Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690 – 707]Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690Anu S P v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692Asha v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690 – 707]
Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
Anu S P v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
Asha v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association Represented By Its General Secretary v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
T K Makkar v Meeravu Haji, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
State of Kerala v Sreenath and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
C. V. John v Mani C. Kappan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases, 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
Baby Joseph v State of Kerala and Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
XX v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. Kumaran, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
S. Gopalakrishnan Potti v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Indian Broadcasting And Digital Foundation V The Telecom Regulatory Authority Of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 690
While hearing a challenge to a telecommunication tariff order, the Kerala High Court said that while only the Constitutional Courts possess the power to enforce fundamental rights, an expert body like the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT), can exercise judicial review over those fundamental rights.
A division bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P M Manoj was considering an appeal against a single judge bench's order containing a challenge to certain provisions of the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services Interconnection (Addressable Systems) Regulations, 2017 and the Telecommunication (Broadcasting and Cable) Services (Eighth) (Addressable Systems) Tariff Order, 2017 of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).
Case Title: Anu S P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 691
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) is not empowered to conduct an enquiry to determine an applicant's caste status.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj stated that an affected authority like the issuing authority is capable of effectively assessing and addressing potential fraud or misrepresentation regarding applicant's caste status, rather than the KPSC.
Case Title: Ajith Pillai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 692
The Kerala High Court has held that the offence of voyeurism under Section 354C of IPC will not attract when a woman's photos were clicked by two men, while she was standing in front of her house without any secrecy.
Justice A. Badharudeen made it clear that the offence is attracted only upon watching or capturing images of a woman engaging in a 'private act' as mentioned under the provision.
Case Title: Asha v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 693
While hearing plea to quash an FIR containing allegations of attempt to murder, the Kerala High Court held that an additional or a subsequent police report cannot be held as invalid just because the investigation officer did not seek the court's permission before conducting further investigation.
A single judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen held that though the practice of seeking permission before conducting further investigation is upheld by judicial decisions, none of those decisions hold that a final report based on such further investigation is "non-est".
Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Film Director Sreekumar Menon Filed By Film Actress
Case Title: Sreekumar Menon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 694
The Kerala High Court quashed the case against film and ad director Sreekumar Menon by prominent Malayalam movie actress. Justice S. Manu found that the offences alleged against him is unsustainable based on the allegations made against the director.
Case Title: B. Aboobacker and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 695
While deciding a challenge to a conviction for possessing counterfeit currency, the Kerala High Court observed that the testimony of a Police Official does not suffer from any infirmity merely because he belongs to the police force.
A single judge bench of Justice M. B. Snehalatha further held that the presumption that every person acts honestly applies to a police officer also. The Court however added that such evidence might require more careful scrutiny
Case Title: The Kerala State Government Ayurveda Medical Officers' Association Represented By Its General Secretary v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 696
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that to represent the grievance of its members, an association is entitled to file an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, clarifying that in such a situation, the association espousing the grievance of its members can also be deemed as aggrieved.
A division bench of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P M Manoj stated that the definition of the term 'person' in Section 3(42) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 includes the Association or body of individuals.
Case Title: T K Makkar v Meeravu Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 697
The Kerala High Court held that even after the constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the Civil Court can execute a decree passed by it relating to a waqf dispute.
Justice Kauser Edappagath clarified that even after the constitution of the Waqf Tribunal, the Civil Court continues to have jurisdiction to execute both its own decree as well as any decree passed by the Waqf Tribunal.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Sreenath and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 698
The Kerala High Court held that a public prosecutor can consider the nature of the offence, lack of mens rea and the reformation of the accused as positive factors while deciding withdrawal of prosecution.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu made this observation in a petition filed by the State challenging the Magistrate's order disallowing an application for withdrawal of prosecution filed by the State.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 699
The Kerala High Court recently observed that while marriage is an essential ingredient to attract the offence of cruelty punishable under IPC Section 498A, however for abetment to suicide under IPC Section 306 there need not be any relationship between the "accused and the victim".
A single judge bench of Justice Sophy Thomas in its order clarified that a person can be convicted under Section 498A if the evidence proves the commission of that offence, even in the absence of a specific charge under 498A, as long as the charge under Section 306 clearly indicates the necessary elements for attracting an offence under Section 498A.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 2021 Assembly Election Of UDF MLA Mani C Kappan
Case Title: C. V. John v Mani C. Kappan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 700
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (November 5) dismissed a petition filed by C V John challenging the result of 2021 Kerala Legislative Assembly election where Mani C. Kappan who had contested under United Democratic Front was declared as the returning candidate.
The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Justice C. Jayachandran. The election result was challenged on the ground that Kappan spent more money for their campaign than permitted under Representation of People Act.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan V Deccan Herald & Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 Live Law (Ker) 701
The Kerala High Court held that any expression by the media on the guilt or innocence of an accused in an ongoing criminal case would not be protected under the right to speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The Court stated that only an adjudicatory authority can pronounce on the guilt or innocence of an accused.
A Five Judge Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha and Justice Syam Kumar V. M, held that when an accused feels his right to reputation is infringed by the media, he can approach any constitutional court to prevent such act or demand compensation.
