Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554-564]Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557Aqib...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554-564]
Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on finding that the prosecution failed to explain the delay of 16 years in filing the rape case.
The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner subjected her to rape in the year 2001, and First Information Statement was given in 2017 only.The Court noted that the delay of 16 years in filing the case was fatal to the prosecution and found the allegations to be unbelievable.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the fact that the de facto complainant continued the relationship with the petitioner even after having sexual intercourse in 2001 would point out that their relationship was consensual.
Case Title: Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that an aggrieved person can challenge the decision of a Sessions Court issued under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) by way of a Criminal Revision Petition.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sessions Court which had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife had moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the DV Act and had obtained a maintenance order against the petitioner. A challenge against this order was dismissed by the Magistrate.
Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that there is almost an an absolute bar on challenging the final order or judgment passed by a Sessions Court in appeal, under Article 227 of the Constitution. Article 227 deals with the superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals in its territory.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which held that a person cannot approach the High Court under Article 227 when there is an alternate remedy available. The High Court held that a person has the remedy of criminal revision petition to challenge the final order of Sessions Court in an appeal made under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
The Kerala High has closed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Malayalam Movie Director Ranjith. The petition was closed on the report of the Public Prosecutor that the S. 354 of IPC (outraging modesty) which is alleged against the petitioner was bailable in 2009 when the incident allegedly took place.
He submitted that the police are treating the offence as bailable and the director can take bail directly from the police station if he is arrested.
Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu appeared for the actor before the Court. The matter was heard before the bench of Justice C. S. Dias.
Case Title: Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court has imposed a sentence of 2 months of simple imprisonment on a police officer for contempt of court for abusing and misbehaving with an advocate. The Court has however suspended the sentence for a period of 1 year. During this period, the police officer is cautioned to not indulge in any untoward activities. After the period of 1 year, the sentence would lapse.
The sentence was delivered by Justice Devan Ramachandran.
Case Title: Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Spices Board stands on a different footing than the Central Government and so the properties and buildings of the board cannot claim exemption from building tax by virtue of Article 285(1) of the Constitution.
A single-judge bench of Justice Basant Balaji referred to Section 19 of the Spices Board Act which deals with the Power of the Central Government to supersede the Board.
Case Title: George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition seeking an investigation by a central agency into the allegation made by MLA P. V. Anvar against the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) M. R. Ajith Kumar at the first instance itself. The Division Bench comprised of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu noted that the petition was premature.
Case Title: Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court ordered that the trial involving MLA Mani C Kappan be moved to a different courtroom, for one day, to accommodate his counsel, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai.
MLA Kappan has approached the High Court seeking permission to allow the trial to be held in a courtroom with lift facility for the convenience of his counsel, Senior Advocate Raman Pillai, rather than on the 1st floor which has no lift facility.
Justice B Jayachandran held that shifting of court premises is a matter within the administrative realm of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Case Title: V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court has convicted and sentenced an accused, the father of the minor daughter, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly raping and committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim.
The Court passed the above order in the appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar And Justice C.Pratheep Kumar ordered that the accused cannot be convicted both under the IPC and the POCSO Act and that he can be convicted for the offence providing a greater degree of punishment.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that protection afforded to an accused of unsound mind or with intellectual disability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has wider scope and will thus apply retrospectively, to pending applications.
Chapter XXV of CrPC pertains to provisions for accused persons of unsound mind. It includes persons suffering from unsound mind or mental retardation. Whereas, Chapter XXVII of the BNSS deals with provisions for accused persons with mental illness that protect persons with unsound mind or intellectual disability. This means that CrPC does not grant protection to persons suffering from intellectual disability.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that a person accused in a criminal case but incapable of making defence due to Alzheimer's Dementia is entitled to protection under the CrPC and The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice K Babu noted that dementia is a form of mental disability which include problems with language, memory loss, etc. and thus an affected person may be prevented from defending his case.
Justice K Babu held that BNSS will apply retrospectively to proceedings prior to July 01, 2024, to ensure fair trial for persons with intellectual disability or mental disability.
Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
The Kerala High Court has held that the accused has a right to access all materials which was gathered during investigation, irrespective of whether the prosecution seeks to rely upon the same.
Justice C. Jayachandran remarked that the very reason that the prosecution is not relying upon the same may imply that the evidence may be in favour of the accused
Other Developments This Week
Actor Siddique Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail Over Allegations Of Rape
Case Name: xxxx v State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl: 7331/2024
Malayali Actor Siddique has moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail as an FIR has been registered against him for rape and criminal intimidation.
The complainant had said that the actor called her to Muscot Hotel in Trivandrum on the pretext of discussing a film and he raped and assaulted her there. The complainant gave her complaint to the Special Investigation Team constituted to investigate the incidents of sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry.
