Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629-648]Roli Pathak v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629Shibu J v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 630Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 631XXX & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 632Shoma G. Madan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 633Deepak K. v...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629-648]
Roli Pathak v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
Shibu J v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
XXX & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
Shoma G. Madan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
Deepak K. v The Kerala State Election Commission & connected case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
State of Kerala & Ors. v. Binoj K.B. & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
Sunil Kumar @ Rakkan v State of Kerala and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
Vishnu v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
Lilly Krishnan v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
Keerthi Nagar Residents Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
Shijo Das v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
Sreeja @Sini v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
Raveendranath v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
Mahesh Mohan v. Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
Madhusoodanan Namboothiri V State Of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
Divya S.S Rose v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 646
Gopakumar P. v Travancore Devaswom Board 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
Tomy K M v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Roli Pathak v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
The Kerala High Court has expressed empathy towards the volleyball players who could not participate in the National Games, 2023 due to internal rifts in the administration of the Volleyball Federation of India (VFI). The Adhoc Committee of VFI decided to cancel the Volleyball championship in the 37th National Games of India, 2023 due to the internecine disputes within the Federation.
Prior to the formation of the VFI, the game was controlled by the Indian Olympic Association (IOA). IOA is the governing body, responsible for regulating the National Games.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the IOA should have resolved the disputes within the Federation rather than cancelling the Volleyball Championship in the National Games.
“In the afore scenario, this Court can do nothing more than to hold empathy for the situation of the petitioners; but before parting, it is necessary to say that, in the interest of the game, the Indian Olympic Association ought to have resolved the disputes within the ‘Federation’, keeping in mind the schedule of National Games and without disturbing it; but alas, this has not been done, but they appear to have chosen the easier path of cancelling the competition in Volleyball itself.”
Case Title: Shibu J v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
The Kerala High Court held that seizure mahazar, once prepared and sent to the Court by police or other officers becomes a public document. It noted that a certified copy of seizure mahazar cannot be denied to the accused as he might need it to mould and understand his case at the stage of bail application itself.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed thus:
“I am of the considered opinion that, once the seizure mahazar is prepared and sent to the court, it is a public document. There is no bar in issuing a certified copy of the seizure mahazar to an accused especially because the same is necessary for him to mould his case at the stage of filing the bail application also.”
Case Title: Mathrubhumi Printing & Publishing Co. Ltd v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
The Kerala High Court recently considered whether some ‘area’ used in relation to a factory can be given exemption from payment of the building tax under Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act 1975. Section 3 (1)(b) provides that buildings principally used for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factory or workshop can be exempted from building tax.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh observed that the term ‘principally’ under Section 3(1)(b) means ‘predominantly’ and held if the building was predominantly used as a factory, then remaining area used for ancillary purposes of the factory would also be exempted from payment of building tax.
“The authority has to assign the correct meaning to the word ‘principally’. In my view, ‘principally’ means predominantly. If the predominant purpose is running the factory, the area in which ancillary purposes related to the factory are being carried out is also liable for exemption under Section 3(1)(b) of the Act.”
Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
The Kerala High Court allowed the medical termination of a 32-week pregnancy of a woman.
The parents-to-be had approached the Court seeking termination of pregnancy on the ground that the unborn child was suffering from severe neurological and respiratory abnormalities, as revealed from medical reports, and that even if the pregnancy was allowed to be continued, the child would have serious complications which would not allow it to lead a normal life.
Justice Devan Ramachandran also took note that the expectant mother, who is the 1st petitioner herein, had a history of depression.
"I am of the firm view that taking note of the mental health of the mother, which is vital to a child if it is to be born alive, and respecting her autonomy with respect to her physiological and psychological requirements, I deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition," the Court observed.
Case Title: Shoma G. Madan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
The Kerala High Court has laid down that in order to satisfy the definition of 'fraudulently' it would be sufficient to if there was a non-economic advantage to the deceiver or a non-economic loss to the deceived, and that both elements need not co-exist.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu clarified that the expression 'defraud' involves two elements, namely, deceit and injury.
Relying upon the decision in Dr. Vimla v. The Delhi Administration (1963), the Court observed:
"Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or nonpecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always cause loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rarecases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied".
