Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80 - 145]Litty Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80Shine Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81Nikson v. Samkutty, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80 - 145]
Litty Thomas v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
Shine Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Nikson v. Samkutty, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
Sarojam L v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Jose v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
Radhika v. Unnikrishnan 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Shinoj Singh & Ors. v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
Sreeranj v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
K. G. Mohandas v Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Sandeep v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Deekshit VR v. The State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Sanjay Oraon v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Joji Varghese v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
S. Manimekhala v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
Union of India v. Udayachandran P 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Bichitra Mohanty v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Noushid P A v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Ratheesh K R v Director, Akshaya Project & Connected Case 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Arun Joseph v Union of India 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Jebin Joseph v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
Babu @Palraj v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
AD v. B 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
Sanitha Saji v. Salimkumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
Chandini CK v. The State of Kerala and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
In Re Bruno v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
Padma Conductors Pvt Ltd. v MIRC Electronics, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
Maheswari S & ors v. State of Kerala & ors.,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
Meena v Joint Regional Transport Officer, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
V K Sankarankutty v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
Romeo Victor & anr. v. Cheranaloor Grama Panchayath & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
Kumarthupady Shri Bhagavathy Temple v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Sreedevi M v State Of Kerala ,2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
Teresa Mary George v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
PM Gopi v. Union of India and ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
Noel Joseph v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Soby George v. State of Kerala & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v Central Film Certification Board 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Lini v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Arifa PK v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Kuttiyali v State of Kerala & Connected Matters 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd Versus State Tax Officer 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
T.D.Sreejakumari v Union Bank Of India 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The State of Kerala & ors. v. K Aravindakshan Pillai 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Johny Kunnumpurath House V State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
XXX v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Greeshma @ Sreekutty v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
KK Krishnan v. State of Kerala & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
MP Chothy v. Anilkumar & anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
K Mohandas v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
State of Kerala v Sudheer Kumar 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
State of Kerala v. P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
State of Kerala v Kool Foam Pvt Ltd. & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Swapna Prabha Suresh v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Ramseena S v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Pradeep B v. The District Drug Disposal Committee and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Vishnunaryanan v The Secretary & Connected Cases 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
National Cadet Corps v Hina Haneefa @ Muhammed Ashif Ali N 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Fr Edwin Pigarez V State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Judgements/orders this month
Case title: Litty Thomas v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that before proceeding to frame charges against the accused, the judge has to form an opinion that there was grounds for presuming that the accused has committed the offences alleged against him. It stated that if there were no sufficient grounds, then the judge shall discharge the accused by recording specific reasons for discharge as per Section 227 CrPC. Further, it stated that if the Court was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds, then the judge shall frame charges against the accused under Section 228 CrPC.
Case Title: Shine Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Kerala High Court has allowed an appeal where the accused had taken a plea of insanity as a defence in the case of the murder of his parents.
A division judge bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John allowed the appeal, stating that the “prosecution has not established the motive of the accused to cause the death of his parents. Similarly, the accused has not made any attempt to run away from the scene after causing the death of his parents”.
Case Title: Nikson v. Samkutty
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea on a land dispute matter on the premise that the petitioner was yet to obtain a certified copy of the impugned order.
The court added that the parties can seek an order under Article 227 of the Constitution, directing the Execution Court to issue a certified copy of the impugned order and grant an order of injunction in their favour to enable the tenant to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
While allowing a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recently observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'.
NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case title: Abdul Kabeer P.U v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The Kerala High Court has held that though the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not a substitute to the remedy of bail under Section 438 or 439 of CrPC, the same may be invoked in exceptional cases for securing liberty.
Justice K Babu observed, “While seeking a relief of bail in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has to exercise its power conscious of the fact that the petitioner has an alternate remedy and in exceptional cases like this a party can seek relief to secure his liberty in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
Case Title: Santhakumari Amma N. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of a 59-year-old lady who was alleged to be the close accomplice of the prime accused in the BSNL Co-Operative Society scam.
Justice C.S. Dias was of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail considering that the investigation is in progress and that her custodial interrogation is necessary.
Case title: Sarojam L v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Kerala High Court has taken a humanitarian stand and permitted an 85-year-old abandoned woman to construct a residential house on her only property of waterlogged land.
“Can this Court dismiss such an application stating that the reclamation of a small bit of land out of the 81 cents of land owned by the petitioner will adversely affect the ecological condition and cultivation in the adjoining paddy land?”, it asked while allowing the plea.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that the Constitutional Court has to step in to fulfil the dream of an 85-year-old lady, to make her believe that she was not an orphan and that the Court and every citizen were with her.
Case Title: Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
The Kerala High Court acquitted a husband who was accused of abetting his wife's suicide and stated that mens rea was an essential ingredient for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. On the other hand, while upholding his conviction for cruelty, it stated that proof of cruelty for sustaining a conviction under Section 498A IPC would depend upon the conduct which was likely to drive a woman to commit suicide.
The appellant who was convicted by the Sessions Court under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (husband or relative of husband subjecting her to cruelty) of IPC preferred an appeal before the High Court.
Justice P G Atjithkumar set aside the conviction under Section 306 IPC on finding that the prosecution was unable to establish mens rea required for sustaining a conviction for abetment of suicide. While upholding the conviction under Section 498A IPC, the Court stated that the wife committed suicide unbearable of the acts of the husband, amounting to cruelty.
Case Title: Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Kerala High Court has held that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper lies with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumar has held the decision in Brenda Barbara Francis v. Adrian Miranda 'Halcyon' Pakkattuvila, Kunnukuzhi (2016) to be per incuriam, observing that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper is with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner (Works Contract), Kerala State Goods and Services Tax Department vs. National Company Law Tribunal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
While allowing a Writ Petition, the Kerala High Court bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh recently observed that an Order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal ('NCLT') Kochi Bench was 'preposterous' and 'untenable'.
NCLT Kochi had held an Assessment Order by Kerala Value Added Tax ('KVAT') Works Contract Authorities against Albana Engineering (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Respondent 2) to be void ab initio in violation of Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Case Title: Shinoj Singh & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted five RSS/BJP activists alleged of assaulting a CPI (M) worker due to political rivalry, on noting the absence of evidence to prove the identity of such persons beyond a reasonable doubt.
The conviction of respondent no 1 was, however, upheld.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar relied upon the Apex Court decision in Ashish Batham v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002), which laid down that the fundamental and basic presumption in the administration of criminal law and justice delivery system is the innocence of the accused.
Case title: Sreeranj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that groundwater is an essential component of groundwater resources and a special type of mineral wealth and its uncontrolled usage can even affect ecosystems.
“ Being so, ground water is vulnerable and limited, despite its replenishable nature and vast reserves, impelling unexpendable regulations in most parts of the world; especially since uncontrolled exploitation of aquifers by even small water users can affect the ecosystems,” stated the Court.
It further stated that regulations on the usage of groundwater resources should not be dealt casually and as a mere formality.
“This preface is to remind the statutory Regulators that when enforcing the Regulations qua ground water use, their focus ought to be on rationality, control, safety, sustainability and care for future generations,” added the Court.
Case title: K. G. Mohandas v Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ petition filed by Dr Vandana's parents seeking transfer of probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Dr. Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by an injured man who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police. The young house surgeon was stabbed sixteen times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors.
Dismissing the writ petition, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated that Dr Vandana's parents have not raised allegations stating the police officers have any motive or criminal intent.
