story Kerala Resident Moves High Court Against Ombudsman For Local Self-Govt Institutions, Invokes Legal Maxim 'Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Jurisdictionem' [Disaster Management] With High Court's Intervention, Kerala Govt Issues Circular For 'Risk Awareness' Of Development Projects At Planning Stage [Masala Bonds Case] KIIFB Moves Kerala High Court Against Summons Issued By ED To Former Chief Secretary
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director MLA VD Satheesan Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Court Monitored Probe Into K-FON Project Alleging Favouritism & Corruption Shawarma Death Case: Kerala High Court Asks Food Safety Commissioner To Apprise Steps Taken To Ensure Safety Of Food Articles 'Abusive Vocatives' Against Advocate By Police: High Court Directs Appearance Of Kerala Police Chief To Ensure 'Civilized Police Behaviour Kerala High Court Orders Effective Implementation Of Plastic Ban In Sabarimala, Removal Of Unauthorized Hawkers
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1-79]Union of India & Ors. v. P.K. Santhosh Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1P C Najeeb v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2George Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 3XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5X v Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 6Thazheveettil...
Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1-79]
Union of India & Ors. v. P.K. Santhosh Kumar, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
P C Najeeb v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
George Mathew v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
XXX v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
X v Y, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Thazheveettil Naushan and ors. v. Elizabeth Regive, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. and connected matter, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Sameerali v. Muhammed, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
Gangadharan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
Baby v. Chandramathy, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
Shaju Pachelil Pathrose Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Mathew Kunju Mathew v. K.V. Kuriakose & Anr. and connected matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
A H Sheriff v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
Ashiya Ummal v. S.N. Sathy & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
Prabhulla P v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
XXX v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Sreekumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
XX v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Kaliman Thozhilali Kshema Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangam Ltd. v District Geologist, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
Angels Nair v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
Suresh Gopi V State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Premakumari R. v. O.K. Sivasankara Pillai & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Edwin Andrew Minihan v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Sabu George & Ors. v. James George & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Jins Francis V State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Rohith Giri v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
XXX v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Jaseer SM v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Central Board Of Trustees v Bake N Joy Hot Bakery 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
Narayanankutty K v Cochin Devaswom Board 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Hemalatha S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
State of Kerala v Dr Praveen Kumar T K 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Yadhu Krishnan and ors. v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
C Lajith and Ors. v. State of Kerala and ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Manoj TK v. State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
Kaleshkumar KK v. State of Kerala & ors. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
Sangha Erectors Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Cranes and Trailers Pvt. Ltd. 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Thapas Berman v State of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
M/S. Professional Copier Services India (Pvt) Ltd Versus State Of Kerala 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
XXX v State of Kerala 2024 Lilvelaw (Ker) 41
Sabu Varghese v. Viju P. Varghese & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
Dr. Annie Mareena Issac V Employees State Insurance Corporation, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
XXX & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Connected case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
Lekshmi M V Sudhamony Amma, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Anwer Hussain T v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Neyan Veettil Behsana V Local Registrar For Births And Deaths & Marriages, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
K Sekharan v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
Sasidharan A v Vijayan Unnithan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
Renjith Raj v State, Represented By CI of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Rajeswari v Omana Amma, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
Azharudheen v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Sivaprakashan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
T. Rema & Ors. v. AK Radhamani & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Mohammed Manath Ibrahim v Thrikkakara Municipality, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
Joseph A U v Princy P J, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
C. Surendranath v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
SJ v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
Poyil Salim V Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Sreejith R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
Davood v. State of Kerala & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
Suresh Kumar @ Sarath Nair v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
Dr M V Narayanan v Chancellor & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Jhonny Alexander Duran Sola v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
Coach India v Superintendent of Central Tax And Central Excise, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Venugopal v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
XXX v. State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
Jollyamma v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Judgments/Orders This Month
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. P.K. Santhosh Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Kerala High Court held that an employee without the requisite qualifications for Bosun (Certified) cannot claim promotion to the said post, and that ad hoc service rendered by such employee shall not qualify for fiancial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression ('ACP'), and the Modified Assured Career Progression ('MACP') Schemes.
"...we specifically note that the ACP Scheme itself stipulates that the employee must fulfil normal promotional norms. In such circumstances, without fulfilling the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Bosun (Certified), the applicant is not entitled to claim promotion to the post of Bosun (certified)," the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed.
Case Title: P C Najeeb v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that notary applications of advocates cannot be summarily rejected under Rule 8(1)(c) of the Notaries Rules, 1956 without giving germane and valid reasons.
Justice Devan Ramachandran held that notary applications cannot be rejected summarily stating that the number of applicants was higher than the number of vacancies.
“Even when the Government has the right to reject an application under Rule 8(1)(c), it has to be done for germane and legal reasons. The factum of the number of applicants being much higher than the vacancies, cannot be the sole reason to summarily reject it, except if it is established that there are others, who are found to be more eligible in the process. (See for support – Abdul Kareem M.T.P. v. State of Kerala [2023 (1) KHC 666]).”
Case Title: George Mathew v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
The Kerala High Court clarified the position on inter se exchange regarding vacancies in quota reserved for persons with disabilities.
The single judge bench reiterated that if any vacancy reserved for a particular category of benchmark disability cannot be filled due to the unavailability of a suitable candidate with that specific benchmark disability or for any other valid reason, such a vacancy must be carried forward as a 'backlog reserved vacancy' to the subsequent recruitment year.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan added that the 'backlog reserved vacancy' should be treated as reserved for the category of Disability as it was originally reserved in the initial year of recruitment. However, if a suitable candidate with that benchmark disability is still unavailable in the subsequent year, the vacancy may be filled through interchange among the categories of benchmark disabilities designated for reservation.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
The Kerala High Court has refused permission to medically terminate the pregnancy of a 12-year-old minor girl who was allegedly in an incestual relationship with her minor brother. It held that medical termination of pregnancy was not an option as the foetus had already reached 34 weeks of gestation and was now fully developed.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has directed the minor girl to be in the custody and care of the petitioners/parents. The Court has also directed the competent authorities and parents to ensure that the brother against whom allegations were made was not allowed anywhere near the girl.
Case Title: Ranjith Kumar K.V. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Kerala High Court upheld the decision taken by the State Government in filling the vacancies to the post of Overseer/Draftsman (Mechanical Grade-II) as per the unamended Special Rules applicable in the Water Resources Department ('Special Rules'), by underscoring the right of the Government in deciding the applicable rules governing promotion.
"...no employee has a vested right for consideration for promotion. The right of employees for promotion is based on extant rule as on the date of consideration for promotion. The Government has every right to take a decision as to the applicability of the rule which would govern the promotion. If the Government takes a conscious decision that the vacancies which arose prior to the amended rules will have to be filled in accordance with the unamended rules, the Court cannot sit on judicial review to overturn the wisdom of the Government," the Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed in this regard.
Case title: X v Y
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that subjecting a wife to sexual perversions against her will and consent would amount to physical and mental cruelty. It also clarified that perceptions of people vary on sexual perversion and if consenting adults engage in sexual acts out of their free will and consent, it would be their choice and the Courts would not intervene.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha observed thus:
“When two consenting adults engage in coitus in the privacy of their bedroom, it is their choice as to how and in what manner they should act. But if one of the party objects to the conduct or acts of the other party on the ground that it is against normal course of human conduct or normal sexual activity, and still he/she is compelled to do the same, then it can only be termed as cruelty both physical and mental. If the conduct and character of a party causes misery and agony to the other spouse, the said conduct would certainly be an act of cruelty to the spouse justifying the grant of divorce. Subjecting the wife to sexual perversions against her will and consent is certainly an act of mental as well as physical cruelty.”
Case Title: Thazheveettil Naushan and ors. v. Elizabeth Regive
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (7)
The Kerala High Court has clarified that a tenant cannot contest an eviction application filed by the landlord under Section 11 of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 unless the admitted arrears of rent are cleared.