Case Title: Deepak K. v The Kerala State Election Commission & connected case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
The Kerala High Court held that defection is a menace to the Indian representative democracy and that the existing laws were ineffective in curbing defection effectively.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that despite anti-defection laws, many persons commit acts of defection. Taking into account the nature of orders that can be issued against defectors under the existing laws, Justice Thomas held that stringent financial penalties have to be imposed. It observed that only financial penalties will affect the defectors and deter them from committing acts of defection.
“Once an elected representative is found disqualified due to defection, the burden on the exchequer is immense due to the inevitable bye-elections. However, the person responsible for such nefarious activity is not affected seriously due to the nature of the orders that can be issued under the existing law. Considering the entire scenario, this Court has a wishful thinking that the time has come to contemplate on including stringent financial penalties for acts of defection. Unless a monetary pinch is felt by the defector, the evil acts that are sought to be remedied by the anti-defection law will continue. However, as it is a matter that requires a legislative exercise, this Court fervently hopes that the legislature will bestow its consideration earnestly.”
Case Title: Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
The Kerala High Court has called for the integration of technology in the criminal justice dispensation system in order to permit two life convicts to attend LL.B. classes in the online mode for the academic year 2023-24.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, emphasized upon the importance of education in reforming and rehabilitating prisoners.
"...a convict is entitled to basic human rights and has the right to live with dignity in jail. The prisoners’ right to education is a human right grounded in the right to dignity. A prisoner has as much a right to pursue study as a person free from the confines of jail. The aims of imprisonment include reformation and rehabilitation apart from deterrence. Education can contribute to a sense among prisoners that they remain a part of the wider community. Prison education can provide a source of hope and aspiration whilst making purposeful use of time in detention. It also helps them lead better lives once they are free. Thus, ensuring that prisoners have access to education is essential to achieving the reformative and rehabilitative objectives of imprisonment as well," the Bench observed.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors. v. Binoj K.B. & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
The Kerala High Court partially quashed the Order of the Single Judge calling for the conduct of raids in all religious places by District Collectors, and taking into possession firecrackers alleged to be illegally stored therein, with the assistance of the Commissioners of Police.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun, however added that the ban imposed by the Single Judge against the bursting of crackers at 'odd times' would be retained.
The Court clarified that firecrackers could be burst between 6AM to 10 PM in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court in other cases in this regard, and that the District Administration could take a call on the bursting of crackers during odd hours on a case-to-case basis.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar @ Rakkan v State of Kerala and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that to establish an offence of criminal trespass under IPC, the prosecution must prove beyond doubt that the accused persons entered into the property to commit criminal trespass with an intention to commit any offence or to cause intimidation, insult or annoyance.
Justice C.S. Dias thus acquitted two persons who were convicted for the commission of the offence of criminal trespass, citing lack of above ingredients.
“...the accused had no intention to commit any offence or intimidate, insult or annoy PW1 when they entered his house. The prosecution has miserably failed to establish beyond doubt that the accused had entered the property with an intention to commit the offence. Therefore, the revision petitioners/accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
Case Title: Vishnu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
“There cannot be a unilateral decision from the Court alone while scheduling trial”, the Kerala High Court said adding that the convenience of the lawyer should also be taken into consideration by the Court while fixing a date for the trial.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that when lawyers make genuine submissions for rescheduling the trial to another date, the Court should show magnanimity to accept it and schedule the trial as requested by them, after considering the convenience of the court also.
“There cannot be a unilateral decision from the Court alone while scheduling trial. Accused has got a right to choose his lawyer for conducting the trial and hence the convenience of the lawyer also should be taken care of by the Court. But, the submission of the lawyer should be genuine. Whether the submission of a lawyer for getting a date for trial is genuine or not is to be decided by the Court at the stage of scheduling the trial. If the submission of the lawyer of the accused or prosecution is genuine, the Court should be magnanimous to accept it and schedule the trial as requested by them after considering the convenience of the Court also.”
Case title: Lilly Krishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
Relying on the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Dheeraj Mor v. High Court of Delhi (2020), the Kerala High Court has held that a Munsiff Magistrate Trainee cannot be appointed as a District Judge by direct recruitment in the quota set apart for lawyers.