[Dr Vandana Das Murder Case] Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Application Moved By Accused Sandeep
Case Title: Sandeep v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Kerala High Court today rejected the bail application moved by accused Sandeep in Dr Vandana Das murder case.
Dr. Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon was stabbed to death by an injured man who was brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police. The young house surgeon was stabbed sixteen times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors
While dismissing the bail application, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas stated thus:
“Accused is known to have a history of alcohol abuse disorder and was separated from his wife and children as he had attempted to kill her in a fit of rage. He is stated to have an anti-social personality disorder too”
Case Title: Deekshit VR v. The State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held: “it is the duty of the State Election Commission to ask the petitioner whether he intends to cross examine the Secretary who gave the statement. A perusal of the statement recorded by the State Election Commission would not show that any such question was put by the Election Commission regarding the right of the petitioner to cross examine the Secretary. Relying on an uncontroverted statement of one party without giving an opportunity to the other side to cross examine cannot be relied on.
The petitioner had contested in the Mogral Puthur Grama Panchayat elections in the seat for the scheduled caste candidates. Petitioner belongs to Mogar Caste, and submitted that his mother tongue is Kannada, he does not know how to read or write in Malayalam.
Case title: Sanjay Oraon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Kerala High Court has emphasized the importance of scientific evidence in criminal cases and observed that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) cannot delay scientific reports stating a dearth of staff and lack of infrastructure.
The petitioner, a native of West Bengal, with no roots in Kerala, was an accused in a murder case and has approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail due to a delay in commencing the trial. The Court found that the trial had not commenced due to the delay on the part of the FSL in submitting the scientific reports on material objects.
Case title: Joji Varghese v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Justice Devan Ramachandran however criticised the “intolerance to cultural and artistic expressions" in a civilized nation like ours and said that if any scene in a film is in fact uncharitable, it is for the statutory authorities to decide.
The petitioner had approached the Court stating that a scene in the film depicts a firearm hidden inside the Bible, which hurt the religious sentiments of the Christian community.
The Central Board Of Film Certification (CBFC) stated that the scene was a fleeting one, without any reference to any particular scripture. It submitted that the competent Committee did not feel the scene to be contemptuous of racial, religious or other groups; and that during the review screening, the members of the Committee did not even notice the Bible.
Case Title: S. Manimekhala v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
The Kerala High Court has laid down that mere procedural violations in appointment of a person to a post cannot always lead to the inference that the appointee and the appointing authority had a dishonest intention in making such appointment.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu made the observation while dismissing the plea challenging the Special Court's dismissal of the complaint alleging irregularity in the appointment of MLA Anoop Jacob's wife to the post of Assistant Director of the Kerala Bhasha Institute.
"In the present case, the complaint is silent as to whether the person benefitted and the person who effected the appointment are part of a vicious link. There may be cases of misfeasance or, wrong administration. In all cases of malfeasance or, misfeasance or wrong administration, a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be initiated," Justice Babu observed.
Case Title: Union of India v. Udayachandran P
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a candidate cannot be denied employment merely by stating that he has a disease without finding that it would impact his capacity to perform functional duties or responsibilities.
The applicant, an ex-serviceman was denied employment to the post of Ticket Examiner in the Indian Railway since he was unfit by the medical board due to diabetes.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated thus:
“Merely citing a disease one cannot be denied employment unless it is found that such a disease would have impact on his functional duties or responsibilities. Thus we dismiss this original petition. “
Case Title: Bichitra Mohanty v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that if an accused pleads guilty to a particular offence, the plea of guilt cannot extend to new offences invoked upon alteration of charge.
A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that in this case the Petitioner, involved in a motor accident, had pleaded guilty to the offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC and not under section 304A IPC. However, if the plea of guilt remains, the petitioner's defence could be prejudiced since the charge had been altered to section 304A IPC.
“The plea of guilt and the consequent conviction is not an empty formality, and the procedure has to be strictly followed...In the instant case, it is evident that the plea of guilt made by the accused was not for the offence under section 304A IPC. When the accused pleaded guilty, the offence was only under sections 279 and 338 IPC. The situation would have been different had the accused been informed that the offence included section 304A IPC as well.”
Case title: Noushid P A v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Justice K Babu stated that there was no hard and fast rule in granting or refusing bail and each case had to be considered on its own merits. However, it stated that the Court cannot shut its eyes when the offences alleged were atrocious.
“In serious offences, the courts should not lightly entertain the bail application when there is a prima facie case. Where the offence complained is of such nature as to shake the confidence of the public, bail shall not be granted. Bail is a rule, and jail is an exception, but the accused involved in offences, which are grave, serious and heinous, fall within the exception and not the rule,” he said.
Case title: Ratheesh K R v Director, Akshaya Project & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Kerala High Court has stated that authorities should step in and take action if any person uses Akshaya Centres to enter into illicit financial transactions and create unauthorized wealth and illegal gains, contrary to public interest.
The petitioners had approached the Court challenging the orders issued by the District Collector and the Director of the Akshaya Project for the cancellation of the licence of Akshaya Centre alleging illegal financial transactions.
“…..when the existing licensee acts illegally and enters into proscribed financial transactions with another qua the 'Akshaya Centre', the Authorities are under an inviolable duty to step in and take action, as is mandated in law. If this is not done, it would be a premium for others to deal with 'Akshaya Centres', as a manner of creating unauthorized wealth and illegal gains, which can never be permitted, since it would tantamount to being flagrantly contrary to public interest, for which alone, such Centres are designed and established.”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran
Case title: Arun Joseph v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that the students could not dictate the manner in which the curriculum of the course had to be formulated and that these were matters within the policy realm to be decided by experts.
“I am persuaded to the afore view also because, the course in question is conceded to be a full time one; and hence, no student, normally and without specific permission, is entitled to either study another course, or engage in any other activity. When this factum remains uncontested, one fails to understand how the petitioner can seek that Saturdays be made a holiday”, stated the Court.
The petitioner has approached the Court claiming that if only five days were working in a week, students could do other permissible courses along with ITI to get better job opportunities.
Case Name: Jebin Jospeh v State OF Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Kerala High Court today permitted a queer man to attend his deceased live-in partner's last rites, given that the said partner's bereaved family does not object to it.
“This court certainly has little doubt that the constitutionally protected and guaranteed right of every individual to dignity and fair treatment specially under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, cannot be construed to cease with death; but continues much beyond, or at least as such time as the mortal remains are dealt with the respect it commands.”
The petitioner had approached the Court stating that his partner passed away on February 3 after falling from his flat. The mortal remains were however being maintained by Aster Medicity hospital, allegedly over failure to clear the medical bills. Petitioner was also told that he is not recognized to have any right qua the deceased under any legislative or customary laws.
Case title: Babu @Palraj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
The Kerala High Court bench comprising of Justice CS Dias has granted bail to the relative of Arjun, who was acquittedin the rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old minor girl at Vandiperiyar town in the Idukki district in 2021, accused of attacking the victim's family.
The petitioner in this case was accused of crimes registered under Sections 307 (attempt to murder) , 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous means or weapons) and 294 (b) (obscene act and songs) of IPC at the Vandiperiyar Police Station, Idukki.
Case title: AD v. B
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
The Kerala High Court has refused dissolution of marriage in a matrimonial appeal preferred by the husband on grounds of alleged cruelty, desertion and non-fulfilment of marital obligations by the wife, stating that a wife cannot be expected to tolerate husband's acts of cruelty by sacrificing her physical and mental health.