A two-judge bench of Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John said the tenant has to pay or deposit with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit.
Case Title: Sajithabai & Ors. v. Kerala Water Authority & Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Kerala High Court has laid down that an employee who had chosen to be promoted under the Diploma qualification Quota would be ineligible for further promotion under the Degree Quota.
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was thus of the considered opinion that the inclusion of such persons in the Seniority List would be illegal.
"Respondents 1 to 4 earned their Engineering Degrees while working as Draftsmen. Therefore, they could invoke the Note to Rule 2 of Ext.P4 Special Rules, seeking direct recruitment as Assistant Engineers in the 6% quota reserved for them or promotion under the Diploma quota. However, for obvious reasons, they chose promotion under the Diploma quota and are thus ineligible for further promotion to Assistant Executive Engineer under the Degree quota, as per the governing rules," the Court observed.
Case Title: Sameerali v. Muhammed
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (9)
The Kerala High Court clarified that “mere receipt of rent by the landlord, after receipt of quit notice by the tenant, would not be tantamount to waiver of the quit notice, contemplated under Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act.”
Section 113 of the Transfer of Property Act says a quit notice is waived with the tenant's consent, by any act of the landlord showing an intention to treat the lease as subsisting.
As such, Justice Badharudeen clarified that “in view of the settled law, the status of the defendant herein is that of a tenant at sufferance…(and) the quit notice would not waive, and the status of the tenant is a `tenant at sufferance' and not beyond that”.
Therefore, the court stated that the defendant was bound to vacate the building. Additionally, the court held that “mere receipt of rent by the landlord, after receipt of quit notice by the tenant, would not be tantamount to waiver of the quit notice, contemplated under Section 113 of the T.P Act”.
Case title: Gangadharan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that an Abkari Officer already appointed under the Abkari Act will not lose his authority to act as an Abkari Officer upon redeployment to a Special Squad.
Justice Sophy Thomas however added that upon redeployment, the officer is expected to act within the bounds defined for the squad.
The Special Squad in this case was constituted to prevent and detect offences under the Abkari Act and the NDPS Act which were rampantly affecting the younger generations in the society.
“When an Abkari Officer already notified under Section 4 of the Abkari Act as per SRO 234/67 is redeployed to a Special Squad, he need not be again notified as an Abkari Officer to perform the duties and functions as a member of the Special Squad, because by such redeployment, he will not lose his authority as an Abkari Officer. But when he is redeployed to the Special Squad, he has to act within the parameters of the duties and functions, assigned to the Squad, and he cannot cross the borders.”
Appellate Court May Reject, Not Dismiss An Appeal For Non-Payment Of Court Fee: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Baby v. Chandramathy
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (11)
The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate court may only reject and not dismiss an appeal for non-payment of court fee by the party.
A single judge bench of Justice Badharudeen was dealing with a second appeal, filed as a consequence of first appellate court's order dismissing the appeal as “balance court fee not paid". The Court said,
"The proper procedure to strike down an appeal due to failure on the part of the appellant to pay balance court fee is rejection of the appeal and the said rejection of appeal is decree, as defined under Section 2(2) of CPC."
Assessee Can't Indefinitely Seek Time In Response To SCN: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Shaju Pachelil Pathrose Versus Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
The Kerala High Court has held that the assessee cannot indefinitely seek time in response to a show cause notice.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that petitioners cannot go on asking for a time one after another in response to the show cause notice issued one after another. There is no violation of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Mathew Kunju Mathew v. K.V. Kuriakose & Anr. and connected matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
The Kerala High Court held that when a competent civil court finds that a dishonoured cheque, which was the subject matter for initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') was not supported by valid consideration, the conviction and sentence of the criminal court for the offence would not legally sustain.
"The presumption under Sections 118 ('Presumptions as to negotiable instruments') and 139 ('Presumption in favour of holder') of the NI Act is of no avail, when the cheques are proved to be not issued towards discharge of any legally enforceable debt," Justice Sophy Thomas observed.
Case title: A H Sheriff v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court stated that persons have no vested right to seek 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) for granting of lease for mining minerals. It held that in the absence of vested rights, the application seeking NOC had to be considered based on the existing rules.
In this case, the application for NOC was filed in 2019 and it was rejected after a delay of four years by relying upon 2021 guidelines issued by the government. The Court held that even though the application was pending and there was a delay, it could not grant NOC without considering the guidelines in the absence of any express provisions.
By relying upon the Apex Court decisions in State of Tamil Nadu v. M/s. Hind Stone and Others (1981) and State of Rajasthan and Others v. Sharwan Kumar Kumawat (2023), Justice Murali Purushothaman dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Ashiya Ummal v. S.N. Sathy & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Kerala High Court laid down that a person who did not sign a compromise which led to passing of a compromise decree, but subsequently acted upon the same, could not thereafter avoid the decree merely on the ground that he/she had not put his/her signature on it.
"In law, nobody is allowed to approbate and reprobate. To put it differently, a person, who enjoys the benefit of a compromise, he did not sign, after filing an affidavit acting upon the same and obtained the money in terms of the compromise, cannot deviate from the said compromise on the ground that he or she did not sign the same after acting upon the same," the Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed.
Case Title: Prabhulla P v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker (16)
The Kerala High Court has delivered a significant interpretation surrounding preventive detention under Section 12 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 and the 2014 amendment which expanded the maximum period of detention.
Section 12, prior to the amendment stipulated the maximum period of detention as 6 months. With the 2014 Amendment, the 'first detention' can last a maximum period of 6 months but the 'subsequent detention' can be of upto one year.
A division bench of Justices Muhammed Mustaque and Shoba Annamma Eapen has now clarified that if a preventive detention order was passed prior to the 2014 Amendment, such an order will not constitute 'first detention'. In other words, detention order passed prior to 31.12.2014, cannot be taken into account for passing a subsequent detention order for a maximum period of one year.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
The Kerala High Court granted emergency leave to a murder convict for attending his daughter's wedding. It also stated that the parties being Muslim, it was essential for the father to attend the daughter's wedding.
While granting emergency leave, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that on earlier occasions, when the petitioner's father was given emergency leave or ordinary leave, he had never overstayed and instead returned without any default.
Case title: Sreekumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court yesterday ordered the acquittal of a husband who was accused of causing the suicidal death of his wife since the prosecution was unable to prove that suicide was committed due to cruelty or harassment.
The Court acquitted the husband by giving him the benefit of reasonable doubt and made a significant observation that every type of harassment or cruelty would not establish an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of IPC.
While setting aside the conviction, Justice Johnson John stated that minor quarrels between spouses due to differences of opinion or sporadic instances of ill-treatment would not establish an offence of cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
Case Title: XX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State authorities regarding the handling of minor victims of sexual abuse, the provision of treatment including psycho therapy for prisoners accused of committing offences under the POCSO Act, and sex therapy for the victims/survivors of sexual assault.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Gopinath P. issued the directions taking note of the report by the Project Co-Ordinator of the Victim Rights Centre (VRC) Advocate A. Parvathi Menon, whose intervention had been sought by the Court in a bail plea by a 19 year old alleged to have sexually abused his minor sister.
[Minor Mineral Rules] Traditional Pottery Artisans Don't Need NOC For Extracting Ordinary Clay Upto 50 Tonnes In A Year: Kerala High Court
Case title: Kaliman Thozhilali Kshema Vyavasaya Sahakarana Sangam Ltd. v District Geologist
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has recently made it clear that traditional artisans doing clay and pottery works cannot be insisted upon to produce a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) for extraction of ordinary clay up to 50 tonnes in a calendar year.
On perusing Rule 106 (5) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules 2015, Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that traditional artisans can be granted special transit passes for extraction of ordinary clay up to 50 tonnes on the production of their identity cards.
Case title: Angels Nair v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court made it clear that forest officials have to follow the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the National Tiger Conservation Authority (NTCA) and the provisions of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 while handling wild animals straying in human habitats.