It has clarified that only a practising advocate who was continuing practise even as on the date of appointment is eligible to be appointed to the post of District and Sessions Judge in the Kerala State Higher Judicial Service by direct recruitment from the Bar.
A division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar thus denied relief to a Munsiff Magistrate Trainee, whose candidature for the post of District Judge was rejected on the ground that she was not a 'practising advocate' on the date of application.
Case Title: Keerthi Nagar Residents Association & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
The Kerala High Court recently held that the remedy in case of a tree standing dangerously on any property would be before the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas explained that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could not be invoked for the said purpose.
“The jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the purpose of directing cutting and removal of trees, especially since there is no basic order that has been produced to exercise such a jurisdiction or to allege inaction,” the Court explained.
Case Title: Shijo Das v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 641
The Kerala High Court laid down that the absence of specimen seal in the mahazar and forwarding note, non-mentioning of the name of the Excise Guard in the forwarding note, non-examination of the clerk who despatched the sample or the Excise Guard who took the sample to the lab, and so on are serious laches which would be fatal to the prosecution in a case under the Abkari Act.
"Absence of proper impression of specimen seal in the mahazar and absence of sample seal in the forwarding note etc. are circumstances to doubt the identity of the sample seized and the sample sent for chemical analysis. Prosecution is duty bound to prove that there was tamper proof despatch of the sample, to show that the sample taken from the contraband seized from the accused, was the sample which reached the hands of the chemical examiner", Justice Sophy Thomas explained.
Case Title: Sreeja @Sini v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
The Kerala High Court has ordered release of a woman detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereafter, KAAPA Act), considering that her daughter is at an advanced stage of her pregnancy.
The Division bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen said normally courts do not interfere in detention orders, but it is not devoid of such power when fundamental rights are involved.
“In exceptional circumstances, the recognition invoking Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the Court can order release of such person who is detained in custody. This order is not with reference to invoking statutory provision but with reference to superior right available to such person on a justifiable ground under Article 21 of the Constitution to ensure life and liberty of such citizens and others. It is pleaded before us that nobody is there to take care of her daughter and child and on humanitarian grounds, the period of detention be modified.”
Case Title: Raveendranath V State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted an accused under the NDPS Act citing prosecution's failure to produce alleged written communication made to him regarding his right to be searched before Magistrate under Section 50 of the Act and his alleged written consent waiving such right.
Justice N. Nagaresh held that failure on the part of the prosecution to produce communication or consent letter obtained in compliance with Section 50 caused prejudice to the accused. The Court added that the evidence of illicit narcotic drugs / psychotropic substances recovered by the police in violation of the safeguards provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act cannot be relied upon to convict the accused.
“…The prosecution further stated that the appellant had given his consent to dispense with the presence of gazetted Officer / Magistrate during search, that also in writing. If such communications in writing existed, the prosecution ought to have produced the same before the court. The non- production of the documents gives rise to serious doubt as regards compliance of law, to an extent that the search and seizure get nullified. In the absence of a search and seizure in compliance with the provisions of Section 50, the entire prosecution story against the appellant would crumble. In the afore facts of the case, I find that failure of the prosecution to produce Section 50 communication / information before the court has seriously prejudiced the appellant and conviction of the appellant cannot be justified under the circumstances.”
Case Title: Mahesh Mohan v. Indian Institute of Management, Kozhikode & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
The Kerala High Court recently held that Indian Institute of Management (IIM), Kozhikode would have to follow the reservation policy stipulated under the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation and Admission) Act, 2006 ('Act, 2006'), for admission to Ph.D. Practice Track Course.
The Court noted that the proviso to Section 8 of the Indian Institute of Management Act, 2017, says that every Institute shall be a Central Education Institution for the purposes of the Central Educational Institutions (Reservation and Admission) Act, 2006.
"There can hence be no dispute that the 2006 Act will apply insofar as the admissions to the Indian Institute of Management are concerned," the Court observed.
Rejecting IIM's argument that the provisions of the Act, 2006 as regards reservation would apply only to cases where there is an annual permitted strength, which is identified earlier and not in case of Ph.D.(PT) for which there is no annual permitted strength prescribed, Justice T.R. Ravi, observed:
"The requirement of reservation under the enactment cannot be defeated by not prescribing the number of seats that are permitted to be filled up for a particular course in a particular year. If there is no annual permitted strength as contended, the only manner in which the provision can be understood is the total number of seats that are sought to be filled up in a particular year is the annual permitted strength".