The appellant (husband) had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Family Court by which he was denied dissolution of marriage after the respondent (wife) raised allegations of matrimonial cruelty, including physical and mental abuse.
Case Title: Sanitha Saji v. Salimkumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
The Kerala High Court has held that if an election petition filed before the Election Commission within statutory period is withdrawn, the same will be sufficient cause for another person to seek condonation of delay in moving the subsequent election petition.
"Once an original petition is filed before the Election Commission alleging defection within a statutory period and suppose the party or the person who filed the Election Petition is influenced by the elected person and he was able to withdraw the defection petition, the Election Commission is not helpless in such situation," Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed.
Case Title: Chandini CK v. The State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
The Kerala High Court rejected a plea for 'non-creamy layer' certification on the ground that the petitioner wouldn't qualify for the categorization as it only applies to individuals engaged in their hereditary occupation.
A single judge bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a matter where the petitioner was denied a non-creamy layer certificate by the Tahsildar and Sub-Collector.
Case Name: In Re Bruno v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
The Kerala High Court has urged the State governments of Kerala, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, which share forest covered borders, to act in tandem against the rising issue of man-animal conflict,
The bench of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P was dealing with a suo motu case on the issue when an incident was brought to its notice whereby a Wayanad resident was attacked within the precincts of his home, by an elephant apparently collared by forest authorities in Karnataka. It thus called for a "purposive co-operation" among the states to fulfil the constitutional guarantees afforded to the citizens, irrespective of where they reside.
Case number: Padma Conductors Pvt Ltd. v MIRC Electronics
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
The Kerala High Court has stated that the prosecution has to examine a witness who had direct knowledge regarding the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque to prove dishonour of the cheque.
The appellants approached the High Court with a criminal revision petition against the conviction in a cheque dishonor matter under Section 138 NI Act where the cheque was dishonoured for want of funds.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the examination of a witness who had no direct knowledge regarding the transaction or issuance of the cheque would be insufficient to discharge the initial burden cast upon the complainant to prove their case.
Case Title: Maheswari S & ors v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
The Kerala High Court has ordered Thrissur Corporation to pay Rs. 50,000 damages to a woman whose deceased husband's licensed bunk shop was demolished despite interim protection orders passed by the Court.
A single judge bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque said it cannot overlook the "high handed action" of the authority but awarded only nominal damages considering that an alternative shop was subsequently allotted to the woman.
Pending Financial Liabilities, Non-Payment Of E-Challans Won't Prohibit Transfer Of Vehicle's Ownership To Wife After Husband's Death: Kerala HC
Case title: Meena v Joint Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
The Kerala High Court has permitted the transfer of ownership of the vehicles to the successor wife after the death of her husband stating that pendency of financial liability due to the financier and non-payment of amounts due under the e-challans would not stand in the way of the ownership being transferred to the successor.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun observed thus: “We allow the appeal and set aside the orders passed by the authority as well as the learned Single Judge. The authority is hereby directed to transfer the ownership of the vehicles in the name of the present appellant, within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to say that the appellant, after getting the ownership changed, is bound to pay off the dues against the vehicles.”
[Kerala Apartment Ownership Act 1983] High-Level Committee Constituted To Recommend Modifications Based On Stakeholder Inputs: Govt Tells High Court
Case title: V K Sankarankutty v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
The Kerala High Court has been informed that interested persons can submit their versions, including suggestions in written form before the High-Level Committee constituted by the state government in connection with the Kerala Apartment Ownership Act, 1983.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the Committee after deliberations shall submit a final report with their recommendations before the government within three months from February 22, 2024. It also stated that on receiving the recommendations, the government shall take a final decision on it without delay.
Case Title: Romeo Victor & anr. v. Cheranaloor Grama Panchayath & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a Registrar's power to call for information regarding birth or death under Section 21 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 does not extend to order DNA test of a newborn and its parents.
Justice VG Arun criticised the Registrar of Cheranalloor Grama Panchayat for refusing to issue birth certificate to the female child born to the petitioners and asking them to prove their paternity by undergoing DNA tests.
Case title: Kumarthupady Shri Bhagavathy Temple v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Kerala High Court has permitted a Temple in Alappuzha district to use the Public Address System till 11 PM, i.e. till one hour after the 10 pm deadline for use of loudspeakers, on the last two days of their annual festival.
The petitioner is the President of the Temple and had approached the Court seeking permission to use the Public Address System from 10 PM to 12 PM on main two last days of their annual festival.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said the permission is subject to temple authorities' undertaking that the sound decibels would be reduced to such a level that it would not go beyond the premises of the Temple.
Case title: Sreedevi M v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Kerala High Court has stated that insurance clauses cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious if they intend to avoid claims on account of self-injury or disablement on consumption of alcohol.
The petitioner is a widow who has approached the Court seeking insurance for the death of her husband by drowning after accidentally tripping into a well. She was denied insurance on the allegation that the husband was under the influence of alcohol at the time of death.
Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Execution Of Decree: Kerala High Court
Case title: Teresa Mary George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for the execution of a decree when there is an alternative effective remedy to approach a competent civil court by filing an execution petition.
The petitioner had approached the High Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution for fixation of survey marks on the boundaries of a property allegedly in dispute.
Case Title: PM Gopi v. Union of India and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Kerala High Court today closed a petition which sought the revocation of the certification of the upcoming Mammootty starrer 'Bramayugam' on the ground of alleged defamatory portrayal of a real-life person.
Justice Devan Ramachandran heard the matter.
The plea was closed following the film makers' submission that the name of the lead character had been changed to address the petitioner's concerns. The counsel for the respondents submitted that they have applied to the Central Board of Film to change the name of the lead character to 'Kodumon Potty' from "Kunjumon Potty."
Case title: Noel Joseph v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Kerala High Court has stated that there is no absolute prohibition for a police officer who recorded/registered an FIR to investigate/enquire into an offence committed beyond its territorial jurisdiction.
It held that a police officer, irrespective of their jurisdiction has the competence to record information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence. It stated that once an investigation is initiated, it cannot be called into question before the Court alleging a lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Soby George v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Actor Soby George has approached the Kerala High Court challenging his conviction under Section 193 IPC in a matter connected to the death of musician Balabhaskar.
A single judge bench of Justice P Somarajan allowed the plea, stating that “the embargo under Section 162 Cr.P.C. clearly reveals that a statement recorded cannot be used for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of any offence except for the purpose of contradiction and to contradict any witness in the manner” The court emphasised that the main ingredient which would constitute the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC is the tendering or fabrication of false 'evidence' to be used in any stage of a judicial proceeding.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
Case title: Biju V.R @ Biju Vaishyanparambil v Central Film Certification Board
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the writ petition was filed anticipating an action over the title of the movie, but the CBFC has not granted final certification for the movie yet.
“That said, when the Censor Board undertakes before this Court that they will verify the cinematographic movie, to ensure that all statutory requirements are fully complied with, it can only imply that the objections raised by the writ petitioner in this writ petition will also seize their mind appropriately”, stated the Court.
The Court was hearing a plea relating to a new movie starring actor Dileep titled Thankamani which is based on a real-life incident that occurred in Thankamany village in Idukki district, in October 1986.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
Case title: K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court has today confirmed the conviction of the accused in the murder of T P Chandrasekharan under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) . It also sets aside the acquittal of the 10th and 12th accused and convicted them also under Sections 120B read with Section 302 IPC. The Court has directed the production of the accused before the Court for sentencing on February 26, 2024, at 10.15 am. The acquittal of other accused was also confirmed today.
