Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 158-167]A.P. Nazeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 158The Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) & Ors. v. Kerala Lok Ayukta & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 159Nithinram R.S. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 160Rajan V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 161Non-Religious Citizens (N.R.C) V Union Of India,...
Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 158-167]
A.P. Nazeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) & Ors. v. Kerala Lok Ayukta & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
Nithinram R.S. v. State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Rajan V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Non-Religious Citizens (N.R.C) V Union Of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
Rithu Maria Joy V Shejoy Varghese, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Suo Motu V Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
Varghese Abraham & Ors. v. Shinu P. & Anr. and other connected matters, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Hisham Transports V Food Safety Standards Authority Of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
Niyas V The District Collector Palakkad, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
Case Title: A.P. Nazeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Kerala High Court held the notifications declaring the local area comprising villages; the number of wards; and calling for objections to the proposed delimitation of Gram Panchayat constituencies/ wards, issued by the Lakshadweep Administrator and the Election Commission (EC) for the Lakshadweep Village (Dweep) Panchayat elections, as premature and ultra vires the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution of India and the Lakshadweep Panchayat Regulations, 2022.
Case Title: The Additional Chief Secretary (Revenue) & Ors. v. Kerala Lok Ayukta & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
The Kerala High Court deliberated as to whether the Lok Ayukta could adjudicate upon the correctness of an order passed by the assessing authority rejecting the option for settling arrears of sales tax under the Amnesty Scheme, and answered the same in the negative.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman observed,
"If orders passed by quasi-judicial functionaries exercising powers under a statute are for any reason untenable in law, resort must be had to the remedies under the statute and the complainants cannot bypass the procedure and approach the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta is a creation of the statute and has no inherent jurisdiction. It cannot assume any jurisdiction otherwise confirmed by the Lok Ayukta Act".
Case Title: Nithinram R.S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Kerala High Court remanded a bail application in a POCSO case for fresh consideration by the trial Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu directed the Trial Court to consider the entitlement of the petitioner for regular bail before March 30, 2023.
The petitioner is accused of offences punishable under Sections 450, 376(2)(n), 361 r/w Section 363, 342, 354-A (1)(i) of IPC and Section 5(I) r/w Section 6, Section 7 r/w Section 8 of the POCSO Act. He had been in judicial custody since March 7, 2023.
Case Title: Rajan V State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
The Kerala High Court quashed proceedings against a witness who had turned hostile in the ‘Kalluvaathukkal liquor tragedy' case.
The court was of the view that since the main accused persons were convicted in the trial and the evidence of the hostile witness did not have any impact on the case, prosecuting the witness 21 years after giving evidence, would be an abuse of the process of the court.
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Seeking Ban On Non-Therapeutic Circumcisions
Case Title: Non-Religious Citizens (N.R.C) V Union Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by Non-Religious Citizens (NRC), a cultural organisation based in Kerala, seeking to declare the practice of non-therapeutic circumcision illegal.
A division bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the petitioners relied on newspaper reports to support their contentions and such a writ petition was not maintainable.
Case Title: Rithu Maria Joy V Shejoy Varghese
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
he Kerala High Court held that before initiating prosecution for perjury, the court must be convinced that it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into the offence.
A division bench comprising of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that :
“in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the Court must prima facie reach a conclusion that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the Court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice.”
Case Title: Suo Motu V Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Indian Railways to periodically review the steps undertaken by it, to ensure the safety of passengers, especially women, on trains and in railway stations.
A division bench of Justice S Manikumar and Justice Murali Purushothaman passed the order while considering a public interest litigation for improving the safety of railway passengers.
The suo moto proceeding was initiated in 2021 when Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had highlighted the need to look into the safety of railway passengers in the wake of an incident that took place on 28.04.2021 where a female passenger fell off a moving train and suffered head injuries, when an assailant attacked her.
Case Title: Varghese Abraham & Ors. v. Shinu P. & Anr. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Kerala High Court refused to quash the complaint against the elected members of the governing committee of the Parish of St.Johns Salem Orthodox Church, Ayroor, for the alleged defamatory statement against other members of the Parish in the representation submitted to the Metropolitan Bishop.
Justice K. Babu observed that the facts of the present case do not fall within the ambit of those circumstances wherein it could exercise the power to quash the criminal proceeding that had been initiated. It observed that the petitioners had not taken reasonable care in including the alleged defamatory statements against the other Parish members in the representation before the Metropolitan Bishop.
Case Title: Hisham Transports V Food Safety Standards Authority Of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Kerala High Court recently issued general directions to the State to bring water drawn from wells that is being sold to the public as drinking water, under the purview of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards & Food Additives) Regulation 2011.
A single bench of Justice Amit Rawal observed:
“In order to prevent further misuse of provisions of Act, at the hands of the well owner and food operators, I deem it appropriate to issue general directions to the State Government as well as respondent No.2 [Food Safety Officer, Kochi Circle] to publish a notice and personal notice to all the well owners and food operators who are indulging into the practice of selling the water through tankers to the general public to obtain licence and conform to the standards prescribed under the Act, Rules and regulations. This Court is sanguine of the fact that the respondent No.1 [Food Safety Standards Authority Of India] would come out with a notification for bringing the water drawn from well and standardizing the conditions of the water drawn from the well for the purpose of selling into general public.”
Case Title: Niyas V The District Collector Palakkad
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, where two authorities, the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) and the Local Level Monitoring Committee (LLMC) have been given the power to redress the same grievance, i.e., removal of a property erroneously included in the data bank as paddy land, the procedure laid out for both authorities are different.
