Thiruvananthapuram mayor V V Rajesh has said the corporation will pursue legal action against LDF parliamentary party leader S P Deepak over allegations that councillor R Sugathan’s signature was forged in official records, while the corporation has confirmed that CCTV footage from the council hall is unavailable.
Rajesh made the statement at a news conference on Friday, saying photographs taken by the corporation’s official photographer and other records would establish that Sugathan attended the three council meetings linked to the dispute. He said the photographs, which carry date and time stamps, had been handed over to the police.
The mayor rejected Deepak’s claim that Sugathan was absent from the corporation for three days and that his signature may consequently have been forged. Rajesh also referred to a photograph shared by Deepak on Facebook, which he said showed Sugathan seated alongside the LDF leader during the April 27 council meeting. According to Rajesh, the image contradicted the claim that Sugathan was absent from the meeting.
The corporation’s confirmation that council-hall CCTV footage was unavailable has added a records-management issue to the dispute. Deepak had sought the recordings of the council meetings. In its statement, the corporation said footage from the council hall was not available, leaving photographs and other records as the evidence cited by the mayor in support of Sugathan’s reported presence.
The controversy has already entered the police process. Museum police registered a case against Rajesh, Sugathan and corporation secretary J Muhammed Shafi following Deepak’s complaint alleging that Sugathan’s signature had been forged in official records during his purported absence.
Rajesh said the corporation would continue its legal fight to disprove the allegations. He also said that the controversy had affected the morale of officials working in the city corporation. Deepak, however, accused the mayor of attempting to evade responsibility by providing misleading information and said the LDF would pursue legal action over the issue.
The dispute now involves competing claims about a councillor’s attendance, the authenticity of signatures in municipal records and the availability of audiovisual records from council proceedings. The police case and the evidence submitted by the corporation are expected to determine how those claims are examined. No conclusion on the alleged forgery has been established in the information currently available.