T P Chandrasekharan, who was a member of the Communist Party of India, Marxist, [CPI (M)] formed a new political party called the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP). According to the prosecution case, to wreck vengeance for the loss of the C.P.I (M) candidate at the Vatakara constituency in the Lok Sabha election, he was hacked to death on a public road on May 4, 2012.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Case title: Lini v State of Kerala
Justice Sophy Thomas granted custody of the baby to the father for the time being since the mother was still undergoing psychiatric treatment post-delivery due to mental strain. The custody of the child was given to the father based on a report submitted by the Child Welfare Committee.
“The custody of the child will be with the de facto complainant/father and his relatives for the time being. Child Welfare Committee, Palakkad has to supervise the welfare of the child while in the custody of the de facto complainant/father and his relatives and shall file periodic report to the jurisdictional court, once in two months”,stated the Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Case Title: Arifa PK v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to disburse the eligible amount under National Family Benefit Scheme to a woman nearing 60 years age, stating that it is the State's fundamental duty to ensure that citizens are granted their benefits without any delay.
“I am persuaded to issue this direction because, it is conceded unequivocally that the sanction for the said payment has already been authorised,” a single judge bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran said.
The petitioner submitted the plea after failing to receive the amount under the scheme.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Case title: Kuttiyali v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court has directed the government to constitute a High Level Committee, chaired by the Principal Secretary of the Revenue Department, along with experts from the fields of Geology, Hydrology, Agriculture and Disaster Management to make recommendations and offer relief to the victims of the Kavalappara landslide. The Court stated that the High Level Committee would be constituted within two months.
The residents of Kavalappara village approached the High Court seeking restoration of their land to its original position for resuming agricultural operations or seeking compensation for agriculture losses due to the landslide in 2019.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that residents of the village would be heard by the High Level Committee and they would make a recommendation to the government regarding the restoration of lands or disbursement of adequate compensation.
Yoga And Meditation Charges Are Subjected To Tax Under Kerala Tax On Luxuries Act: Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
Case Title: Bethsaida Hermitage & Tourism (P) Ltd Versus State Tax Officer
The Kerala High Court has held that yoga and meditation charges are subjected to tax under the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath has upheld the tribunal's ruling in which the tribunal differentiated between the incomes, allowing certain deductions for the cost of medicines and professional charges related to ayurvedic treatments while including yoga and meditation charges and miscellaneous income in the taxable turnover. The Tribunal's ruling was primarily based on the definitions and exclusions specified under Section 4(2)(e) of the Kerala Tax on Luxuries Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Case title: T.D.Sreejakumari v Union Bank Of India
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan remarked that Kerala has the highest literacy rate and that most youngsters in Kerala in the new generation would at least have the qualification of 10th standard. The bench also found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before concluding that she was guilty of charges alleged against her.
Relying upon the Apex Court decision in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderbad and others v. B. Karunakar and others (1993), the Court stated that it was illegal to deny an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to deny the charges levelled against her.
“From the above dictum laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that the right to make representation to the disciplinary authority against the finding recorded in the enquiry report is an integral part of the opportunity of defense against the charges and it is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny the said right. The law laid down in this regard should apply to employees in all establishments whether Government or non Government, Public or private. This will be the case even if there are rules governing the disciplinary proceedings or not and whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the copy of the report or are silent on the subject”, stated the Court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Case Title: The State of Kerala & ors. v. K Aravindakshan Pillai
The Kerala High Court has recently criticized the conduct of government officials in conducting litigation on time, and requested the government to consider the enactment of legislation to prevent delays in litigation due to the same.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen noted the consequences of delays on the part of state officials in conducting litigations in a timely manner.
The court criticized the negligent attitude of the authorities and stated that“there should be some effective mechanism to realize the loss caused to the Government due to inaction and dereliction by the officials.”
Such instances noted with extreme displeasure, utmost anxiety and seriousness and there should be some effective mechanism to realize the loss caused to the Government due to inaction and dereliction by the officials. Therefore, the appropriate Governments are hereby requested to consider enactment of an exhaustive legislation to deal with this menace, it held.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
Case title: Johny Kunnumpurath House V State of Kerala
Justice G Girish relying upon various Apex Court decisions stated thus:
“Though it would be unsafe and improper to decide an issue regarding disputed handwriting, signatures, fingerprints, etc., solely on the basis of the conclusions arrived by the court, by resorting to a comparison of the records on its own accord invoking Section 73 of the Evidence Act, in cases where there are other supportive evidence pointing to such conclusions it is well within the ambit of power of the court to decide the case on the basis of the exercise undertaken by it in that regard as well.”
The petitioner's wife was a captain in the Indian Army who met with an unnatural death. The allegation against the petitioner was that he forged a succession certificate and documents to obtain the insurance amount and other benefits of the deceased wife.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
The minor was found lying unconscious in the bathroom of her house in the police quarters on March 29, 2023. While undergoing treatment, she died on May 1, 2023. The FIR No. 344/2023 was registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 174 CrPC. Upon post-mortem, it was found that death was due to intracranial haemorrhage. However, it also revealed that the victim was subjected to continuous sexual abuse through vaginal and anal penetrations.
Based on the post-mortem report, another Crime No.377 of 2023 was registered at the Museum Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 376DA (punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen years of age), 376E (punishment for repeat offenders) and 377 (unnatural offences) of the IPC and POCSO Act. Considering the heinous nature of the offences, the investigation was carried out later on by the District Crime Branch.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Case title: Greeshma @ Sreekutty v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors.
The Kerala High Court stated that the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Crime Branch heading a special investigating team that was specifically entrusted with the investigation of a crime is competent to file the final report under Section 173 CrPC.
The issue before the Court was whether the head of a Special Investigation Team, constituted to investigate a crime, not being the officer-in-charge of the police station could file a final report under section 173 CrPC.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the District Crime Branch was a specialized district-level investigative wing that aids with investigating crimes of a sensational nature at the district level. Relying upon the Apex Court decision in State of Bihar and Another v. Lalu Singh (2014), the Court stated thus:
“…it is evident that the head of the investigation team, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Police of the District Crime Branch, Thiruvananthapuram Rural and who was specifically entrusted to conduct the investigation and to ensure the filing of the final report by the District Police Chief was competent to file the final report, being an officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
Case Title: KK Krishnan v. State of Kerala & ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that prosecution for perjury can be maintained against a public servant without obtaining prior sanction under Section 197 CrPC, adding that as offences enumerated under Section 195 CrPC are intricately connected with the administration of justice, it is imperative that they be determined by the courts itself.
Citation: Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
Case Title: MP Chothy v. Anilkumar & anr.
The Kerala High Court recently rejected a plea under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, stating that unless the obstruction or annoyance was committed by the accused while the petitioner was exercising any right that accrues to him because of the abolition of untouchability, section 7(1)(b) of the Act would not be attracted.
“A mere obstruction or annoyance to a person cannot give rise to the said offence” stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
The court was hearing a plea where the petitioner, a member of the Scheduled Caste community, was challenging the refusal of the Magistrate to take cognizance of certain offences that were part of the complaint before the magistrate.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
Case title: K Mohandas v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has stated that encroachers of government land are not entitled to any equity and there is no public interest to assign a property when there is an admitted encroachment. It stated that even if the encroachment was decades back, the state should work to repossess the land unless there is any legal impediment to it.