The SOP provides the suggested field actions to be followed by forest officials in dealing with wild carnivores like the tiger and leopard.
Case title: Suresh Gopi V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by actor and politician Suresh Gopi, in connection with a case for alleged misbehaviour with a female reporter in front of the public and media.
A crime was registered against him under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force with intent to outrage the modesty of women) and Section 119 (punishment for atrocities against women) of the Kerala Police Act.
Case Title: Premakumari R. v. O.K. Sivasankara Pillai & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court categorically laid down that allegations of fraud, undue influence and coercion cannot be made in a 'sweeping manner' merely on the ground of suspicion or conjecture, to dispute the genuineness of a Will.
It thus underscored that suspicion regarding an individual factor could not act as a circumstance to doubt the genuineness of a Will.
Case title: Edwin Andrew Minihan v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Kerala High Court has permitted an Irish citizen to travel back to his home country to visit his ill mother despite the contention that a Special Leave Petition (SLP) would be preferred against his honourable acquittal.
The petitioner, an Irish citizen whose acquittal by Magistrate Court was confirmed by the High Court had sought liberty to go back to his country to visit his ill mother.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Irish citizen cannot be detained in India for the sole reason that the authorities intend to prefer an SLP before the Apex Court against his honourable acquittal.
Case Title: Sabu George & Ors. v. James George & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Kerala High Court held that an order passed by a Subordinate Judge's Court acting as a Commercial Court under a Government notification, would be appealable only before the concerned Commercial Appellate Court as per Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, and not before the High Court, as per the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 ('Act, 1996).
The Court in this case was seized of an appeal against an order passed by the Subordinate Court under Section 9 of the Act, 1996. Section 9 of the Act states interim measures to be taken by the Court
Case title: Jins Francis V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Kerala High Court dismissed the bail application filed by a 37-year-old man accused of assaulting a female doctor and staff nurses who examined and treated him at the hospital.
A crime was registered against him under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) IPC and Section 4 of the Kerala Healthcare Service Persons and Healthcare Service Institutions (Prevention of Violence and Damage to Property) Act, 2012
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
Case title: Rohith Giri v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court held that the writ jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 cannot be invoked seeking blanket general directions against the police for the prevention of registration of crimes.
“Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked to issue blanket directions against registration of a crime. Time and again, the Supreme Court as well as this Court have deprecated the practice of issuing general directions, especially with respect to investigation and registration of FIRs. Each FIR will have to be appreciated on the basis of the allegations therein” , stated Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court upheld the order passed by a single judge in the writ petition stating that a Magistrate cannot be prosecuted under 228-A IPC on an inadvertent omission to anonymize the name and details of the victims.
Dismissing the writ appeal, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and V.G. Arun observed that an inadvertent mistake on the part of the Magistrate cannot lead to prosecution under Section 228A IPC.
Case Title: Jaseer SM v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
In a judgement denying bail to two accused under the NDPS Act, the Kerala High Court clarified that “Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not lay down any stipulation that the accused in entitled to be released on bail if the trial does not commence within a particular period and additionally, the accused has to satisfy the twin conditions under Section 37 in addition to Section 439 of the Code to be released on bail.”
Case title: Central Board Of Trustees v Bake N Joy Hot Bakery
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
The Kerala High Court has upheld the order of a Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court (Tribunal) which reduced the amount of damages from 100% to 50% stating that Section 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (EPF) Act does not mandatorily prescribe that 100% amount of damages has to be imposed as penalty.
Case title: Narayanankutty K v Cochin Devaswom Board
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court directed the Cochin Devaswom Board to file a Devsawom Board Appeal (DBA) seeking specific directions regarding solid waste management in connection with the disposal of plastic, biodegradable and non-biodegradable waste that will be generated during the Thrissur Pooram in 2024
Case Title: Hemalatha S. Nair v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a subsequent overruling judgment cannot disturb the conclusiveness of an inter parte order that has attained finality.
Justice K. Babu made the above observation in a writ petition filed by the complainant seeking further investigation of her case. Significant to note that her application for further investigation was dismissed by the Magistrate in 2014 and the revision petition against it was also dismissed by the High Court in 2018. At the time, Supreme Court's decision in Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel v. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors. (2017) held field as per which, after Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences, a further investigation can be done only on application of the Investigating Officer.
Case title: State of Kerala v Dr Praveen Kumar T K
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Kerala High Court considered the maintainability of a second appeal filed under the Commercial Courts Act. The issue before the Court was, “whether second appeal is provided from the appellate decree and judgment passed by a Commercial Appellate Court?”
Justice A. Badharudeen, dismissing the second appeal as not maintainable observed thus:
“..If so, Commercial Courts Act does not provide second appeal. Therefore, it has to be held that the present second appeal filed, challenging the decree and judgment of the Commercial Appellate Court, is not maintainable and the same deserves dismissal.”
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Students Accused Of Obstructing Governor Arif Khan's Convoy
Case Title: Yadhu Krishnan and ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to 7 students who were accused of obstructing Governor Arif Khan's convoy.
A single judge bench of Justice CS Dias heard the matter today.
The incident occurred on December 11th, 2023, when the governor's convoy was impeded in Palayam by the accused who disobeyed orders of the police, and detained the Governor whilst shouting slogans, thereby causing a loss of Rs. 76, 357/- to the public exchequer.
Case Title: C Lajith and Ors. v. State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
In a judgment regarding the Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR), the Kerala High Court directed the state to “actively consider the laying down of a procedure for hearing as contemplated in Section 15 of the Act, which stipulates 60 days from the date of publication of the preliminary inspection under Section 11, for submission of objections.
The court maintained that the 2013 Act provides for a “humane, participative, informed, and transparent process" for land acquisition, as the preamble to the new Act suggested.
Case Title: Manoj TK v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
In a decision by the Kerala High Court, a single judge bench of Justice Gopinath clarified that “evidence of witnesses can be recorded in the presence of the counsel for the accused even in situations where the court grants exemption from personal appearance to the accused even of a day”.
Case Title: Kaleshkumar KK v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
In a recent decision by the Kerala High Court, a single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that “the term 'residential area designated as per local laws' cannot be interpreted to mean a 'residential house'.
The Court was seized of pleas challenging the permission granted for establishing a Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. petroleum retail outlet, which were dismissed for want of merit.
Case Title: Sangha Erectors Pvt. Ltd. v. Laxmi Cranes and Trailers Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court held that a unilateral affirmation by a party to a contract, without being specifically accepted by the other party, doesn't confer exclusive jurisdiction, since the ouster of jurisdiction of courts cannot be lightly assumed or presumed.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun found that a unilateral affirmation by one of the parties to the contract, without the same being specifically accepted by the other party, will not confer exclusive jurisdiction on any court by overlooking the conferment of jurisdiction as stipulated in Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Case Title: Thapas Berman v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The Kerala High Court held that variations in the evidence only due to normal errors of observation and memory due to the lapse of time will always be there and the same cannot be accepted as material discrepancies touching the core of the case.
A division bench of Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John was hearing the case.
Case Title: M/S. Professional Copier Services India (Pvt) Ltd Versus State Of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Kerala High Court has quashed the penalty under the Kerala Value Added Tax (KVAT) Act and held that re-sellers of machines have not wilfully classified machines under the wrong head and have adopted the same classification as the seller.
The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh has observed that penalty proceedings have to be initiated when there is a willful or contumacious act on the part of the assessee to evade payment of the correct tax. The petitioners had reason to adopt the classification as 'Digital Multifunctional Devices', as they being re-sellers could not have classified the machines to a different classification.
Case title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Kerala High Court quashed a sexual assault and rape complaint filed by a minor daughter under various provisions of the IPC & POCSO Act against her father on finding that it was a false complaint.
The Court found that the daughter had raised false allegations against her father since he objected to her relationship with a boy.
Justice Gopinath P quashed the criminal proceedings against the father by relying upon the mother's affidavit and a report submitted by the Victim Rights Centre that it was a false complaint.
