1. NEET PG: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking To Quash State Circular Granting 27% Reservation To SEBCCase Title: Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9The Court dismissed a plea moved by MBBS graduates challenging a circular issued by the State government increasing reservation for the socially and...
Case Title: Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
The Court dismissed a plea moved by MBBS graduates challenging a circular issued by the State government increasing reservation for the socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) from 9% to 27% in medical postgraduate courses. After having elaborately heard the matter over the course of the past couple of months, Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the plea.
Case Title: Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Court dismissed the bail applications moved by the prime accused in the infamous Walayar case that had built up public outrage in the State. Noting that the final report had already been filed before the trial court, Justice P. Gopinath asked the applicants to approach the trial court with their bail applications since that would be the appropriate forum to consider the same:
"Having regard to the fact that the final report has already been filed and the fact that the petitioner in one of the bail applications also faces allegations of having committed offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 I am of the view it is for the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional court for bail."
3. District Court Can Only Appoint Guardian For Minor's 'Property', Not 'Person': Kerala High Court
Case Title: K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya Citation: [2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3]
The Court ruled that while District Courts are empowered to appoint a guardian for a minor's property, only Family Court can appoint a guardian for the person of a minor.
While partly allowing an appeal, a Division Bench comprising Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas set aside the proceedings of the District Court to the extent of appointing a guardian for the person of the minor.
4. 'Not Sure If All Ambulances Carry Genuine Patients' : Kerala High Court Calls For Monitoring System
The Court orally commented that perhaps it was time to bring about a monitoring system to regulate ambulances cutting through traffic in the State, particularly in the city of Kochi.While hearing a bail application of a man alleged to have committed an offence in an ambulance, Justice P Gopinath remarked that this was an issue of immense gravity citing the rising number of similar cases being brought to the fore in the State:
"It is a very serious issue. But at the same time, how can the police regulate this? They cannot stop and inspect all the ambulances plying in the city; this could cost a life, leading to disciplinary action against the responsible officer. Everyone including the police will make way for an ambulance upon hearing its siren. But only God knows what is being transported in it. I am not sure if all these ambulances are transporting genuine patients in the first place."
Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors
The Court found merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner who had sought to quash the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT to apply to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC).
Finding the condition prima facie discriminatory, Justice V.G. Arun observed that there was no rationale for precluding candidates like the petitioner from the post:
6. [Actor Sexual Assault Case] Sufficient Reasons Required To Recall Witnesses : Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni
Further developments ensued in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, as the Court observed that the prosecution should produce adequate justification for seeking to recall the witnesses in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath reserved orders in the Criminal Miscellaneous case filed by the State against the trial court approving to collect a confidential statement from director Balachandra Kumar, who made some explosive disclosures, on January 12th.
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
The Court suo motu impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement to report if there was any statutory violation in exhibiting the Malayalam movie 'Churuli'. The Court passed the direction in the writ petition filed against the movie citing excessive use of abusive and obscene language. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing the matter also noted that prima facie, he was of the opinion that no statutory provision was violated by the publication of the film
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
The Court ordered the Devaswom Commissioner to institute disciplinary action against employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board who failed to report for special duty at Sabarimala, Pampa and Nilakkal. While issuing the directive, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar recorded that it is the surplus income from the Sabarimala Temple that aids the functioning of over a thousand other temples under the Board.
The Court also directed the Devaswom Commissioner to obtain the names and take action against the staff in the establishment wing and class-4 employees who failed to report for special duty, except on genuine medical grounds.
9. Missing CPM Worker: Kerala High Court Demands Status Report On Police Investigation
Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.
The Court sought a statement from the respondents on the stage of investigation in the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran asked the respondents to file a copy of the investigation so far conducted in the matter by the next hearing date.
Case Title: M.T Thomas v. V.P Joy
In an affidavit filed before the Court, the Chief Secretary to the Government has submitted that its actions taken in pursuance of the Semi High-Speed Railway Line Project (Silver Line Project) were only preliminary in nature and that they were all in public interest. The statement was filed in a petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against K-Rail for allegedly breaching its assurance not to proceed with the Silver Line project before obtaining sanction from the Centre.
