Key Takeaways:
- V.K. Prasanth MLA office dispute centres on his refusal to vacate a rented Sasthamangalam building despite a demand by councillor R. Sreelekha.
- Council approved Prasanth’s continued use until the assembly term ends, but the new council could revisit the decision.
- Congress leaders urged Prasanth to move to the MLA hostel; allegations of undercharged rent and political manoeuvring have surfaced.
- The Speaker criticised Sreelekha’s conduct as inappropriate, while party leaders from BJP, Congress and CPI(M) traded accusations.
V.K. Prasanth, the MLA for Vattiyoorkavu, has reiterated his refusal to vacate the office he currently occupies in a Sasthamangalam building owned by the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation. The dispute began after councillor R. Sreelekha asked Mr Prasanth to relinquish the premises so she could expand her own office space in the same building.
V.K. Prasanth MLA office dispute and council tensions
Prasanth has told reporters he will not leave the office. He said the council has already authorised his continued occupation until the end of the legislative term, and that if the rent is thought to be too low he is willing to pay a higher amount. The mayor, V.V. Rajesh, has indicated that while the new council could overturn the decision, there is no immediate appetite to force the issue.
The disagreement has rapidly assumed political overtones. Congress councillors and leaders urged Mr Prasanth to shift to the MLA hostel to defuse the matter, with some suggesting councillors should be given small rooms within the building while the MLA uses the hostel facilities. K. Muraleedharan asked whether councillors ought to be given even a small chamber to sit in, and whether Prasanth might use the MLA hostel instead.
Congress councillor K.S. Sabareenath pressed the MLA to settle the matter by moving to the hostel, noting that the present rent of Rs 800 paid by Mr Prasanth for the office is very low. He added that two rooms in the MLA hostel have reportedly been allocated to Prasanth and should be used for official purposes. The comments prompted a wider exchange of accusations: CPI(M) state secretary M.V. Govindan accused some Congress leaders of siding with the BJP, while Mr Prasanth countered by accusing Sabareenath and others of supporting the BJP’s position.
The dispute attracted further scrutiny after a complaint reached the Speaker alleging that Mr Prasanth had secured a favourable rental deal while the building generated higher rents for others. Several BJP and Congress MLAs defended Mr Prasanth, with Antony Raju pointing to MLAs’ rent allowance and Kadakampally Surendran accusing the BJP of spreading misinformation.
Speaker A.N. Shamsheer publicly criticised councillor Sreelekha’s approach, describing her conduct as unbecoming for someone of her experience. He said a councillor may request a corporation-owned property be vacated, but cannot unilaterally order an MLA to leave. The Speaker also noted that protocol places an MLA above a councillor in such matters and stressed that access to the MLA hostel is limited, which was why Mr Prasanth had chosen to use the Sasthamangalam office.
Local political observers say the episode highlights frictions between municipal councillors and state legislators over civic space and protocol. While the immediate issue is the use of a corporation-owned building, the controversy has become a vehicle for larger partisan arguments ahead of a new council term.
City authorities face a procedural question: whether to enforce the council’s current permission for Mr Prasanth to remain until the assembly term ends, or to allow a fresh council to review and potentially reverse that approval. For now, the matter remains unresolved and is likely to be raised again at council and party meetings. Residents and local activists will be watching whether officials prioritise protocol or seek a negotiated settlement to avoid further politicisation.