Case Title: Sabu Varghese v. Viju P. Varghese & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Kerala High Court upheld a Single Bench order that set aside the promotion of an employee due to a break in his service, after the expiry of his authorized leave, which was treated as unauthorized and non-duty for all purposes other than pension.
Perusing Fundamental Rule 17A and Central Civil Services (Pension) Rule 27, the Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha, observed, "On juxtaposing of the aforementioned Rules, interruption or break in service has been clarified in Rule 27 in respect of employees who had remained absent after the expiry of authorized leave whereas Fundamental Rule 17A deals with absence out of nowhere and that absence has also been considered to be a break and interruption".
Case Title: Dr. Annie Mareena Issac V Employees State Insurance Corporation
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Kerala High Court has asked employers to exhibit open-mindedness and empathy when issuing transfer orders to 'working women'.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that working women play major roles in taking care of their children and aged parents and thus, they may find it difficult to maintain a work-life balance in an unfamiliar environment.
Case Title: XXX & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Connected case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
The Kerala High Court directed the Inspector General of Registration, to consider the validity of the registration of an NGO 'Youth Enrichment Society' accused of making remarks with the intent to cause harm against the transgender community
The plea was before a bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran. The petitioners had filed the writ petition seeking cancellation of registration of the 6th respondent NGO for making remarks against the transgender community with the intent to cause them harm.
Case title: Lekshmi M V Sudhamony Amma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Kerala High Court has referred the decision of a single judge in Natarajan T.K. v. T.K.Raman Achari (2023) for the consideration of a Division Bench in which it was held that Courts in Kerala have no jurisdiction for granting and revoking probates or letters of administration unless there is a notification issued by the State Government.
Justice Sathish Ninan by relying upon Sections 57 and 264 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 observed that no notification was needed for granting and revoking probates or letters of administration when the wills and codicils were made on or after 01.01.1927 by a Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain.
Case Title: Anwer Hussain T v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
In a matter regarding POCSO allegations against a soldier under Sections 12, 11(iv), 18, 6 and 5b(iv) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the Kerala High Court has observed that “allegations [against a soldier] has to be viewed more seriously. He is supposed to guard the nation, and the dignity and integrity of its citizens.”
A single bench of Justice Sophy Thomas accordingly denied the soldier/petitioner's bail plea.
Case title: Neyan Veettil Behsana V Local Registrar For Births And Deaths & Marriages
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Kerala High Court has observed that there is a lacuna in the Kerala Registration of Marriages (Common) Rules, 2008 since it does not provide a provision to register divorce when divorce was obtained under personal law.
A divorced Muslim woman had approached the Court seeking to 'record the fact of divorce' in the Marriage Register after her marriage was dissolved on pronouncing Talaq.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the authority which has the power to register the marriage will also have the authority to record the fact of divorce. It further observed that a divorced wife who has registered marriage under the 2008 Rules on obtaining a divorce under personal law shall not be insisted for obtaining an order from the Court.
Case Title: K Sekharan v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
The Kerala High Court has clarified that no quarrying activities can be done on lands assigned under the Kerala Land Assignment Act.
A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham made these observations in a plea challenging quarrying activities near Neyyar Wildlife Sanctuary undertaken by the respondent.
Case title: Sasidharan A v Vijayan Unnithan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Kerala High Court has upheld the acquittal order issued by the Trial Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on finding that there was no evidence to prove that the cheque was dishonoured for want of sufficient funds.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the order of the Trial Court if it has been reasonably formed.
Case title: Renjith Raj v State, Represented By CI of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Kerala High Court has held that when trial courts frame charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, they should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar relying upon Apex Court decisions, stated that no prejudice was caused to the appellant and that a mere defect in the language, narration or form of charges would not render the conviction unsustainable.
Furthermore, Justice Ajithkumar stated that when the Courts were framing charges in deaths involving motor vehicle accidents, it should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A IPC is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 IPC.
Case title: Rajeswari v Omana Amma
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Kerala High Court stated that when proof of will has to be given, the Court has to take a separate and lenient consideration in examining a witness immediately by invoking the jurisdiction under Order 18 Rule 16 of CPC, which provides the power to examine the witness immediately.
“….this Court is of the opinion that the petition under Order XVIII, Rule 16 C.P.C, in the context of proof of a 'Will', will have to receive a separate and lenient consideration, in as much as, it is imperative, going by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, as also, by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, to examine at least one of the attesting witnesses, in proof of the 'Will'”, Stated Justice C Jayachandran.
Case Title: Azharudheen v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
In a matter before the Kerala High Court, a single judge bench of Justice CS Dias held that an oral application made by the petitioner, who was accused under the NDPS Act ("Act") would be sufficient to release him on statutory bail due to the failure of the Investigation Officer to file the final report on time.
If Land Acquired For Public Purpose By Paying Compensation, Delay In Utilisation Doesn't Entitle Owner To Seek Re-Conveyance: Kerala High Court
Case title: Sivaprakashan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that once a land is acquired by the State under the Land Acquisition Act for public purpose and compensation is paid, the landowner has no right to seek re-conveyance of the property citing delay in utilisation of such land.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed,“Admittedly, the land is going to be used for the purpose for which it is acquired. Simply because there is a delay in using the land for the purpose for which it is acquired, the acquisition proceedings can not be set aside. In such a situation, the refusal to reconvey the property is not illegal.”
Case Title: T. Rema & Ors. v. AK Radhamani & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court observed that while it is well settled that continuous cohabitation for several years may raise the presumption of marriage, it will not acquire the character of a valid marriage, if it is during the subsistence of another marriage by either party.
The matter came up before the division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar.
Case title: Mohammed Manath Ibrahim v Thrikkakara Municipality
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Kerala High Court has held that the municipality has the primary responsibility to deal with the municipal waste even if it was illegally dumped on private property.
“It is the primary duty of the Municipality to deal with municipal waste. The fact that such municipal waste has been illegally dumped in private property (here the property of the Kochi Metro) cannot absolve the Municipality from the liability of removing the waste for proper treatment as is done in the case of other municipal waste being collected and processed by the Municipality, “stated Justice Gopinath P.
Special Marriage Act | Even Parties To A Void Marriage Can Approach Family Court For Redressal Of Grievances: Kerala High Court
Case title: Joseph A U v Princy P J
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court on interpreting the provisions of the Family Courts Act, 1984 and Special Marriage Act, 1954 observed that a dispute between parties to a void marriage could be determined by a Family Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar observed that even parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for the redressal of their grievances.
“Therefore, from a conjoined reading of Section 24 (1)(i) of Special Marriage Act and Explanation (a) to Section 7(1) of the Family Courts Act, it is evident that a marriage which is void, as defined under Section 24 of the Special Marriage Act, will remain valid for all practical purposes, unless it is annulled in a suit or proceedings before the Family Court. In other words, from the above provisions, it can also be safely concluded that even the parties to a void marriage can approach the Family Court for redressing their grievance and as such this point is liable to be answered in the negative.”
Case title: C. Surendranath v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Kerala High Court has held that 'dishonest intention' is the crux for constituting an offence under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for proving criminal misconduct by public servants.
“Dishonest intention is sine qua non to attract the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Mere conduct and action of the accused contrary to rules and departmental norms would not amount to criminal misconduct by a public servant”, stated Justice K Babu.
Kerala High Court Permits Murder Convict To Join LLB Course Despite Objection By College
Case title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Kerala High Court has permitted a murder convict to pursue a three-year LLB Course in online mode, despite objections from the college where he has secured a seat. It stated that education would enable the convict to reform and rehabilitate back into society.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the stance taken by the college in opposing the admission of a convict to pursue his education would not be tolerated.
“The education of a convict can bring hope and aspirations for a better life in the future. Thus, when the prisoner expresses his willingness to undergo a course of study and has even gained admission after a competitive examination, the objection raised by the college cannot be countenanced and on the other hand, is to be deprecated.”
