Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 288 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 292Nominal IndexR Asokan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288State of Kerala v Azeez, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292Judgments/Orders...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 288 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 292
Nominal Index
R Asokan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
State of Kerala v Azeez, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: R Asokan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 288
The Kerala High Court stated that landowners who surrendered their property for the 'Kottayam Development Corridor Project' would be paid adequate compensation by assessing the land value by initiating proceedings under the LARR Act by issuing gazette notification and not based on the property's market value as on the date of surrender of the property back in 2015.
Justice Viju Abraham observed that it would not be adequate compensation since the land value has increased now. It stated that in a democracy governed by the rule of law, citizens cannot be deprived of their land without sanction of law.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Azeez
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 289
The Kerala High Court has held that the power to alter or add charges in exercise of power under Section 216 CrPC remains with the Court and cannot be done based on the application of parties.
In the facts of the case, the Public Prosecutor applied to the Trial Court to alter the charge and add the offence of trafficking under Section 370 of the IPC against the accused. The Trial Court dismissed the application since the offence of trafficking of a person under Section 370 was incorporated in the IPC by Amendment Act, 2013 and the alleged offence took place in 2006.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the order of the Trial Court does not warrant interference since the charge cannot be altered at the instance of the parties.
Case Title: State of Kerala v S Pulikeshy IPS
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 290
The Kerala High Court held that only a provisional pension could be sanctioned to a retired member of the All India Services if he is undergoing departmental or judicial proceedings. It stated that disbursement of DCRG or Commutation of Pension is permissible only after the culmination of departmental or judicial proceedings and not during the pendency of the proceedings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice M.A.Abdul Hakhim referred to Rule 6 of All India Services (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Rules 1958 that outlines the provision regarding the withholding of pension and gratuity for members of the All India Services on pending departmental or judicial proceedings.
Case Title: SNDP Yogam Sakha No: 982 v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 291
The Kerala High Court has held that the notion that Government schools are merely collective property and could be used for other purposes is an outdated concept. It stated that in the modern era, government schools are achieving remarkable educational excellence, equipping students to become citizens of future.
The petitioner SNDP Yogam Sakha approached the Court seeking permission to use Open Air Auditorium of a Government High School for a religious function attached to a temple.
Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that schools are temples of learning and government schools cannot be used for any other activities other than for students' intellectual and overall development. “Government Schools are ones, normally, accessed by children of ordinary citizens and it is the collective responsibility of the community and the Government to ensure that they are raised to the highest levels of excellence possible. This can be done only if there is a commitment to education, ensuring every facility to each student, no matter what financial strata he/she belongs to. The feeling that Government Schools can be used for any purpose, since it is a collective property, is a thought of the past and cannot be countenanced in the modern era, particularly when, all over the world, such schools are now reaching the zeniths of educational excellence, preparing its students to be the citizens of future.”
Case Title: The Manager v Kerala State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 292
The Kerala High Court has held that in terms of Kerala Education Rules, 1959 (KER) and Kerala Education Act, 1958 (KE Act), the Manager of an aided School cannot collect any charges or fees from students for providing toilet facilities, computer labs with internet facilities and transportation facilities.
The bench of Justice Gopinath P. observed it is only the Headmaster, who can collect any fee from students in an aided school. Thus it held that the Manager of an aided School cannot interfere with academic matters and collection of fees by him for providing additional facilities is unsustainable in law.
Other Developments This Week
Case Title: Ahana v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP (Crl) 522/2024
A transwoman has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the denial of medical treatment in jail for undergoing gender affirmation surgery. It is submitted that due to the denial of medical treatment in jail, the petitioner is facing gender dysphoria and mental trauma.
Justice Johnson John directed the registry to number the petition and the public prosecutor sought time to get instructions on behalf of the State Government, Law Secretary, Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services and Prison Welfare officer.
Case Title: Rehan Binoy v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Case Number: Bail Appl. 3023/2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court today impleaded the mother of veterinary student Sidharthan, in the bail application filed by those accused of abetting his suicide.
Sidharthan's mother disputed the finding in the final report that her son committed suicide by hanging. She alleged that further investigation is required by the CBI since the local police had tried to portray the brutal and inhumane murder as death by suicide. It was also submitted that granting bail to the accused persons would affect the investigation.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. allowed the mother's impleading application and posted the matter for hearing on May 22, 2024. “The application to implead filed by the mother of the deceased is allowed,” stated the Court.
Case Title: Social Justice Vigilance Forum v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 17677/2024
Social Justice Vigilance Forum, a registered society under the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking appointment of a Judicial Member in the Kerala State Real Estate Appellate Tribunal due to an expected vacancy that would arise from May 28, 2024.
The plea states that if no direction is issued by the Court, then it would result in a prolonged vacancy causing inconvenience to both the litigants and the public.
The Division Bench comprising Justice T R Ravi and Justice Harisankar V. Menon sought instructions and adjourned the matter.
Case Title: Babu Shahir v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl MC 4169/2024
The Kerala High Court has granted a stay for one month on the proceedings initiated against actor cum producer partner Soubin Shahir, producer Shawn Antony and Soubin's father Babu Shahir in an allegation of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust regarding the production of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys.
The court passed the above interim order in the petition filed by Soubin's father who was arrayed as the third accused.
Justice Viju Abraham stayed the entire proceedings for one month.
The crime was registered at Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam under Sections 120B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.