The petitioners are social workers from the landless tribal community in Wayanad district and have approached the Court seeking direction to the government for facilitating the allocation of residential and agricultural lands to tribal families of Wayanad.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Case title: State of Kerala v Sudheer Kumar
The Kerala High Court had upheld the decree of compensation granted to a man who got injured in an explosive attack before the Sub Jail. It observed that the State has a reasonable duty to take necessary precautions when notorious criminals involved in gang rivalry are brought into or taken out of jail.
The State had preferred an appeal against the decree of the Trial Court granting five lakh rupees as compensation to the plaintiff who suffered fifty per cent disability in an explosion at the Attakulangara Sub Jail.
[Actor Assault Case] Kerala High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Cancellation Of Dileep's Bail
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Case Title: State of Kerala v. P Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep
The Kerala High Court has rejected a plea by the Crime Branch seeking to cancel the bail granted to actor Dileep who is an accused in the abduction and sexual assault case of an actress.
A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas stated that the “trial court has made some observations and findings in their order which may tend to appear that the learned judges made up their mind as to the destruction of evidence and influencing, threatening the witnesses etc. alleged by prosecution”.
“It is clarified that the findings and observations made in the trial court in their order as only for the purpose of disposal of criminal appeal and it shall not affect appreciation of evidence in SC 118/2018 (main case)” added the court.
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Case Title: Meenakshi and ors. v. P Soman Nadar and ors.
The Kerala High Court has held that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper lies with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
A division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice PG Ajithkumarhas held the decision in Brenda Barbara Francis v. Adrian Miranda 'Halcyon' Pakkattuvila, Kunnukuzhi (2016) to be per incuriam, observing that the obligation to engross the final decree on stamp paper is with the appellate court which passed the final decree.
The bench also noted that the appellate court shall retain the original final decree that is engrossed on the stamp paper which shall form part of the records and only copies shall be provided to the parties.
“The dictum laid down in Brenda Barbara Francis that the original of the final decree shall be given to such person on his making an application is in direct conflict with the provision of Rule 237 of the Civil Rules Practice” said the court.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Case title: Vazhuthacaud R.Narendran Nair v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that mere negligence unaccompanied by moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner during the profession would not amount to professional misconduct warranting conviction.
While setting aside the order of the Special Judge and allowing the discharge, Justice K Babu stated thus:
“While considering the question of negligence on the part of a lawyer while giving legal opinion in a case where an offence under Section 109 read with Section 420 of IPC was charged against the lawyer in CBI v. K. Narayana Rao (supra) the Supreme Court following P.D. Khandekar v. Bar Council of Maharashtra, [(1984) 2 SCC 556] held that there is a world of difference between the giving of improper legal advice and the giving of wrong legal advice. Mere negligence unaccompanied by any moral delinquency on the part of a legal practitioner in the exercise of his profession does not amount to professional misconduct. The Supreme Court added that at the most, the lawyer may be liable for negligence if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offences under Sections 420 and 109 IPC.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Case title: State of Kerala v Kool Foam Pvt Ltd. & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court has stated that the maximum time period for filing an appeal against an award as per Section 74 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation & Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act) is 120 days.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen while declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal after the maximum time period referred to an order passed by the Karnataka High Court and stated thus:
“Beyond 120 days, no appeal is entertainable by the High Court and there is no power to condone delay.”
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Case title: Swapna Prabha Suresh v State of Kerala
Justice Viju Abraham closed the bail pleas after recording the submission of Public Prosecutor that investigations are going on and there is no intention to arrest Swapna Suresh. She is however required to cooperate in the investigation.
The Counsel for the petitioner-Swapna submitted that she was ready to duly co-operate with the investigation.
Swapna Suresh, the prime accused in the infamous gold smuggling case, had alleged that several persons in the administrative higher-ups, including the Chief Minister, his wife, his daughter, K.T Jaleel and many others, were linked to smuggling activities.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Case title: Ramseena S v State of Kerala
A second habeas corpus writ was filed by the petitioner-wife of detenu before the High Court challenging the very same detention order issued under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 stating that there was no bar in filing successive habeas on fresh grounds.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen stated thus:
“...in habeas of simpliciter, the successive writ petition is possible, and judicial practice only discourages fresh writ petitions being brought before the Court as more as a vexatious attempt to redo what the Court already refused. However, relief of habeas sought based on the challenge against detention order stands differently. The essential challenge in that process is against the detention order though ultimate relief is granted, by way of habeas corpus. If the substantial challenge is against the detention order, the very same Court cannot entertain writ petition, even if new grounds have been raised as the Court is precluded from reopening its judgment challenging the validity of detention order which has become final.”
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Case Title: Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the Travancore Dewaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayali Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi(chief priest) of Sabarimala-Malikappuram temples.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar rejected the petitioners' argument that the conditions stipulated in the notification would not amount to "untouchability" and violated Article 17 of the Constitution.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Case Title: Pradeep B v. The District Drug Disposal Committee and ors.
The Kerala High Court has stated that a Special Court under the NDPS Act can grant interim custody under Section 457 of the CrPC of vehicles that have been seized under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
“Leaving the seized vehicle idle and exposed to sun, rain and the vagaries of nature till the completion of the legal formalities, will only result in deterioration of the vehicle and its value” observed the court.
A bench constituting of Justices A Muhammed Mustaque, Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen was reviewing the decision in Shajahan v. Inspector of Excise and Others (2019), in which a Division Bench of this Court had held that a Special Court does not have the power to consider grant of release of vehicles under the NDPS Act.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Case title: Vishnunaryanan v The Secretary & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the notification issued by the Devaswom Commissioner of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the years 2017-18, 2021-22 for appointment of Melsanthies of Sabarimala Devaswom and Malikappuram Devaswom. The challenge was against the eligibility criteria given in the notifications that the applicant shall only be a 'Malayala Brahmin'.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar relying upon the Apex Court decision in Sri Venkataramana Devaru v. State of Mysore (1985), Seshammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1972) stated that Archakas are temple priests who perform essential poojas or ceremonies (Agamas) and it was considered as integral and essential religious practise protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Case Title: National Cadet Corps v Hina Haneefa @ Muhammed Ashif Ali N
The Kerala High Court has permitted a transgender woman student to participate in the selection for enrollment to the National Cadet Corp, in the female category.
Section 6 of The National Cadet Crops Act, 1948 only permits enrollment in the male and female category and does not extend to the transgender community.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha stated that they are hopeful and confident that the Central Government would amend Section 6 of the NCC Act to include transgender community since the Constitutional Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a law.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Case title: Fr Edwin Pigarez V State Of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a vicar for rape and sexual assault of a minor girl in his parish but has reduced the sentence imposed upon him by the Special Court from life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life to rigorous imprisonment of twenty years without remission.
“No doubt, rape is a crime which has a severe effect on women and the society...It is an infringement of a person's right to live a dignified life. At the same time, the court cannot ignore the basic principle of sentencing viz, that the sentence imposed should never exceed that which can be justified as appropriate or proportionate to the gravity of the crime considered in the light of its objective circumstances...we deem it appropriate to modify the sentence imposed on the first accused for the offence of rape, to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 20 years, instead of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life imposed by the Special Court” , stated the Division Bench comprising Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John.
Other Developments
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Thomas Issac v Deputy Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024 & WPC 3719/2024
The Kerala High Court today considered a petition filed by former Finance Minister Thomas Issac challenging the second summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate in connection with the financial transactions of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) in relation to the masala bonds case.