Case title: Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail application moved by Laila Bhagawal Singh, one of the accused in the Human Sacrifice Case.
The case pertains to the abduction, murder, and burial of two women lottery vendors as part of a ritualistic sacrifice by the three accused persons, namely, Muhammed Shafi alias Rasheed, Bhagaval Singh and his wife Laila.
Justice Sophy Thomas while dismissing the bail plea stated that the crime has shattered the conscience of the society. It also stated that if the allegations against the accused Laila prove to be true, it would be a blow to the rich cultural heritage and literacy rate of God's Own Country, Kerala.
Case Title: PP Farooque & anr. v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
In an revisional appeal against a previous order, the court dismissed it by stating that “the revisional power of the court is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law...the courts may not interfere with the decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction”
Justice K Babu stated this in a revision plea by the petitioners/accused who faced charges under Section 13 (criminal misconduct by public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120B (punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case title: SJ v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
In a matter where a headmistress was arrested under SC/ST Act for cutting tribal student's hair, Justice K Babu stated that there was no mens rea established against the appellant-headmistress and that she was only trying to enforce disciplinary control over the victim and at most "exceeded in the corporal punishment". Further, it stated that the alleged acts would not attract offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
He stated that “On an analysis of the facts placed before this Court, I am of the view that the mens rea of the appellant in the commission of the alleged acts is doubtful. At the most, it could be seen that the appellant being a school teacher having disciplinary control over the victim exceeded in the corporal punishment on the victim. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no prima facie material to attract the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.”
Case title: E Pradeeep Kumar IFS v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
Justice K Babu observed that in case of obtainment under Section 7 of the PC Act, a public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver on accepting the demand offers to pay illegal gratification.
“ To attract the offence under Section 7(a) the prosecution has to establish that the public servant obtained or accepted or attempted to obtain from any person an undue advantage. In order to attract the offence under Section 7(a), the prosecution has to establish that the petitioner voluntarily accepted money, knowing it to be bribe. If there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is definitely a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act, even in the absence of prior demand. On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification, which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment.”
The Court further stated that in case of acceptance, the prosecution need not prove demand but in the case of obtainment, the prosecution has to prove prior demand.
Section 100 CPC | Second Appeal Doesn't Lie On Equitable Grounds: Kerala High Court
Case title: Poyil Salim V Thazhe Kandoth Mariyam
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the term 'substantial' means having substance, essential, real, of sound worth, important or considerable. It stated that 'substantial question of law' for preferring a second appeal shall not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance.
“It is to be understood as something in contradistinction with – technical, of no substance or consequence, or academic merely. However, it is clear that the legislature has chosen not to qualify the scope of “substantial question of law” by suffixing the words “of general importance” as has been done in many other provisions such as S.109 of the Code or Art.133(1)(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not necessarily be a substantial question of law of general importance. As such, second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds and the conditions mentioned in Section 100 read with Order XLII Rule 2 of the C.P.C. must be complied to admit and maintain a second appeal.”
Kerala High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Of 21-Yr-Old, Appoints Advocate As His 'Mentor'
Case title: Sreejith R v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Kerala High Court released a 21-year old boy, who was implicated in seven crimes for allegedly causing obstruction to police officer in performing official duties and under the NDPS Act, from detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, considering the age of the detenu, also appointed an Advocate as his 'Mentor'.
Case Title: Davood v. State of Kerala & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
A passport cannot be seized or retained by the investigating agencies in the absence of any crime committed or suspected to have been committed with the said document, the Kerala High Court has held.
A single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas thus allowed the petition moved by an accused booked under the NDPS Act, seeking release of his passport, his mobile phone and Bahraini identity card which was seized by the Intelligence Officer of NCB. It observed,
"The passport of an individual is an important document and is issued under the provisions of the Passports Act, 1967. In the absence of any crime committed or suspected to have been committed with the said document, a passport cannot be seized or retained by the investigating agencies. The seizure of a document, if it can be treated as a property, has to be under section 102 of the Cr.P.C and the conditions stipulated therein ought to be satisfied. A document is generally subjected to impounding under section 104 Cr.P.C and this can only be done by the Court."
The bench further clarified that a passport cannot be impounded even by the Court despite Section 104 of CrPC, as the said provision will enable the court to impound any document or thing, other than a passport. Power to impound the passport is only with the Passport Authority under section 10(3) of the Passports Act, 1967, it held.
Case title: Suresh Kumar @ Sarath Nair v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
The Kerala High Court yesterday granted bail to the appellant who was in judicial custody for allegedly making abusive and casteist remarks against the Minister for Welfare of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Backward Classes and Devaswom, K. Radhakrishnan in Facebook in connection with his visit to Sabarimala Ayyapa Temple.
The crime was registered under Section 153A of IPC (promoting enmity between different groups), Section 120(o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order) of the Kerala Police Act and Section 3 (punishment for offences atrocities) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Case title: Dr M V Narayanan v Chancellor & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Kerala High Court has directed the Chancellor to consider the legality and jurisdiction of the show cause notices issued to the Vice Chancellors of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, University of Calicut, Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation and Technology and Sree Narayana Open University based on the UGC Regulations and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Professor (Dr) Sreejith P.S. v. Dr Rajasree M.S. and others (2022).
The show cause notice was issued by the Chancellor requiring the Vice Chancellors to show their legal right to hold the post of Vice Chancellor and why their appointment should not be declared illegal and void ab initio.
Case title: Jhonny Alexander Duran Sola v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Kerala High Court has permitted an Advocate to collect the personal articles belonging to the Foreign National on his behalf since he was placed in a transit centre and could not move around anywhere in India and was awaiting deportation.
The foreign national approached the High Court seeking the release of his articles including documents like passport, certificate of vaccination, driving license, and currency notes which were seized at the time of arrest and were retained with the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the father who was convicted by the Sessions Court for offences of sexually assaulting and raping his minor daughter.
The Division Bench comprising Justice PB Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John upheld the conviction stating that “merely for the reason that the family of the victim consisting of several members was residing in a small hut, it cannot be said that the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution is not possible especially in the light of the explanation offered by the victim in her evidence that the sexual assaults were committed by the accused when her mother was away for work and her siblings had gone out for playing”.
Case title: Coach India v Superintendent of Central Tax And Central Excise
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the writ jurisdiction of the Court cannot be invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner, citing his inability to comply with the provisions of 'SUBKA VISHWAS' [Legacy Dispute Resolution] Scheme Rules which is a complete code in itself.
Dismissing the plea, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh stated that the scheme was a complete code in itself which has detailed provisions. The Court observed thus:
“Once the petitioner failed to comply with the provisions of the scheme, which is a complete code in itself, his court would not like to extend the limitation for making the payment under the scheme in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”
Kerala High Court Permits Murder Convict To Join LLB Course Despite Objection By College
Case title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v The Superintendent
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Kerala High Court has permitted a murder convict to pursue a three-year LLB Course in online mode, despite objections from the college where he has secured a seat. It stated that education would enable the convict to reform and rehabilitate back into society.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the stance taken by the college in opposing the admission of a convict to pursue his education would not be tolerated.
Case title: Venugopal v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently stated that the law does not insist that separate sureties have to be produced for different cases to obtain bail.
The petitioner who is an accused in as many as 1726 crimes before different police stations in different districts of Kerala has approached the Court since he was unable to produce different sureties for bail. In the facts of the case, the Court stated that insisting on separate sureties for 1726 cases would make the concept of bail illusionary.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the law does prohibit the same surety being furnished in different cases if such surety was solvent and inspires the confidence of the Court since the purpose of sureties was only to ensure the presence of the accused during the trial.
Case Title: Shree Dhanwantari Chits India Pvt Ltd. v. Banu & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Kerala High Court has allowed the refund of additional fees paid towards the Legal Aid Benefit fund under Section 76 of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1949.