Case Title: Dejo Kappan v Deccan Herald and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 701
A five judge bench of the Kerala High Court while deciding a reference on whether any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings be formulated has observed that media trial can create a distrust in judicial outcomes especially when verdicts differ from prevailing public beliefs.
The bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Justice Kauser Edappagath, Justice Mohammed Nias C. P., Justice C. S. Sudha, Justice Syam Kumar V. M. was deciding a reference on whether to formulate any guidelines on reporting of court proceedings.
Case Title: Baby Joseph v State of Kerala and Connected Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 702
Quashing a notification of the State government which restricted the length of routes of private stage carriage operators to a maximum distance of up to 140 kilometres, the Kerala High Court said that the final notification was issued without hearing and duly considering the objections of the affected parties as required under the relevant rules.
A single judge bench of Justice D K Singh stated that even though the final scheme was published as per Rule 246 in Form (F) (Appendix 1), it did not contain the reasons given for rejecting the objections given by the affected persons after publication of the proposed scheme in Form (E).
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Another
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 703
The Kerala High Court quashed a case against a school teacher for allegedly beating a student in her class. The teacher was booked under Section 75 (cruelty to child) of Juvenile Justice Act and Section 324 (voluntary causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means) of the Indian Penal Code. Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the petition noting that the teacher beat the student only after he abused her.
Case Title: Malayalam Communications Ltd. v K C Venugopal and Anr. & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 704
Quashing a criminal case against Malayalam Communications Limited (Kairali TV) and Asianet News Network for telecasting a program featuring an allegedly defamatory and fabricated letter about Congress MP K C Venugopal, the Kerala High Court said that the statements in question were already in public domain hence it can't be termed defamatory.
A single judge bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that there is no evidence to prove that the TV Channels telecasted the program with mens rea or malice and that the MP cannot blame the media, adding that the woman had convened a press conference and made certain statements which were published.
Case Title: Appu Nair and Anr. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 705
Dismissing a plea against an order refusing to grant sanction to prosecute a public servant, the Kerala High Court observed that the decision to grant or refuse sanction to prosecute a public servant vests absolutely with the sanctioning authority, adding that its purpose is to insulate the public servant from frivolous prosecution.
In doing so Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said that Courts must not interfere lightly in the decision of the sanctioning authority unless it is demonstrated that the order was made based on irrelevant considerations and without proper application of mind. It further said that the process of getting a sanction would become a dead letter if orders of sanctioning authority are interfered with without any reason.
Case Title: Superintendent of Police and Others v V. V. Kumaran
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 706
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's order reinstating a police constable who was terminated from service, ruling that Section 101(8) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 bars disciplinary action based on the same facts that led to acquittal in criminal proceedings.
Withholding Pension Payments During Vigilance Proceedings Justified: Kerala High Court
Case Title: S. Gopalakrishnan Potti v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 707
he Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P.M. Manoj dismissed the petition filed by S. Gopalakrishnan Potti seeking penal interest on delayed pensionary benefits and back wages. The court upheld the Kerala Administrative Tribunal's (KAT) decision, ruling that delays in disbursing benefits were justified due to pending vigilance proceedings.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: In Re Captive Elephants V Union Of India & Connected Cases
Case Number: WP(C) 31520/ 2024 & Connected Cases
While hearing a batch of pleas concerning prohibition of cruelty against captive elephants in Kerala, the High Court on Tuesday (November 5) orally remarked that if the animal is not protected and the numbers keep dwindling, the next generation would see the animal in museums, just the way we see Dinosaurs.
In the last hearing, a division bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P had sought for suggestions from all stakeholders to frame guidelines to prevent cruelty to elephants paraded for festivals and other functions.
Case Title: Aneesh Kumar v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 38724/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court stating that wages paid to prisoners are meagre and do not comply with the minimum wage standards set by the government. The plea argues that insufficient compensation for labour would amount to forced labour under Article 23 of the Constitution.
The plea also states that the arbitrary phone call rates and restriction on the number of contact numbers allowed for prisoners is unjust and against the principles of reformative justice.
Justice N. Nagaresh admitted the matter and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit.
Case Title: Jannath v State of Kerala & Other Cases
Case Number: WPC No. 31205/2024 & Other Cases
The Kerala High Court appointed an Amicus Curiae to collect and combine perspectives and suggestions, including feminine perspectives from various stakeholders to assist the government in drafting a special legislation to address the issues faced by women in society, especially in their workplace.
The Special Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C. S. Sudha, hearing the matters relating to Justice Hema Committee Report appointed Advocate Mitha Sudhindran as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.
Case Title: Binu P Joseph V Central Board Of Film Certification & Others
Case Number: WPC 39284/2024
The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain a plea challenging U/A certification given to the Malayalam movie 'Pani' directed and starred by actor Joju George.
The plea was moved stating that the U/A certification (unrestricted public exhibition with parental guidance) given to the movie was inappropriate as it contained obscene dialogues, scenes and violence, making it unsuitable for children. The movie released on October 24 is currently running in theatres.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S.Manu permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea since he had approached the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) with a representation. The Court stated that the representation submitted by the petitioner can be considered by the CBFC as per law.