Summary of this article
The Congress’s Kerala leadership battle exposed a clash between MLA support and wider public and alliance sentiment.
Rahul Gandhi and the high command expanded consultations beyond legislators after questions were raised over internal alignments and organised lobbying.
VD Satheesan’s perceived public appeal, support from UDF allies and wider acceptability across communities are learnt to have shaped the final decision
What unfolded over those ten days after the announcement of the results was not merely a leadership tussle within the Congress in Kerala. It was a test of authority, legitimacy and public mood. It was one that eventually forced the Congress high command to look beyond the usual arithmetic of MLA numbers and factional alignments.
The results of the state assembly polls were announced on May 4. For the next two days, newly elected MLAs remained in their constituencies, meeting workers, thanking voters and participating in celebrations after the victory.
By May 7, the focus had shifted to Thiruvananthapuram. Newly appointed All India Congress Committee (AICC) observers Ajay Maken and Mukul Wasnik, along with AICC Kerala in-charge Deepa Das Munshi, arrived in the state and began consultations with MLAs and senior leaders. A majority of MLAs were understood to have expressed support for KC Venugopal during the consultations.
The observers also met senior Congress leaders, including former Chief Minister AK Antony, V.M. Sudheeran and Kodikunnil Suresh, besides holding discussions with United Democratic Front (UDF) allies such as RSP MP NK Premachandran and MLA Shibu Baby John on the political situation.
During the consultations, Satheesan is learnt to have requested that Munshi not be present in the meetings when asking the MLAs for their preference. The request was reportedly declined on the grounds that the Kerala in-charge remains part of such discussions.
On May 8, the observers returned to Delhi. By then, two parallel narratives had emerged. While a section in the Congress maintained that Venugopal enjoyed the backing of a majority of MLAs, most UDF allies, including the IUML, Kerala Congress (J) and the RSP, were believed to be backing Satheesan.
All the three chief ministerial aspirants - Satheesan, Venugopal and Ramesh Chennithala – were called to Delhi on May 9 for a meeting. According to sources, Rahul Gandhi told the three leaders that the situation in Kerala had worsened because all sides had taken rigid positions instead of allowing the organisational process to play out. He asked them to remove the banners and flex boards claiming support to neither faction
The list of MLAs presented by the observers reportedly became a point of contention. Satheesan and Chennithala are learnt to have questioned it and the neutrality of the exercise, arguing that the process had been influenced. That moment is understood to have altered the direction of the discussions.
During the discussions, Venugopal is learnt to have argued that the protests and demonstrations in favour of Satheesan were not spontaneous but carefully orchestrated
Questions were also reportedly raised by Venugopal and Chennithala regarding Satheesan’s meeting with a JD(S) MLA and alleged Adani-linked associates in Mangaluru. Satheesan is said to have responded that the JD(S) MLA in question was originally a Congress leader who shifted parties after being denied a ticket and later won the election. He reportedly pointed out that several senior Congress and Karnataka leaders, including Siddaramaiah, DK Shivakumar and Chennithala himself, had also interacted with the same individual.
Satheesan is learnt to have produced photographs of those meetings during the discussion. According to his explanation, the alleged Adani associate was merely a business associate of the JD(S) leader and any interaction was incidental.
Satheesan is also understood to have accused Venugopal’s camp of using proximity to the national leadership to ensure support from MLAs. He reportedly argued that over the past five years, he had focused on strengthening both the Congress and the UDF structure in Kerala.
Sources indicated that Satheesan claimed the support of 32 MLAs and insisted that the public mobilisation in his favour was organic rather than manufactured.
At one point in the discussions, Satheesan is said to have recalled that when he was appointed Leader of the Opposition, he had promised Sonia Gandhi that he would lead the Congress back to power in Kerala and that he had now come to Delhi after delivering that victory. After the elections and before the announcement of the results, Satheesan is said to have met Sonia Ganddhi and confirmed that UDF would get more than 100 seats.
Until that stage, Rahul Gandhi is understood not to have viewed Venugopal’s candidature as a major challenge. There was an expectation within sections of the leadership that Venugopal would eventually step aside. It was only after the first round of consultations that the leadership reportedly realised the situation had escalated into a full-scale confrontation
From that point onwards, the leadership reportedly began exploring wider public and political feedback from Kerala. The high command has not officially confirmed whether Rahul Gandhi separately sounded out MLAs or whether individual legislators independently communicated their preferences to him.
There was also unease within the high command over the manner in which the issue had unfolded publicly. Party processes were seen as having been bypassed, making it difficult to contain the political fallout regardless of the final decision.