It said: Section 69A covers the additional court fee levied under Section 76(1) of the Act. If such refund is to be refused for the purpose of constitution of the fund, then, every other court fee levied also has a purpose, wherefore refund becomes impossible in respect of the same as well, which logic defies the mandate of Section 69A and renders it otiose. The nature and character of the additional fee levied, though for constituting the legal benefit fund, is nothing, but that of a court-fee.
A single judge bench of Justice C Jayachandran heard the matter.
Case Title: Welfare Association of Kitco Employees (Wake) & ors v. Kerala Industrial and Technical Consultancy Organization (Kitco) & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court has held that KITCO (Kerala Industrial & Technical Consultancy Organisation) qualifies as 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and therefore, is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C Pratheep Kumar observed that large majority of shares of the company are held by instrumentalities of the Central Government. Even the State government has a "decisive representation" in the Board, it noted.
"It is clear from a reading of the Articles of Association and the documents produced in the writ petition and in this writ appeal that the State and Central Governments themselves specifically consider the 1st respondent [KITCO] as a Central Government company. It is also discernible that the accounts of the 1st respondent are audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India treating it as a deemed Government company. It is recognised as an accredited Government agency for the purpose of public works in the State," the bench added.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
The Kerala High Court today allowed a bail petition filed by a drawing teacher accused of assaulting six of his students, stating it is doubtful that the incident took place on the same day.
In allowing the petition, Justice Sophy Thomas stated that “it is true that there is a delay of six days in making the complaint by the victim girls. Moreover, the allegation that on the same day, the petitioner sexually assaulted six girl students of the same class also seems doubtful. The petitioner is in judicial custody from December 20, 2023 and the investigation has progressed substantially. So this Court is inclined to release the petitioner on bail”.
Case Title: Arifa TK v. The District Collector & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a petition arguing for employment assistance by a married daughter on account of her husband losing his job.
While dismissing the petition, Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that “dependency is a de facto situation, rather than be a de jure doctrine. As such, the appellant had no dependency on her father, since her husband was earning well, it is rather untenable to imagine that her dependency on her father stood 'restored' on her husband allegedly losing his job abroad.”
Case Title: Lenin Raj AK v. State of Kerala & anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a pre-arrest bail application by the second accused in the health department job fraud case, referring to their criminal antecedents in its order.
A single judge bench of Justice CS Dias stated that “particularly taking note of the financial transaction between the victim and the petitioner, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner and the first accused, that the investigation of the case is only at its preliminary stage, that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary and recovery is to be effected, I am of the definite view that the petitioner is not entitled to an order of pre-arrest bail”.
Case title: Jollyamma v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Kerala High Court today for the second time dismissed the bail applications filed by Jolly Joseph, the first accused in the infamous Koodathayi murders.
Justice C S Dias stated that if the allegations raised against Jolly were true, then she had committed pre-mediated, gruesome, cold-blooded murders without any contrition. It further stated that there were intelligence reports regarding public outrage and potential revolt against Jolly for committing familicide and her release would have a deleterious impact on society.
Case Title: Rahul R v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the process for securing presence of an accused, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Satendar Kumar Antil v. CBI. is mandatory and an exception from the approach, where accused has not cooperated in the investigation, is available only after the Magistrate ascertains the factum of accused's absence independently.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said the SC directions cannot be avoided by a mere statement in the final report that the accused had not co-operated with the investigation or had absconded.
"Even in such cases, the Magistrates are bestowed with the duty to ascertain whether the accused had intentionally kept himself aloof from the proceedings," the bench added.
Other Significant Developments This Month
Case title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association Vs Union Of India
Case number: WP(C) 40197/ 2023
Kerala's Private Hospital Association has moved the High Court seeking implementation of the latest National Health Benefit Package (HBP) 2.2, which has enhanced the rates of some health packages under Central government's flagship Ayushman Bharat Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY).
The plea states HBP 2.2 would provide better healthcare facilities to financially backward patients and most of the states in India have already implemented yet, Kerala government has not taken any steps in this regard.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has sought instructions from both the Centre as well as the State government, the National Health Authority (NHA) and the State Health Agency (SHA).
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR Nos.29, 36, 41 and 42 of 2023
The Kerala High Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to provide drinking water and light refreshments to pilgrims stranded in Sabarimala due to the rush amid Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish also directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to deploy sufficient number of volunteers, especially during night hours to help the stranded pilgrims.
Case Title: Seba P.A. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 43275 of 2023
The Kerala High Court appreciated the initiatives taken by the State government in supporting minor children suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) by providing medicines free of cost.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a plea submitted by a 24-year-old suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), against the overpricing of the life-saving medicine, Risdiplam.
Taking note of the submissions of Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose that minor children are provided with medicines free of cost, the Court stated thus:
“As per the policy of the government of Kerala, the drugs for Type II -Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) is being made available to needy children below 8 years free of cost. There is also proposal to enhance the age of beneficiaries to 18 years…..It certainly is gratifying that the state government has taken initiative to support patients suffering from SMA as stated above. This is a welcome step.”
All India Tourist Permit Is A Contract Carriage Permit: Centre Tells Kerala High Court
Case title: Sarath G. Nair V State Of Kerala & Connected matters
Case numbers: WP(C) 19537/ 2023 & Connected matters
The Union Government told the Kerala High Court that the permit issued under the All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit) Rules 2023 is a contract carriage permit. It was submitted that for the promotion of tourism, the Central Government shall issue tourist buses such permits for operating in the whole of India.
“In exercise of above powers the Central Government has formulated the rules called All India Tourist Vehicles (Permit Rules), 2023. Further, the permit granted to tourist vehicles under the Rules is a contract carriage permit. Hence, the provisions…..are neither inconsistent nor contrary or ultra vires to the definition of contract carriage or any other provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. There is no repugnancy between any of the Rules and the Act as alleged by the petitioner (KSRTC).” ,stated the affidavit filed by Sushil Kumar Geeva, Under Secretary in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. Section 88(9) of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 empower the Centre to make these Rules, the affidavit added.
Case title: The Kerala Administrative Tribunal Advocates' Association v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 43000/2023
Responding to the plea moved by Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) Advocates' Association seeking appointment of judicial officers as Registrar in the Tribunal, the Registrar General of Kerala High Court and the Registrar (District Judiciary) said the decision to restrict deputation of judicial officers in administrative posts was taken by a Full Bench of the High Court in public interest.
Such a policy decision was taken to prevent the backlog of cases in the district judiciary, they said, adding that judicial officers should be utilized to perform judicial functions except when there is unavoidable administrative exigency.
Case title: R.S. Sasikumar v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 497/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court by petitioner, R.S. Sasikumar challenging the decisions taken by the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas in rejecting his complaint against the Chief Minister and other Ministers alleging misuse of the funds in the Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF).
Initially, in 2018 a complaint was filed by Sasikumar alleging abuse of power by the Ministers and for taking decisions based on nepotism and political considerations. It was alleged that the Ministers had failed to dispense their constitutional obligations and their decisions were a result of corruption, abuse of power and breach of public trust.
The plea challenges the decision taken by the Lok Ayukta in rejecting the complaint even though they found that some of the decisions were taken arbitrarily. It was also alleged that the respondents lacked integrity in discharging their duties as public servants. The plea questions the finding of the Lok Ayukta that there was no evidence of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity.
Case title: Archana L v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) No. 43558/ 2023
A plea has been filed by a woman and her 71-year-old mother-in-law before the Kerala High Court seeking compensation from the State government for alleged illegal detention by the Police for wearing a black churidar during the Nava Kerala Yatra in Kollam district on December 18, 2023.
The woman alleged that she was taken into police custody and was detained for more than 7 hours since she wore black attire. She submitted in her plea that her only intention was to see Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, whom she had otherwise seen only on Television and Media.
Kerala High Court Grants More Time To Ex-Govt Pleader To Surrender In Sexual Assault Case
Case Name: PG Manu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl No. 10796/2023
The Kerala High Court on Thursday extended the time granted to former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu to surrender in an alleged sexual assault case involving a female client.