Sabarimala Temple : Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Melsanthi (Chief Priest) Selection
Case Title: Madhusoodanan Namboothiri V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed challenging the selection of the Melsanthi (Chief Priest) of Sabarimala Temple for the year 2023-24 alleging foul play.
The Division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish viewed video clippings of the selection process shown by Asianet News as well as CCTV footage from the camera installed in the Temple during the hearing. Taking note of the fact that large number of persons were inside the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ infront of the Sabarimala Temple while drawing lots for the selection of Melsanthi, the Court directed that entry of persons will be limited.
“However, the entry of persons to the ‘Sopanam enclosure’ of Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, at the time of draw of the lots shall be confined to the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala, the President of Travancore Devaswom Board (in his absence, a Member of the Travancore Devaswom Board), the Devaswom Commissioner and the Observer appointed by this Court.”
Case Title: Divya S.S Rose v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 646
The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act initiated against a Range Officer at Social Forestry Range accused of taking bribe, citing prosecution's failure to establish his voice sample to prove the telephonic conversation she allegedly had with the complainant.
Justice K. Babu noted that the analysis by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) had found that the identity of the speaker could not be positively ascertained from the voice sample that had been alleged to be that of the accused petitioner's, due to the speech amount being too little and low signal-to-noise ratio.
It further found that the allegation levelled against the petitioner by the 3rd respondent that the former insisted on bribe from him was also doubtful considering that the petitioner had taken a tough stand against the latter, and insisted on him completing the work in terms of the contract, which, in the opinion of the Court, could only be the inference of a prudent man.
Case Title: Gopakumar P. v Travancore Devaswom Board
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
The Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition on the finding that specific averments should be made against the parties while filing the writ petition itself and they need not be arrayed as parties later by filing an impleading application.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish added that the writ petition lacked specific averments in tune with the reliefs sought for and necessary parties were not arrayed in the party array.
“A mere application for impleadment, after the filing of this writ petition, will not serve the purpose, since the writ petition for seeking such a relief should contain specific allegations against the Temple Advisory Committee and its members. In the absence of necessary averments in the writ petition in support of the reliefs sought for and necessary parties in the party array, we find no reason to entertain this writ petition.”
Case Title: Tomy K M v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
The Kerala High Court has permitted a POCSO Court to try the offences under SC/ST Act relating to abuse and assault of the minor victim's father stating that the two offences were closely connected as the incident occurred within half hour of the offence under POCSO Act.
Justice Gopinath P. relied on MS.P xxx Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2022 LiveLaw (SC) 554) which explained when two or more acts constitute the same transaction for the purpose of being tried together.
Section 28(2) of the POCSO Act also stipulates that while trying an offence under the POCSO Act, the Special Court may also try other offences under which the accused was charged at the same trial.
“Having regard to the law laid down in MS.P xxx’s case (supra) and also having regard to the provisions of Section 28(2) of the POCSO Act, I am of the view that S.C.No.555 of 2022 on the file of the District and Sessions Court, Kottayam should be transferred and tried before the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Erattupetta,” the bench thus ordered.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: K.R. Prasad v. M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance Co. Ltd.
Case Number: C.C. No. 403/ 2021
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently awarded a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation to a policy holder whose claim under the 'Corona Rakshak Policy' was rejected by M/S Star Health and Allied Insurance on the ground that the policy holder had not provided treatment records for bronchial asthma.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. was of the view that the complainant policy holder's Bronchial Asthma condition had not been definitively diagnosed, and the rejection of the claim on that ground alone would amount to an Unfair Trade Practice.