Kerala HC Seeks State's Response In Plea Challenging Constitutional Validity Of S.219AD(5) Of Panchayat Raj Act Enacted Through 2023 Ordinance
Case Title: Unnikrishnan & Anr. v. Chief Secretary & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 219AD(5) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 ('Act, 1994'), which had been enacted by an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor on December 7, 2023.
When the matter was taken up on Monday, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen sought the response of the respondent State authorities and posted the same for further consideration at a later date.
Kerala High Court Introduces Continuous Page Numbering Feature For Easy Reference Of Court Documents
The Kerala High Court has introduced a continuous page numbering feature for case documents in the e-filing portal for the purposes of simplifying the process of referencing and navigating through case documents in Courts.
The move comes in the wake of CJI Chandrachud's announcement of steps to solve the issue of non-tallying of pagination of copies that often occurs during the pleadings. The CJI, on taking note of the inconvenience faced by the bench in tracing and matching the page numbers which the advocates refer to while submitting their arguments, remarked, "I have always found that members of the bar and the bench aren't on the same page with regards to the paginated soft copies of PDFs”.
Case title: Biju Antony Aloor @ B.A. Aloor v State of Kerala
Case number: BAIL APPL. NO. 963 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed not to arrest Advocate B A Aloor in an allegation of sexual harassment against a woman client without issuance of notice of appearance under Section 41 A CrPC.
The crime was registered under Section 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) of IPC at the Ernakulam Central Police Station.
“In the interregnum, there shall be a direction that without giving notice as provided under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with crime No.273 of 2024 of Ernakulam Central Police Station”, stated Justice P G Ajithkumar
Case Title: Jebin Joseph v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP (C) No. 4636 of 2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by a man seeking release of his live-in partner's dead body from the Aster Medicity hospital.
It is alleged that the hospital was not ready to release the body until the petitioner settled the medical bills. Justice Devan Ramachandran inquired whether the family members of the deceased had been involved in this matter.
According to the petitioner, he was in a live-in relationship with the deceased individual for the past six years. On February 3, the person suffered serious injuries after falling from the flat.
Case Title: Pournami Gopinath v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(CRL.) NO. 135 OF 2024(S)
The Kerala High Court yesterday granted emergency leave for a period of seven days to a convict in order to attend the funeral rites of his father.
The petitioner's husband had been convicted for attempting to murder his neighbour and had been undergoing incarceration for two years.
It is during this time that the convict's father passed away. Although the convict had been granted the benefit of an escort visit for a day, since the rituals associated with his father's death were taking place on the 7th day and thereafter, the petitioner-wife prayed for grant of a 20-day parole for her husband.
Case title: N Prakash v State of Kerala
Case number: WPC No. 4559/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by a man seeking a hard copy of his renewed driving licence from the Road Transport Department which statedly collected printing and dispatch fee from him.
The petitioner claims he has a valid driving licence which would expire in March 2024. He had thus submitted an application for renewal of his driving licence along with prescribed documents and renewal fees. As per the instructions received, he was informed that a soft copy of the renewed driving licence could be downloaded on DigiLocker and mParivahan mobile apps.
Case Title: Jebin Joseph v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP (C) No. 4636 of 2024
While hearing a live-in partner's plea for release of his deceased partner's body from the hospital, the Kerala High Court today orally remarked that even a deceased person has right over his body and thus, the mortal remains have to be dealt with quickly.
Court said it does not know the status between the parties (petitioner and deceased) and thus refrained from passing any orders for inquest or post-mortem without hearing the deceased's immediate family. It went on to observe,
“I believe that a human being like any of us have a right beyond our death over our body…I am speaking for him (deceased) now. I am treating him as a person who would have control over his body had he been alive. Now the fundamental prerequisite is that the mortal remains is dealt with dignity and that too quickly. You cannot keep it pending forever. Now if there is no legal impediments in conducting the inquest and post mortem being done, I would require that to be done and the report to be placed before the Court.”
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Case number: WP (Crl) No. 147/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by the mother of five and a half-year-old minor girl who was raped and murdered in Vandiperiyar, Idukki seeking reinvestigation by constituting a special investigating team.
A local Court had acquitted the sole accused Arjun citing improper investigation and lack of evidence.
The plea moved by the mother stated that the police had conducted a 'planned investigation' to save the real culprits from the law. It was averred that even though it was found that the child was subjected to sexual assault including rape, it was due to the faulty investigation that the Trial Court had to acquit the sole accused for insufficient evidence.
Case Title: Abdul Azeez vs. The Authorized Officer, Phoenix ARC. Ltd. and Anr.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 33707 of 2023 with OP (DRT) No. 453 of 2023
The Kerala High Court dismissing the writ petition held that the transfer of a loan account by a Bank/Financial Institution to an ARC would not amount to “conveyance” as defined in Section 2(d) of the Stamp Act.
It noted that the proceedings under SARFAESI are proceedings to enforce security interest, without the intervention of the court.
The Court noted that what is transferred by a Bank/Financial Institution to an ARC is only economic interest and there is no conveyance of property or proprietary rights. The transfer of legal ownership of the loan is limited to the extent of the economic interest transferred.
Case title: Sangita Iyer v Guruvayoor Dewasom
Case number: W.P.(C)No.16514 of 2023
The Kerala High Court has directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and its officials to ensure that elephants in Punnathur Anakkotta are properly taken care of in accordance with law. It said:
“The 1st respondent Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and its officials shall ensure that there is proper care to all elephants of Guruvayur Devaswom in Punnathur Anakkotta, in strict compliance with the relevant statutory provisions and also the directions of the Apex Court [(Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre v. Union of India and others (2014)], and judgement of this Court referred to Supra [(Prema Kumar P. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and others (2022), Mohanan K.S. v. State of Kerala (2023), Sree Kumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board (2003)].”
Case title: Biju Antony Aloor @ B.A. Aloor v State of Kerala
Case number: BAIL APPL. NO. 963 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court today closed the anticipatory bail application filed by Advocate B A Aloor stating the same is not maintainable as the offence alleged in the FIR is bailable.
The allegation against Advocate Aloor was that he sexually harassed a female client and an offence under Section 354A of IPC was registered against him at the Ernakulam Central Police Station.
While closing the anticipatory bail plea, Justice Sophy Thomas stated thus:
“The offence alleged against the petitioner is under Section 354A of IPC and since it is a bailable offence, an anticipatory bail application is not maintainable. Hence, this application is closed.”
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Thomas Issac v Deputy Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024 & WPC 3719/2024
The Kerala High Court has refused to intervene in two pleas by Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and by former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Issac challenging the summons issued to them by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to the masala bonds case.
Summons was also issued against Dr Issac to appear on February 13, 2024, for the production of documents and for oral submissions.
Justice Devan Ramachandran did not pass any formal orders against the issuance of summons and orally stated, “I am deciding it tomorrow, You can choose to go or not to go”.
Case title: Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC), Vs Union Of India, Shone George Vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs
Case number: WP(C) 4896/ 2024, WP(C) 42092/ 2023
The Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd (KSIDC) has approached the Kerala High Court seeking to be removed from the investigation conducted by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office into Exalogic Solutions, an IT company owned by CM Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter, which is allegedly involved in CMRL bribery case.
Justice Devan Ramachandran orally stated that the KSIDC would be removed from the party array only if they prove their bonafides that they were not aware of the alleged illegal dealings made by CMRL.
Case Title: PM Gopi v. Union of India and ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 5371 of 2023
The Kerala High Court today heard a plea challenging the movie Brahmayugam, specifically the depiction of the lead character 'Kunjumon Potty. The petitioner is the head of Punjamon Illam, a traditional Brahmin household in Kerala.