A single judge bench of Justice Gopinath P granted him 10 more days to surrender to the Police.
Case number: WPC No. 1479/2024
Case Title: V D Satheesan M L A v State of Kerala & Ors
The Kerala High Court today granted time for the state to file counter in the plea filed by Leader of the Opposition of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and MLA V D Satheeshan seeking a probe by the Central Investigating Agency (CBI) into the conception and execution of the Kerala Fibre Optic Network Project Ltd. (K-FON).
Case title: Pushpalatha P v District Collector & Ors
Case number: WP(C) 1702/2024
The Kerala High Court today allowed a plea moved by the eldest member of a family seeking permission to offer a cooked rooster to their goddess inside the family's private temple within the premises of their ancestral house.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that “Until which time, though this Court is not interdicting Ext.P5, conventional offering of cooked meat will not stand restricted”. Ext. P5 order was issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) prohibiting this ritual.
Kerala High Court Orders Fire Safety Audit At Hotels & Other Establishments In Sabarimala
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR NO.7 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has ordered the Special Officer, Fire and Rescue Services to conduct fire audit at hotels and other establishments in Sabarimala through concerned officials. This order has been issued pursuant to a fire incident that occurred on January 6, 2024, in a hotel due to leakage of a gas cylinder at Sannidhanam in Sabarimala.
Case title: Joji Varghese V State Of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 42896/ 2023
The Kerala High Court agreed to view an allegedly objectionable part from the Malayalam Movie 'Antony'. The plea was moved since a scene in the movie depicts a gun hidden inside a Bible, which allegedly hurt religious sentiments of the Christian community.
“if you want you can produce the video, I will see…the petitioner seeks additional time to produce additional evidence”, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed.
Case title: Aneera Kabeer C v State Of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 1970/ 2024
The Kerala High Court today suo moto impleaded the Union Government in a plea moved by a transgender person seeking reservation for the community in education and public employment.
“We can give reservation for caste, creed, community, colour, education, language, but you can't give reservation to an individual just because he or she is not perceived to be the in the mainstream,” Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked during the hearing.
Case Title: Prasanna E.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 19941 of 2023
The Kerala High Court today observed that regular inspections of eateries and food manufacturers is necessary to prevent any untoward incident from consumption of outside food articles.
The Court appreciated the commendable efforts taken by the authorities and stated that constant monitoring should continue. “The inspections have to be done consistently and without fail because any relaxation would generally give an impression to the manufacturers that the action would be lax.”
Case Title: Shone George v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 42092 of 2023
The Ministry of Corporate Affairs informed the Kerala High Court that the company owned by the daughter of Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan is under investigation.
The counsel appearing for the Central Government orally told the Court that an order has been issued under Section 210 of the Companies Act 2013 to in to investigate the affairs of Exalogic Solutions Ltd, an IT company owned by Veena Thaikkandiyil.
Taking note of the submission, a single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran directed that a copy of the order initiating inquiry against the company must be produced before the Court by January 19.
Case Title: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Thrissur Kendra and Anr. v. The Kerala State Electricity Board and Anr.
Case Number: WP (C) 1802 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Electricity Board not to disconnect the electricity connection to the petitioner-school Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan Thrissur Kendra, on the condition that the petitioners pay the amount claimed by the respondent Board, barring interest.
A single-judge bench of Justice N Nagaresh was hearing the plea.
Case Title: Dhisha v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 15800 of 2023
In the theyyam matter before the Kerala High Court, a division bench comprising of Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice VG Arun directed the petitioner to file an additional affidavit cogently and precisely raising the specific grievances in the matter.
In the plea filed by the NGO Dhisha, it had been alleged that the ritualistic dance performance, also known as 'Ottakolam Theyyam', which is held by the Chirakkal Kovilakam and Chirakkal Temple Trust in connection with their annual function, involves the children being thrown to the embers a minimum of 101 times, and was thus too dangerous for children to participate in.
'No Citizen In This Nation Is Lesser Than The Other': Kerala High Court To Police Officers In Matter Involving Use Of Abusive Vocatives By Cop
Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant
Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021
The Kerala High Court today directed the State Police Chief to take steps to ensure that police officers behave in a sophisticated and refined manner to every citizen. 'No citizen in this nation is lesser than the other,' it said.
The matter involved abusive vocatives used by a police officer against an advocate at Alathur Police Station in Palakkad district
State Police Chief Shaik Darvesh Saheb who appeared before the Court online informed the Court that steps are being taken to transform the police department. He assured the Court that an additional circular would be issued containing a stern warning to all officers to ensure that no abusive vocatives would be used against citizens.
On interaction with the State Police Chief, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed thus:“The State Police Chief asserted that the intent of this Court cannot be violated and that no officer can be allowed to act in a manner contrary to it including by the use of prohibited vocatives like 'eda', 'podi' and 'nee'….He added that he would also issue a further circular as a stern warning to every officer to ensure that no citizen is addressed in the manner as alleged in this incident."
Case title: Rajith V v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) NO. 1727 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has sought clarification from the State regarding the exclusion of the salary of government employees while calculating income for the issuance of 'Non-Creamy Layer Certificates' to obtain an OBC reservation for students belonging to the Socially and Economically Backward Classes (SEBC).
The Court sought such clarification upon noting that the salary of private employees was not excluded from the aforesaid calculation.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated thus:
“Classification of employees between Government Department and the Private Sector does not appear to have any reasonable nexus to any objective sought to be achieved, namely the grant of 'Creamy Layer Certificates'. Whether the parents are employed in the Government Department or Private Sector, 'Creamy Layer' is a matter of fact, which cannot be diluted, going by the various declarations of law by the Honourable Supreme Court.”
'Stigmatic': Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks Removal Of "Fictitious" Rape Scenes From Dileep Starrer Inspired By 'Thankamani' Incident
Case Title: Biju VR v. Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 2199 of 2024
A resident of the Thankamani village in Idukki district has moved the Kerala High Court seeking removal of alleged fictitious scenes from upcoming Malayalam film 'Thankamani'.
The Dileep-starrer is based on a real-life incident that occurred in Thankamany in October 1986. The plea challenges "incorrect and derogatory portrayal" of the incident, stating that the teaser hints at incidents of men in the village hiding in the agricultural lands and the women of the village being raped by the Policemen. Petitioner argues that such incidents never happened and there are no official records or documents of such crimes.
Case title: R.S. Sasikumar v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 497/2024
The Kerala High Court has admitted a plea challenging the order of Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayuktas rejecting a complaint filed against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and certain former Ministers, alleging misuse of funds in the Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF).
"We will admit it and consider everything," said the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A J Desai and Justice V G Arun while admitting the plea filed by RS Sasikumar.
Case title: Vijukumar v Secretary & Others
Case number: WP(C) 526/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court against alleged inaction of the Ombudsman for the Local Self Government Institutions (LSGI) in discharging his legal and statutory duties for the prevention and demolition of illegal constructions.
Relying upon the legal maxim, 'Boni Judicis Est Ampliare Jurisdictionem' the plea has been filed seeking a direction to the Ombudsman and the Gram Panchayat Secretary to stop alleged illegal construction adjacent to petitioner's property. The legal maxim means 'Good justice is Broad Jurisdiction' which envisages for amplification of legal remedies, without usurping the jurisdiction and applying rules for the advancement of justice
Case Title: Syama M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 41159 OF 2022 (T)
The Kerala government has informed the High Court that in compliance with Court's directions, it has issued a circular to all its departments and local self-governments instructing them to comply with the report of the State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA) for considering the risks involved in an infrastructural development project at the planning stage itself.
