interim report, and the government will carefully examine alternative approaches before moving forward,” he added.
The Chief Minister also rejected allegations surrounding the appointment of two Government Pleaders, saying the appointments were made after an independent scrutiny process.
“The allegations over the appointment of two Government Pleaders are based on claims that one was an SFI activist during college and the other was associated with the ABVP. Several media reports suggested that the Indian Lawyers Congress had objected to these appointments. However, no such complaint has been made to me,” Satheeshan said.
“What I have is the recommendation submitted by the state committee of the Indian Lawyers Congress, and it includes the names of both those lawyers. We did not appoint them merely because their names appeared on that list. We independently examined all the recommendations, verified their backgrounds, and made the appointments only after that process,” he added.
He said both appointees were members of the Indian Lawyers Congress and were selected after consultation with the Advocate General.
“Both of them are members of the Indian Lawyers Congress and are competent lawyers. Government Pleaders are appointed only after consultation with the Advocate General. We are not here simply to sign off on every list submitted by a Congress-affiliated organisation. The appointments are made after proper scrutiny,” Satheeshan said.
“Both the state committee and the High Court unit of the Indian Lawyers Congress had recommended the names of these two lawyers,” he added. (ANI)
Related reading