"The 'Corona Rakshak Policy' was crafted with heartfelt intent to offer solace and support to those battling the harrowing effects of COVID- 19. The insurance company's denial, after perusing the documents, feels like a betrayal of the principles of compassion and fairness. Such a cold and narrow-minded approach, rooted in technicalities, is deeply hurtful, especially during a time when the entire world was grappling with the shock of the pandemic. It's heart wrenching to see some of the insurance firms repeatedly dismiss claims on insubstantial grounds or mere technicalities. Their focus should be on empathy rather than loopholes. Imagine the despair of a man, shaken by the devastating impact of COVID- 19, who sought refuge in the security of a policy, only to be turned away. Think of the countless souls who, while mourning the loss of loved ones or battling the virus themselves, reached out to insurance companies for help, only to be given a myriad of reasons for denial. Such actions are not just unfair; they are profoundly inhumane," the Bench observed.
Case Title: State v. Gopinathan Nair & Anr.
Case Number: SESSIONS CASE No.1073/2013
A Kerala Court recently sentenced a 62 year old to 35 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 1.25 Lakhs for committing the offence of rape and penetrative sexual assault on a girl child, with mental disability.
The Fast Track Special Court Judge at Thiruvananthapuram Rekha R. passed the Order.
The prosecution case is that the 2nd accused person had committed the offences of rape and sexual assault on the child in January 2013, by taking advantage of her mental disability. The first accused had also been charged with offences, however, he passed away during the pendency of the proceedings due to which the charges were ordered to be abated.
Sree Keralavarma College Election Case: Kerala High Court Calls For Records From Returning Officer
Case Title: Sreekuttan S. v. Sree Keralavarma College & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 36659/ 2023
The Kerala High Court directed the Returning officer to produce the records pertaining to the election of College Union Chairman of Sree Keralavarma College, in the plea filed by the KSU Candidate Sreekuttan, alleging arbitrariness in the recounting of votes during the election.
Justice T.R. Ravi, also sought the response of the Principal, the Returning Officer, the Vice Chancellor and the Opposite Party candidate who had been declared to be elected after the recounting, by issuing notice to the respondents.
Kerala High Court Asks Govt Regarding Scheme For Affordable Alternates To Breast Cancer Medicine
Case title: IN RE EXORBITANT PRICING OF LIFE SAVING PATENDED MEDICINES
Case number: W.P. (C) No.18999 of 2022
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Government to report whether there were alternative methods available to make medicines available for treatment of breast cancer in India for patients who could not afford expensive drugs.
Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the Government to apprise the Court regarding alternative methods for making medicines affordable to patients for treatment of breast cancers and whether such medicines were included under the ambit of any specific schemes.
“….the competent Authority of the Union of India will inform this Court as to what is the best alternative that can be offered to the patients of breast cancer in India qua the medicines for its treatment; and whether it has already been included in specified schemes. This information has not been yet made available in any of the counter pleadings, though the manufacturers on record, appear to have come forward with certain suggestions within the purlieus of their Corporate Social Responsibility.”
Case Title: K. Asokakumar v. Biju Prabhakar and connected matter and Sajeev Kumar V.N. v. V.P. Joy
Case Numbers: Contempt Case(C)Nos.2149 of 2023 & 2368 of 2023 AND Contempt Case(C)No.1024 of 2023
The Chief Secretary of the State V. Venu, drew the flak of the Kerala High Court for his failure to appear before the Court online in two contempt of court cases.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed the Court's strong criticism on the authority's failure to appear before it.
"Any person would have empathy for the condition of the petitioner and similarly situated persons; but the respondents appear to have prioritized their 'other engagements', more than the plight of these hapless people," the Court observed, ruing the situation.
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 on Tuesday took stern view of film reviewers who were not registered under any organization, nor accredited, and also had no guidelines to follow while publishing their content on the online platform.
The Court was seized with the plea filed by the director of 'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release, and another by the Producers' Association highlighting "review bombings" against newly released films.
"Writ petition of individuals behind the films cannot be sacrificed at the altar of freedom of expression asserted by individuals who seem to be under the impression that they are not governed by any parameter or regulations, particularly when there is nothing on record to show that any of them are registered or akin to journalists or such other service providers," the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed in the order.
Three Projects were launched under the aegis of the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA), at the High Court Auditorium- the Child Legal Assistance Program (CLAP), Project SAMVADA, and the Victim Rights Centre (VRC).
Speaking about the Projects which are his 'brain children', Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, the Executive Chairman of KeLSA said, "KELSA is an authority run for providing services to those who cannot afford mainstream formal justice".