Based on the order of Justice Devan Ramachandran, the KSDMA had recommended that all entities and beneficiaries fill a 'checklist for detailed disaster impact assessment', at the planning stage itself for risk awareness since it would aid them in 'informed decision making'
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024
The Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) has moved the Kerala High Court against the summons issued to Dr Kandathil Mathew Abraham, (Chief Executive Officer, KIIFB) who was also the former Chief Secretary, by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in relation to the masala bonds case. The summons was issued seeking the submission of documents and for taking oral evidence.
Today upon hearing the arguments of KIIFB and ED, Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the ED to submit a counter affidavit within a week.
Case Title: V D Satheesan M L A v State of Kerala & Ors
Case number: WPC No. 1479/2024
Leader of the Opposition of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and MLA V D Satheeshan has moved the Kerala High Court seeking a probe by a Central Investigating Agency (CBI) into the conception and execution of the Kerala Fibre Optic Network Project Ltd. (K-FON).
K-FON Project was the infrastructural project of the state government for removing the digital divide by providing universal basic internet facilities to all citizens. This was done by using a new optic fibre pathway created parallel to the state power network.
Case Title: Prasanna E.V. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 19941 of 2023
The Kerala High Court asked the Food Safety Commissioner Afsana Parveen to appear before it on a date of her convenience and explain the steps taken by the authorities to ensure that the food articles being sold in the market are safe for consumption.
“….The food safety authority is still very vigilant with respect to the sale of food article in question….many steps have already been taken and that this will be explained to the Court by the Food Safety Commissioner herself who is willing to appear before the Court on….”, stated Justice Devan Ramachandran.
Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant
Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021
The Kerala High Court issued an order directing the State Police Chief to appear before it online on January 18, 2024, at 1.45 PM to address the 'uncivilized behaviour' exhibited by police officers towards citizens.
The order has been passed in connection with a recent incident in Alathur Police Station in Palakkad district where a police officer used abusive vocatives against an advocate.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that it is distressing to be reminded time and again that police officers have to behave in a civilized manner to the citizens.
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR NO.2 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court directed the Travancore Devaswom Board and other regional authorities to take immediate steps for the prevention of sale of plastic bottles, packed drinking water in plastic bottles/PET bottles, plastic toys, and plastic utensils in and around Sabarimala.
It also directed the police, district administration and panchayat to take steps for the removal of unauthorized hawkers selling plastic articles contrary to the directions of the Court
[Masala Bonds Case] Respond To ED Summons: Kerala High Court Tells KIIFB
Case title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board V Director
Case number: WPC 1377/2024
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the Court cannot micromanage the proceedings and directed the KIIFB to respond to the summons.
“You respond to the summons, that is all that is required…Either say that I will not produce it or say I will produce it. It is for you to respond to the summons….I don't really understand why everybody should be scared of summons”, the Court stated orally.
The Counsel appearing for KIIFB submitted that the documents have already been submitted and there was no requirement for submission of fresh documents. They stated that the summons had been issued at least six times and all the documents had been already submitted before the ED. They stated that the issuance of summons again and again would amount to harassment. It was further argued that there were no pending proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and thus investigation could not be conducted.
Case Title: Shone George v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 42092 of 2023
The Central government has informed the Kerala High Court that there is no restriction on investigation 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.
The company is alleged to have received kickbacks from Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd., without having rendered any service. A probe against it is already initiated under Section 210(1)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 3273 of 2022
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed thus: “Special Government Pleader for the State Education Department shall make available the textbooks that are already been printed by the next posting for the perusal of the Court. “
The Court stated that it wants to go through the textbooks to see if it is age-oriented and how the content has been laid out. It orally stated that a child in the first standard has to be probably taught about 'safe touch'. It remarked that it is very important how the prevention-oriented curriculum is being imparted to children. It stated that the curriculum is left for the experts to decide but it would like to know how the SCERT has framed the curriculum.
Case title: Ernakulam Sivakshethram v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) NO. 2659 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the District Collector to issue directions for granting permission for conducting fireworks at the Ernakulam Shiva Temple in connection with Valiya Vilakku and Arattu on January 22 and 24, 2024 by relying upon an earlier order issued by the Division Bench.
The Division Bench, last year, had observed that firecrackers could be burst between 6AM to 10 PM and that the District Administration could take a call on the bursting of crackers during odd hours.
Case Name: Kumari and anr. v. Kattakada Grama Panchayath and ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 2190 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has passed an interim order directing a stay of eviction proceedings for two months against a 63-year old widow.
The matter was heard by Justice Viju Abraham.
The petitioner is a senior citizen and a widow residing in Kulathummal Village along with her daughter (petitioner 2).
Case title: N Prakash v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 3171/ 2024
A Public Interest Litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court for the prohibition of campus politics in colleges across the state. It seeks direction from the Court that student organizations have no right to carry out political activities or to set up student unions within college premises.
The plea has been moved in the wake of the untoward student union clash between the students belonging to the Student Federation of India (SFI) and Kerala Students Union (KSU) in the Maharajas College, Ernakulam. Allegedly, a murder attempt had taken place inside the college against a student belonging to the SFI. The College was shut down and many students were suspended pending disciplinary proceedings.
Case title: Kerala Voluntary Health Services v Union Of India
Case number: WP(C) 3252/ 2024
"Do you really think people start smoking by seeing it on the screen," the Kerala High Court orally remarked today while hearing a plea against display of tobacco smoking scenes in films and tele-serials.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said smoking is induced more from peer pressure. "It is when your friends start smoking...Smoking is injurious to health, drinking is injurious to health, you cannot expect the whole screen to be shown like this. What about the International movies or movies in other parts of the Country...they are also shown on the OTT platforms", he added.
Case title: Kerala High Court Advocates' Association v State Of Kerala
Case number: WP(C) 3543/2024
The Kerala High Court Advocates Association(KHCAA), Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy (President, KHCAA) and Advocate Anoop V Nair (Secretary, KHCAA) have approached the Kerala High Court aggrieved by police brutality and registration of false FIRs against Advocates on frivolous reasons.
The reliefs sought in the plea are for the issuance of guidelines to be followed while registering cases against Advocates, guidelines to be followed by police officers while interacting with Advocates and a fast-track adjudication of complaints against police officers who misbehaved with Advocates.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice to the respondents. The Court orally remarked that an isolated incident cannot be taken and generalized.
Dr Vandana Das Murder Case: Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Plea For CBI Probe
Case title: K. G. Mohandas v Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI)
Case number: WP(Crl.) 641/ 2023
The Kerala High Court today reserved its order on the plea moved by parents of Dr Vandana Das, the 23-year-old house surgeon who was stabbed to death by an injured man brought to the government hospital by Pooyappally police, seeking transfer of probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The young house surgeon was stabbed sixteen times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas heard the arguments and reserved order.
Case title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matter
Case number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023 and WP(C) NO. 33322 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court enquired about the possibility of having a separate portal operated and monitored by a separate unit where people or producers can upload information about malicious review bombings. It stated that the issue now was that a criminal complaint or cyber complaint had to be filed against malicious review bombing.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated thus, “Learned Amicus Curiae Shyam Padman has submitted that has been placed on record by the State Police Chief and suggest whether any fine tuning is required including the creation of a 'dedicated portal' for the producers and the members of the general public to upload information of malicious and blackmailing review bombing.”
Case Title: Biju VR v. Central Board of Film Certification and Ors.
Case Number: WP (C) No. 2199/2024
The Kerala High Court has asked the Central government whether the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has powers to change the name of a film if it is found to be stigmatic or likely to create law and order issues.
The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing a plea concerning Dileep-starrer 'Thankamani' which is apparently based on a real-life incident that occurred in Thankamany village in Idukki district, in October 1986.
Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant
Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021
The Kerala High Court today issued an order directing the State Police Chief to appear before it online on January 18, 2024, at 1.45 PM to address the 'uncivilized behaviour' exhibited by police officers towards citizens.
The order has been passed in connection with a recent incident in Alathur Police Station in Palakkad district where a police officer used abusive vocatives against an advocate.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that it is distressing to be reminded time and again that police officers have to behave in a civilized manner to the citizens.