Pointing to this "lacuna" in the 2008 Rules, the court noted that while the LLMC is required to conduct a local inspection, it is not mandatory for the RDO to do so, even though the RDO has no specialized mechanism to ascertain the characteristic the land.
A single bench of Justice Viju Abraham held that to address this issue, the RDO is to follow the same procedure prescribed to be followed by the LLMC under the Act.
Other Significant Developments
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P. Joseph
The Kerala High Court recently asked the government to come out with suggestions, including on legislative intervention, to curtail the attacks on medical personnel.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath said whatever be the provocation or reason that anyone may impel or project, an attack on a medical personnel is unacceptable and non-negotiable.
Case Title: Christian Association and Alliance for Social Action (CASA) v. State of Kerala & Ors. and K.U.Santhakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Two petitions have been moved in the Kerala High Court for quashing the order issued by the Changanassery Municipality directing its employees to sound siren at 6.30 pm to inform the Muslim Community that time for fasting is over in connection with Ramazan.
The petitions have been filed by the Christian Association and Alliance for Social Action (CASA), a society registered under the Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act 1955, and K.U.Santhakumar, a religious and social activist.
Case Title: M. Sivasankar v. Union of India
The Additional Solicitor General R. Sankaranarayanan told the Kerala High Court that the former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala, M Sivasankar, is the kingpin, who orchestrated the money laundering and bribery since the very beginning, and that he could impede the investigation if released on bail.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen was considering the bail application moved by Sivasankar in the money laundering case related to alleged corruption in the LIFE (Livelihood, Inclusion and Financial Empowerment) Mission project, a housing project of the Kerala Government for the homeless.
Plea Before Kerala High Court Seeks To Restrain Judge From Hearing Matters Having Son's Vakalat
Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy V Justice Mary Joseph
A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court by Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy to not list matters before the bench of Justice Mary Joseph in which her son, Advocate Prerith Philip Joseph has vakalat.
The plea states that the Registrar General of the High Court that has authority over all departments of the Court, including the Registry and the listing department, has failed to ensure that no cases filed by Advocate Prerith Philip Joseph are listed before his mother Justice Mary Joseph.
12-Yr-Old Allegedly Used As 'Drug Carrier', Mother Moves Kerala High Court Seeking CBI Probe
Case Title: xxxx v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by the mother of an eighth grade student, who had allegedly been used as a 'drug carrier', seeking CBI investigation into the issue pertaining to the luring of school children into drug consumption, and using them for drug trafficking and other crimes.
As per the plea, the incident came to light when the twelve year old girl student was found in the school washroom in an inebriated stage with her uniform fully wet. When she was asked about the same by the Headmistress, Class Teacher and others, she allegedly informed that someone had made her smell a 'white powder', pursuant to which she had vomited four times. However, the incident was never informed to the police or the childline, petitioner claims.
Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court was of the firm view that under the present circumstances, the balance of convenience would lie against the immediate capture of the wild tusker ‘Arikomban’, a rogue elephant which is causing disturbances in human settlements near Munnar.
Taking note of the 'deplorable state' of captive elephants, as well as various instances of cruelty meted out to them, the Court wondered whether the pachyderm should be consigned to a life in captivity.
"Adding another wild elephant to that list of hapless ‘converts’ would run counter to our fundamental duty to protect wildlife and have compassion for living creatures, as envisaged under Art.51A (g) of our Constitution," the Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. observed.
The elephant had allegedly been foraging into the Chinnakanal area, and causing damage to the property in the human settlement areas. Vide its order dated March 25, 2023, the Court had directed the Forest and Wildlife Department to refrain from capturing the tusker.
The Lok Ayukta on Friday referred the case against the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the former Ministers alleging misuse of amount in the Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF) to a Full Bench comprising the Lok Ayukta and both the Upa-Lok Ayuktas.
It was alleged in the complaint by R.S. Sasikumar that the decisions taken by the State Government in: firstly, giving financial assistance to the family of late Uzhavoor Vijayan by sanctioning a a total amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the CMDRF towards his medical expenses, and the educational expenses of his two children; secondly, sanctioning necessary amount from the CMDRF for clearing the arrears of loans taken by late Advocate K.K.Ramachandran Nair, MLA, from Government recognized institutions and providing a government job to his son; and lastly, sanctioning a financial aid of Rs.20 lakhs from the CMDRF to the legal heirs of late Civil Police Officer P. Praveen, who died in a motor accident while performing escort duty for the former Home Minister and State Secretary of CPI (M) late Kodiyeri Balakrishnan, were actuated by corruption, favouritism, and nepotism. It was also alleged that the respondents lacked integrity in discharging their duties as public servants.
Kerala High Court Transfers Kavaratti District Judge Amidst Sexual Harassment Allegation
The Registrar General of the Kerala High Court directed the Director (Services) of the Lakshadweep Administration to repatriate District and Sessions Judge of Kavaratti, Anil Kumar K, to the Kerala Judicial Services. The judge was facing a sexual harassment complaint filed by a woman lawyer.
Anil Kumar, who is currently serving as District and Sessions Judge of Kavaratti, is to be posted as Additional District and Sessions Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala due to ‘administrative exigency’, the letter issued by the Registrar General to the Director (Services) of the Lakshadweep Administration stated. The Lakshadweep Administration was directed to take urgent steps to issue orders in this regard.