97 Year Old Keralite Sets Guinness World Record As Lawyer With Longest Career
A Kerala-based lawyer, Advocate P. Balasubramanian Menon, has secured a place in the Guinness Book of World Records as the longest serving lawyer, at the age of 97.
A native of Palakkad district in Kerala, Advocate Menon has had an illustrious career spanning 73 years and 60 days, upon graduating from Madras Law College.
Case Title: K. Asokakumar v. Biju Prabhakar and connected matter and Sajeev Kumar V.N. v. V.P. Joy
Case Numbers: Contempt Case(C)Nos.2149 of 2023 & 2368 of 2023 AND Contempt Case(C)No.1024 of 2023
The Kerala High Court reminded the authorities who appeared before it, Chief Secretary of the State, V. Venu and Secretary- Transport Department, Biju Prabhakar that the state has a duty to take care of citizens who are in distress.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said that celebrations were not important when the citizens of the state were in distress. The judge was implicitly alluding to the ongoing "Keraleeyam" celebrations organized by the State Government in Thiruvananthapuram. In the Order, the Court observed thus:
“I close by reminding the respondents that the tear in one eye of the citizen of this state and the distress to a few of them should be sufficient to alert everyone and to be empathetic. You can’t expect the state to be in celebration even when one citizen is in distress. This is something that the authorities must keep in mind while administering a state like ours.”
Case Title: Syama M. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 41159 OF 2022 (T)
The Kerala High Court directed the Chief Secretary of the State to issue necessary instructions and circulars to all entities involved in infrastructure development to comply with the recommendations made by State's Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA).
One of the recommendations calls upon all Engineering Departments and local Governments in the State to consider risks from planning stage itself. It encourages them to fill the annexure to the State Disaster Management Plan at the designing stage of engineering projects, and to incorporate the checklist as part of their detailed project report, in a bid to ensure that risk awareness is clear to executing entities and beneficiaries at the designing stage itself.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was of the considered opinion that the afore recommendation ought to be considered and adhered to in all cases of infrastructure development.
"I order so since am without doubt that the views of the State Disaster Management Committee are imminently deserving of being acceded to and adhered with," the Court said.
Kerala's first transwoman lawyer, Advocate Padma Lakshmi, has written to the Law Minister of the State P. Rajeev, and the Judicial Registrar of the Court alleging transphobia, mental harassment, and discrimination from senior lawyers, including two government pleaders of the Court.
"Am I not allowed to earn a livelihood of my own, doing my job? Or am I not allowed to live as I am, a transwoman?," Advocate Lakshmi asked
Airfares Are Not Regulated By The Government: Centre Tells Kerala High Court
Case Title: Zainul Abideen V Union of India
Case number: WPC 33488/2023
The Central Government has submitted a statement before the Kerala High Court stating that airfares are not regulated by the Government.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was considering the plea moved by the Managing Director of Safari Group Of Companies challenging the exorbitant airfares to Gulf Countries. In pursuance to the earlier directions of the Court, K. K Sethukumar, Central Government Counsel submitted the statement on behalf of all the respondents before the Court.
Case Title: Cdr. Keerthi M. Kuriens v. The Manager, Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No. 328/ 2021
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently flayed manufacturers for intentionally withholding of essential spare and consumable parts of a component, compelling the customers to abandon such otherwise functional products and acquire replacements for the same.
Terming such tactics to pressurize consumers to buy additional products from them as 'restricted trade practice', the Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran, and Sreevidhia T.N. observed:
"Manufacturers frequently employ enticing advertising strategies to persuade consumers to purchase their products. However, a recurring problem arises when these companies fail in their duty to provide necessary spare and consumable parts required for the product's proper functioning throughout its anticipated lifespan. This widespread issue affects consumers across various product categories. When manufacturers decline to furnish these vital components, it effectively compels consumers to discard still-functional products. Such conduct constitutes an unfair trade practice, as it coerces consumers into procuring replacements, thereby artificially inflating the manufacturer's sales and profits. Intentional withholding of essential spare and consumable parts by manufacturers leaves consumers with limited options, compelling them to abandon functional products and acquire replacements. This not only imposes financial burdens on consumers but also contributes to environmental degradation through an increase in electronic waste".