Kerala Chief Minister V D Satheesan has declined to disclose who financed the private foreign trips of ministers and who arranged the chartered aircraft used for his visit to rain- and flood-affected areas in Malappuram, according to a reply in the state Assembly reported by the Times of India.
Responding to a question on whether the identities of sponsors who paid for the official travel expenses of the Chief Minister and ministers were being withheld, Satheesan said there was no secrecy. The reply, however, did not name the individuals or organisations that financed the ministers’ private overseas visits or arranged the aircraft used for the Malappuram trip.
The government said the ministers travelled abroad in their personal capacity and that nine ministers had undertaken foreign trips after the United Democratic Front government assumed office. Only visits to Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates by minister P C Vishnunadh were classified as official trips. The government also said the Ministry of External Affairs had approved the visits.
The ministers identified in the Assembly response were O J Janeesh, K M Shaji, Ramesh Chennithala, Mons Joseph, Bindu Krishna, Shibu Baby John, V E Abdul Gafoor and T Siddique. The reply did not identify the sponsors or specify the amounts involved in the travel arrangements.
The question of disclosure also covers a chartered flight used by Satheesan to travel to Malappuram after rain and flooding affected parts of the district. The Chief Minister had earlier said that public money was not used for the flight and that an acquaintance had arranged the aircraft.
The issue has become a question of institutional accountability because the travel was linked to the functioning of ministers and, in the Malappuram case, to a visit to disaster-affected areas. Even when an expense is not charged to the public exchequer, the identity of a person or organisation providing travel support can be relevant to public scrutiny, particularly when the beneficiary is a serving constitutional or political office-holder.
The opposition had sought disclosure of the people or organisations that bore the expenses. Its questions focused on whether private sponsors had supported travel connected to ministers’ public roles and why the details had not been placed in the public domain.
The Assembly reply distinguishes between official and personal foreign travel but does not provide a public list of sponsors, the value of the support or the administrative process through which the arrangements were made. No further disclosure was included in the response reported by the Times of India.