It was stated that the petitioners family lineage, historically engaged in ritualistic practises documented in the book “Aithihymala.” The petitioner claimed that the portrayal of the main character in the film is negative and defamatory and would tarnish their family's reputation.
Case title: A v The Assistant Commissioner Of Police & Others
Case number: WPC 2100/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by a 22-year-old girl who allegedly sustained burn injuries on her body from taking a steam bath as part of the Ayurveda spa package at the Kumarakom Heritage Resort, Kottayam district.
She alleges that she sustained burn injuries on her body and had to undergo plastic surgeries and skin grafting due to the criminal negligence committed by the Resort.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his anguish at the condition of the petitioner and orally stated 'resorts and spa should be controlled'.
Case title: Biju Antony Aloor @ B.A. Aloor V State Of Kerala & Others
Case number: Bail Appl. 1165/2024
Advocate BA Aloor has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a complaint filed against him by a client alleging criminal intimidation and sexual harassment.
FIR has been lodged for offences under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 294 (b) (obscene acts and songs), 506 (ii) (criminal intimidation) and 354A (sexual harassment and punishment for sexual harassment) of IPC at the Ernakulam Central Police Station.
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Thomas Issac v Deputy Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024 & WPC 3719/2024
The Kerala High Court today told the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) and former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac to cooperate with the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the masala bonds case.
Justice Devan Ramachandran orally stated that the investigation of the ED is only in its preliminary stage and suggested the parties abide by the summons only once which will be under the complete monitoring of the Court.
Chief Justice, A J Desai has directed the Registry of the Kerala High Court to notify to all the staff and members to refer to the records of the Trial Court as 'Trial Court Record' (TCR) instead of 'Lower Court Record' (LCR). The direction has also prohibited the usage of terms like 'Lower Courts' or 'Subordinate Courts' while referring to the Trial Courts or the Courts in the District Judiciary.
Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant & Connected Matters
Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021 & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court today warned that it will frame charges and initiate contempt proceedings against the cop who allegedly used prohibited abusive vocatives against an advocate at Alathur Police Station in Palakkad district. The Court had directed the SI and SHO of the police station to file their reply in the matter.
Will Clear Pension Arrears Of KSRTC Employees Within Two Weeks: State Govt Tells Kerala High Court
Case Title: K Asokakumar v. Sri Biju Prabhakar & anr.
Case Number: Contempt Case (C) No. 2368 of 2023
The State government has informed the Kerala High Court that pension arrears of retired Kerala State Road Transport Corp (KSRTC) employees would be paid within 2 weeks.
These submissions came in a contempt plea, against the State for refusing to clear the pension arrears of the KSRTC employees.
Case title: Binu Mitran v Regional Fire Officer
Case number: WP(C) NO. 5689 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has stayed an order terminating a Divisional Warden in Civil Defense Service (CDS) in the Ernakulam Division which was allegedly issued without an enquiry and following principles of natural justice.
Justice Basant Balaji has granted an interim stay against the (Ext P7). “ In the meanwhile, there shall be an interim stay of Exhibit P7 for a period of one month pertaining to the petitioner alone”, stated the Bench.
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director, Thomas Issac v Deputy Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024 & WPC 3719/2024
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that this is only a preliminary inquiry and there will be no arrest, no interrogation and the proceedings will be video graphed and protected.
“Resultantly, as an interim measure I permit the DGM (Institutional Finance), KIIFB along with two or three officers to appear before the competent authority and answer to the impugned summons…”, stated the Court
The Court made this observation in a plea filed by the KIIFB challenging the summons issued by ED in connection with the masala bonds case. A separate plea was also filed by former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac challenging the summons by the ED stating that he was only an individual and no specific allegations were made against him in the summons for taking oral evidence. The Court had not stayed the summons issued by ED against KIIFB and Dr Isaac.
Case Title: Aneesh K. Thankachan
Case No. 36896/ 2022
The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to explain the amplitude of duties, responsibilities, and powers of the Intermediary under Rule 3(i)(d) and Rule 3(ii)(a) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021.
A single-judge bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran heard the matter.
The petitioner, part of the Marthoma Christian community had moved the court due to being aggrieved by a YouTube video on Marthoma Bishop Rt. Rev. Dr. Euyakim Mar Coorilos, which he alleges created communal disharmony.
Case name: Indian Cooperative Credit Society Limited v. Union of India and ors.
Case number: 6563/ 2024
The Kerala High Court today admitted a plea moved by the Indian Cooperative Credit Society Limited (ICCSL) against allegedly factually wrong information being published or printed through media regarding it.
Justice Devan Ramachandran admitted the matter and issued notice to the Press Council of India.
The petitioner moved the plea after being aggrieved by the action of the media and news channels in providing the public with information that was allegedly unverified and false.
Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 29565/ 2023
The Kerala High Court was informed by the Special Government Pleader that the noon meal cooking cost for the month of January 2024 under the Noon-Meal scheme will be made available by the 24th of February, 2024 and the amount will be disbursed after the petitioners, the Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Association and the Headmasters of certain government and aided schools provided the required data.
The development comes in a plea alleging untimely and inadequate disbursal of funds under the Noon-Meal scheme.
Case title: Whatsapp LLC Vs Union Of India
Case number: WP (Crl) 186/2024
The Kerala High Court has stayed an order issued by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram directing representative of WhatsApp India to appear in person before it on February 07.
The Magistrate had directed the in-person appearance of the WhatsApp India representative to provide details regarding the 'first originator' of an end-to-end encrypted derogatory WhatsApp message which allegedly outraged the modesty and tarnished the public image of the complainant-woman as a politician.
The complainant had registered an FIR alleging commission of offences under Section 354 A (1)(iv) IPC, Sections 67 IT Act, Section 120 (o) Kerala Police Act for circulating derogatory messages about her.
Case title: K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Case number: Crl.A Nos. 172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339, 403, 892 of 2014 and Crl.Appeal (Victim) No.571 of 2015
The Court had earlier had confirmed the conviction of other accused under Section 302 (punishment for murder) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy). It had also set aside the acquittal of the 10th and 12th accused and convicted them under Sections 120B read with Section 302 IPC.
T P Chandrasekharan, leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) was murdered due to political rivalry on May 4, 2012.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar andJustice Kauser Edappagath today confirmed the conviction against Accused 18 and 31, as held by the Trial Court.
Case title: R Rajalakshmi v State of Kerala
The plea was filed by a woman entrepreneur alleging an "indifferent and passive" attitude of the government in disbursing maintenance charges and damages for her hotel building which was taken over under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 for usage as isolation ward for persons returning from abroad and other States during the lockdown period.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 445/ 2022
The Kerala High Court today directed the Ernakulam District and Sessions Judge to give the survivor in the actor sexual assault case, involving Malayalam actor Dileep, a copy of the report of fact-finding inquiry into the allegation that the memory card containing videos of the sexual assault had been accessed unauthorisedly.
“This court never intended that the report should be treated as confidential,” observed Justice K Babu orally.
The court said if the inquiry was completed within the stipulated time, a report copy shall be given to the survivor. “She has a right to know this,” remarked the court.
Case title: Mahalakshmi Temple Car Festival Committee V Palakkad District Committee (Festival Monitoring)
Case number: WP(C) NO. 6054 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has permitted three temples to use elephants to push chariots only for negotiating curves, if required, for temple festivals since it was a centuries-old tradition, subject to compliance with all safeguards and directions by the Court.