According to party sources, leaders are learnt to have questioned the timing of Venugopal’s interest in the CM chair. Even when he was appointed PAC chairperson weeks earlier, he had not publicly indicated any intention of shifting focus back to state politics. What reportedly caused concern within sections of the leadership was his decision to relinquish his Rajya Sabha seat, which subsequently went to the BJP. If he were named the CM in Kerala, it would trigger two by-elections and of concern was the Alappuzha seat where BJP had come second in the last general election.
Although it was initially indicated after the May 9 meeting that a decision would be announced within days, it soon became clear that the leadership would have to widen consultations before arriving at a conclusion.
At that stage, the Congress high command is understood to have begun independently assessing the political mood in Kerala. Sources indicated that retired bureaucrats associated with previous UPA governments, political observers and other interlocutors were informally sounded out on the growing public support for VD, as he is popularly called, and the broader sentiment in the state.
The consultation process then expanded. Working presidents, former KPCC chiefs and Thiruvanchoor Radhakrishnan were all called to Delhi. UDF allies, too, were consulted. IUML had been consulted twice and both the times they stuck to supporting Satheesan. They indicated that they would find it difficult to contain their cadre who was supporting Satheesan.
By then, the high command had reportedly come to the view that public sentiment in Kerala could not be entirely separated from the CLP leadership decision, particularly amid questions over internal alignments and sustained pressure from alliance partners.
Rahul Gandhi is learnt to have separately met the three working presidents — PC Vishnunadh, AP Anil Kumar and Shafi Parambil — all of whom had been elevated last year with the backing of KC Venugopal. During the meetings, concerns were reportedly raised over whether sections of the public mobilisation and social media campaign backing Satheesan had been amplified in a coordinated manner rather than emerging organically. Each meeting is understood to have lasted between 10 and 15 minutes.
During the second consultations, Rahul Gandhi reportedly did not seek explicit endorsements for any candidate. Instead, discussions centred on the scale, nature and authenticity of the public sentiment favouring Satheesan.
Former KPCC presidents K. Sudhakaran, MM Hassan, KM Muralidharan and VM Sudheeran also met the leadership. Sources suggested that the views of Sudhakaran and Hassan did not significantly shape the eventual direction of discussions. Hassan’s remarks that alliance partners had no role in selecting the leader are learnt to have caused discomfort within sections of the UDF.
Muralidharan and Sudheeran are learnt to have strongly backed Satheesan. Sudheeran, in particular, reportedly argued that while some demonstrations may have had political encouragement, the broader mood in Kerala genuinely favoured Satheesan. According to sources, he maintained that the electoral verdict itself had come to be viewed as a mandate for Satheesan’s leadership and that disregarding that perception could politically hurt the Congress in the state.
He is also said to have pointed out that Satheesan enjoyed considerable support among women, younger voters and first-time supporters. Denying him the leadership after the electoral victory, Sudheeran reportedly argued, could trigger resentment within the party base at a politically sensitive moment.
AK Antony, while avoiding any direct endorsement, is understood to have conveyed to Sonia Gandhi’s office that a by-election should be avoided.
Satheesan’s secular positioning also figured prominently in the discussions. His strong response to controversial remarks made by SNDP leader Vellappally Natesan is learnt to have resonated across communities.
Sources further indicated that religious leaders across communities, along with social activists, writers and public intellectuals, informally reached out to Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi Vadra in support of Satheesan’s candidature.
On Wednesday, the Gandhi siblings held discussions. The Wayanad factor is understood to have figured prominently as both were conscious that the family enjoys considerable goodwill in both Wayanad and Kerala. There was also reluctance within the leadership to be seen as openly taking sides rather than arriving at a neutral decision.
By Thursday morning, Venugopal was summoned to Rahul Gandhi’s residence at 5 Sunehri Bagh, where Priyanka Gandhi Vadra was also present. Sources indicated that Venugopal argued strongly that the party could not abandon the convention of giving primacy to the views of MLAs in selecting the CLP leader. The meeting reportedly lasted for more than two hours.
The Gandhis are learnt to have eventually persuaded Venugopal, following which the leadership reached out to Ramesh Chennithala, who was at his residence in Kerala.
Meanwhile, Munshi, Wasnik and Maken waited for the final clearance from the high command before proceeding to Kerala for the CLP meeting. However, Jairam Ramesh and the three leaders met at Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge’s residence at 10 Rajaji Marg for further discussions.
Even as those deliberations continued in Delhi, VD Satheesan was travelling to Thiruvananthapuram for the CLP meeting. Chennithala did not attend.
The formal announcement eventually came from the AICC headquarters at 24 Akbar Road.
In response to questions from the media afterwards, Munshi remarked that Venugopal appeared to hold a numerical advantage among MLAs, but the High Command’s decision was final. However, during a separate briefing, a senior Congress leader played down claims that Venugopal had emerged ahead in any definitive “headcount” exercise.