Case Name: Jannath & Another v State of Kerala
A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court seeking to place the entire Justice Hema Committee before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for inquiry. The petition also seeks to formulate a special law to protect women in the film industry.
The Justice Hema Committee was constituted by the Government in 2017 and was tasked to study issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The report was published on August 19, 2024. The Committee's study revealed that women in the film industry face numerous issues, including, sexual demands, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, lack of safety in workplace, insufficient basic facilities, wage disparities etc.
Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala
Film director Ranjith has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Kerala High Court over sexual abuse allegations made against him after the publication of Justice Hema Committee Report, which deals with issues (including sexual demands) faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
The bail application has been moved based on allegations filed by a Bengali actress alleging the commission of an offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The crime was registered at the Ernakulam Town Police based on an email complaint made by the actress.
The Kerala High Court has orally asked the State to obtain instructions in a plea for anticipatory bail moved by actor Siddique over alleged charges of rape.
Justice C S Dias has posted the matter for hearing on September 10, 2024 (Tuesday).
Actor Siddique in his anticipatory bail application alleged that the complaint was filed to retaliate against him for expressing his view in the press meeting on August 23, after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The Kerala High Court Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque completed 50,000 case disposals in his judicial career.
Justice Mustaque was elevated as a judge of the Kerala High Court on January 23, 2014. He was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from July 05, 2024.
Case Title: K. Asokakumar v Dr K. Vasuki
Case No: Con.Case(C) 1772/ 2024
The Kerala High Court when apprised of the news about the suicide of a KSRTC retiree, urged the pensioners not to take steps which are irrational and unnecessary. The Court reassured them that it is now handling the matter and will make sure that pensions are paid within the time frames fixed by the Court.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said that he would decide whether to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the Government on the 4th of September after seeing how the government is planning to pay the pensioners.
Case Title: George Vattakulam v The State of Kerala
A PIL has been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking an investigation by a national agency in the allegations made by MLA P. V. Anwar against Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) M.R. Ajith Kumar.
The Chief Minister had declared on September 2 that an investigation would be conducted to look into these allegations. Unsatisfied by the progress of the investigation, the petition was filed before the High Court.
The Kerala High Court stated that it will consider constituting a special bench with lady judge as member to hear cases relating to the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu mentioned the constitution of the special bench in open court when the writ appeal filed by Producer Sajimon Parayil was taken up before it today.
The Kerala High Court has constituted a special bench consisting of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C S Sudha to hear cases relating to the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The Special Bench was constituted following the order of Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque on August 29, 2024. The order constituting the Special Bench was issued today by the Registrar.
Case Title: Dr E Sreedharan v State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: WPC 31375/2024
E Sreedharan, an Engineer, renownedly known as Metro Man has moved a public interest litigation at the Kerala High Court. He is challenging the failure of the state government and authorities to consider alternative and feasible options for realigning the Thiruvanaya-Thavanur Bridge across the Bharathapuzha River without affecting the Holy Trinity Temples to preserve religious sanctity.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu has directed the government to file a statement.
Church Feud: Kerala High Court Directs Ernakulam And Palakkad District Collectors To Take Over Possession Of 6 Churches
Case Title: St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Cherukunnam v Dr. Venu I.A.S and other Connected Cases
Case No: Con.Case (C) 299/ 20124
The Kerala High Court has directed the Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad districts to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction feud.
Justice V. G. Arun asked the Collectors to take possession as the police was unable to follow its earlier order to provide adequate protection so that the vicars and parishioners of the Orthodox faction can perform religious rites in these churches. The bench was dealing with a civil contempt petition.
Case Title: IN RE: PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL DISASTERS IN KERALA v STATE OF KERALA
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
Continuing hearing in the suo moto case initiated in the aftermath of devastating Wayanad landslides, the Kerala High Court today asked the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority whether it is willing to write off personal loans, motor vehicle loans and housing loans availed by members of the affected families.
Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. granted six weeks time to Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan for submitting a report in this regard. The bench has also directed the government to submit a "carrying capacity assessment" of various hill stations in the State.
Case Title: Riju Joseph v National Medical Commission Represented By Its Secretary
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31560 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the Trivandrum Medical College to conduct a "functionality assessment" test to determine whether 17-year-old medical aspirant with a 50 per cent locomotor disability is eligible for the MBBS course, after noting that the disability certificate issued to her was silent on this aspect.
A single judge bench of Justice P M Manoj in its order observed that the board had conducted only a "quantitative analysis" to fix the range of disability as 50 per cent without assessing the functionality of both hands, and that the certificate was silent on an assessment regarding the "functionality" of the girl's hands.