The temple committee members approached the High Court seeking permission to deploy services of elephants/tuskers for pushing the chariots in three temples.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that all necessary safeguards have to be followed to ensure that animals are not subjected to any cruelty or excessive fatigue. It also stated that the elephants should be used to push chariots only for negotiating curves, if required, and directed to ensure that the entire weight would not be shifted on them.
Case Title: Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary & Connected Cases
Case Number: WP(C) 26003/ 2017 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court will pronounce the judgment on the batch of petitions challenging the Travancore Dewaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayala Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi(chief priest) of Sabarimala-Malikappuram temples on (Tuesday) February 27, 2024, at 4.15 PM.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar had reserved the judgment on August 23, 2023. The judgment which was to be pronounced today has been deferred and will be now pronounced on (Tuesday) February 27, 2024, at 4.15 PM.
Case title: A v Union Of India
Case number: WP(C) 6695/2024
A woman has approached the Kerala High Court seeking directions to the Director of Pre-Natal Diagnostic Division and Additional Director (Family Welfare) to conduct an investigation and take appropriate action against her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law for allegedly giving her instructions on how to conceive a male child.
The woman alleged that she was handed over a note by her husband and his family containing certain 'pre-conception sex selection methods' for conceiving a 'good boy child' and not a girl child on the first day of her marriage itself. She seeks action against them under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
Case Title: M. N Jayachandran & anr. v. Union of India & ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 36422 of 2023
The Kerala High Court recently emphasized the need for the Government to formulate a policy to manage human-animal conflict and noted the increasing rate of incidents to point out that a comprehensive policy was required to address the conflict between humans and animals.
“Killing and culling of wild animals, which trespass into human habitat, as the sole method of defence can never be thought of as a panacea” stated Justice Devan Ramachandran.
The court was considering a plea seeking a stay on the implementation of an order issued by the 5th respondent (Chief Conservator and Chief Wildlife Warden) which permitted forest officials to shoot wild pigs that enter into and cause damage to human settlements and agriculture.
Sexual Awareness Now Part Of School Curriculum: Kerala Govt Informs High Court
Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 3273 of 2022
Textbooks for grade 7 now contain sexual awareness programme targeted at informing students, the Kerala government has informed the High Court. Its counsel handed over a copy of Part I of the textbook for STD VII which is about to be rolled out for the coming academic year in the schools following the Kerala syllabus for its curriculum, incorporating sexual awareness programme.
Counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education also informed the court that CBSE has launched 4 manuals to be released by end of March, 2024 for sexual awareness classes from the next academic year.
“They have got to get it ingrained in their mind,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas orally.
Case title: XXX v Union of India
Case number: PWC 6527/2024
The Kerala High Court is to consider the question of whether a woman can claim a change of circumstances for seeking medical termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 and Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003 when she has filed a divorce petition and the proceedings are going on.
As per Rule 3 (B) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules 2003, “change of marital status during the ongoing pregnancy (widowhood and divorce)” would entitle a woman to undergo medical termination of pregnancy up to twenty-four weeks.
The Court was seized with a plea moved by a 25-year-old woman who is 20 weeks pregnant now. She has approached the Court seeking medical termination of pregnancy because she is going through a divorce now. The woman had filed the divorce petition alleging cruelty, marital rape against her husband and stated that she does not wish to continue her pregnancy amid the divorce proceedings.
Case title: K C Ramachandran v State of Kerala & Connected Matters
Case number: Crl.A Nos. 172, 174, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 339, 403, 892 of 2014 and Crl.Appeal (Victim) No.571 of 2015
In the TP Chandrashekharan murder case, the Kerala High Court imposed life imprisonment without remission to nine convicts (A1 – Anoop, A2 - Manoj @ Kirmani Manoj, A3 – N.K.Sunil Kumar @ Kodi Suni, A4 – T.K.Rajeesh, A5 – K.K.Muhammed Shafi, A6 – S.Sijith, A7 – K.Shinoj, A8 – K.C.Ramachandran, A11 – Manojan). The Court also sentenced 3 convicts (A10-K K Krishnan, A12-Geothi Babu, A18-P V Rafeek) to life imprisonment without curtailing their right to remission.
TP Chandrashekaran, the leader of the Revolutionary Marxist Party (RMP) was murdered due to political rivalry on May 4, 2012.
“While the crime would certainly rank as a heinous one committed against the victim TP Chandrasekharan, it is also one that threatens to undermine the democratic principles by which the people of the country as a whole has chosen to be governed by. Crimes which have the effect of inducing fear in the people to the point where they are prevented from freely exercising their constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of speech and expression ought to be dealt with firmly for they cannot be tolerated in the society that is governed by the rule of law. While there is under this an element of public interest that is to be safeguarded through the prescription of punishment for the crime, any crime that is committed with the view to silence dissent which is an integral facet of the right to privacy under Article 21 of our constitution has to be seen as a crime against the people at large in a society that has chosen to be governed by democratic principles.", stated the Bench.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 7727 of 2024
Case Title: Binoy Kodiyeri v. The Assistant Commissioner
Binoy Kodiyeri, son of CPM politician Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, has moved a plea before the Kerala High Court against the Income Tax Department alleging that the procedure adopted by the IT department in issuing certain notices to him was "arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice".
The plea alleges that the petitioner and his family "have constantly been the target of vicious, politically motivated campaigns and conspiracies". It mentioned that the petitioner's brother had been wrongfully arrested earlier on "trumped up allegations" and in judicial custody for almost a year.
Case Number: WP(C) No 39109 of 2023
Case Title: Dr. Laxmy Rajmohan and ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Gynaecologists working in government hospitals across Kerala have moved the Kerala High Court challenging an amendment order passed by the government which mandates only 'gynaecologists' to be allowed to examine the survivors of sexual offences rather than any 'registered medical practitioner' as provided under Section 164A of the CrPC.
A single-judge bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran will be hearing the matter.
Case title: Confederation of Endosulfan Victim's Rights Collective v State of Kerala
Case number: WPC 8096/2024
A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging a Government Order classifying 'exposed victims' of Endosulfan by fixing a cutoff date till October 2011. This means, those born after the cut-off date will not qualify for schemes and compensation for the benefit of Endosulfan victims.
The Confederation of Endosulfan Victim's Rights Collective (CERVE) contends that Endosulfan is genotoxic and affects many generations. Thus, setting a cut-off date "without any scientific basis" is arbitrary. The Plea thus challenges restrictive conditions in the impugned government order that hinder victim identification and support and affect the rights of the victims born after the cut-off date who have suffered health impacts by living with exposure to Endosulfan.
Kerala High Court Admits Plea Seeking Assessment Of Damages And Compensation In Thripunithura Blast
Case title: Gopinathan C & Others v State of Kerala & Others
Case number: WPC 8202/2024
Justice Viju Abraham today issued notice to the party respondents and sought instructions from the government pleader as to who was the competent authority for assessing the damages faced by the petitioners.
The Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the explosion caused the loss of 2 lives, injury to 10 persons and huge damage to houses and properties that were located nearby and that maintenance works have to be carried out. It was alleged that the explosives were stored in a densely populated area without following any safety measures. It was alleged that the explosion occurred due to the lack of care and dereliction of duty on the part of the temple officials. It was also alleged that the firecrackers were obtained for fire display and were stored in huge quantities without getting permission and licence from authorities under the Explosives Act and rules thereunder.