Case Title: Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
The Court observed that it is prima facie of the view that the notification issued by the Registrar in charge appointing a new board of studies at the Kannur University was not in consonance with the statutory provisions. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also issued notice to the Registrar and Board Members on the appeal filed against a Single Bench's order. The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition challenging the reconstitution of the board of studies.
Case Title: V. G. Thankamani & Ors & National Highway Authority of India & Ors Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Court has ruled that non-compliance with principles of natural justice is a good ground to set aside an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, while allowing an appeal, set aside the order of the Additional District Court and the impugned award. The Court also added that only an adjudicator not favouring one party more than another, unprejudiced, disinterested, equitable and just, can be said to be an impartial adjudicator.
Case Title: Rajeswary vs State of Kerala Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
The Court observed that a convict in a cheque bounce case can pay the fine amount directly to the complainant. It is not necessary to deposit the fine amount in court. In this case, while disposing of the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused, the High Court had affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment as a sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,17,000/-. The accused was granted a period of six months to remit the amount of fine in the trial court.
14. Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Husband, Releases His Parents
Case Title: Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Court refused bail to the accused husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. However, his parents, who are co-accused in the case, were granted bail. During the proceedings, the de facto complainant (Mofiya's father) also brought to the fore that the accused husband was diagnosed with sexual perversion and personality disorders during a counselling session he had attended with the deceased. In her complaint, she had also mentioned her ordeals of having been forced to perform unnatural sexual acts by the accused husband.
15. Advocates Welfare Fund Scam: Kerala Bar Council Assures Cooperation With CBI Probe
The Bar Council of Kerala issued a press release disclosing that it does not plan to appeal against the High Court's decision to initiate a CBI probe into the Advocates Welfare Fund scam. In fact, it was added that the Council endorses the verdict of the Court.
Bar Council Chairman Advocate Joseph John published the press release pursuant to a recent order where the High Court directed a CBI investigation into a scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund. The amount was allegedly swindled through fake documents from 2007 - 2015.
Also Read: Kerala High Court Allows Filing In A4 Size Papers In District Judiciary
16. Kerala High Court Upholds 10% EWS Reservation For Veterinary & Dental Courses Under KEAM
Case Title: Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors. Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Court upheld the 10% reservation earmarked for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) for Veterinary and Dental Courses under Kerala Engineering Architecture ad Medical (KEAM).
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan closed the writ petition upon noticing that a Government Order dated 20.03.2020 had established the said reservation, and after the Government Pleader endorsed that it was a policy decision of the State. The Director of Medical Education also submitted an affidavit stating that as per the said Government Order, 10% of seats are set apart for candidates belonging to EWS.
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association
The Court issued notice on an appeal challenging a Single Judge order that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly refused to stay the single bench decision.
The Single Judge had examined the Kerala Essential Articles Control Act 1986 and found that as per Section 3, the power to control production, supply, distribution of essential commodities are vested with the Centre.
Case Title: Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
While acquitting a man accused of murder on the ground of negligent evidence collection, the Court ruled that the satisfaction of the Court cannot be substituted by expert opinion. In the criminal appeal, the preliminary question before the Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was whether there was sufficient material before the trial court to find the accused guilty.
It was noted that the case against the accused was largely based on fingerprints and chemical evidence. However, the Court noted that there wasn't sufficient reliable evidence for the trial court to have found the accused guilty of the crime.
The Court reiterated its stand that survivors of sexual assault have to be thoroughly protected from further harassment or ridicule as it takes a lot of courage to come forward and say they have been attacked, and invited recommendations from all lawyers on how they can be protected from further trauma on account of the investigation process. Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked so while considering the plea of a survivor who alleged harassment from the accused as well as certain police officers.
20. Uthra Murder: Suraj Prefers Appeal Against His Conviction, Kerala High Court Issues Notice To State
Case Title: Suraj S. Kumar v. State of Kerala
In a further development in the Uthra murder case, the Court admitted an appeal preferred by Suraj, challenging his conviction by the Kollam Additional District and Sessions Court for throwing a starving cobra on his wife while she was asleep, to induce her death by snakebite. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also issued notice to the State in the matter.
Suraj was sentenced to double life imprisonment and a five lakh fine for murdering his wife by inducing a homicidal snakebite. He was also awarded 10 years and 7 years of imprisonment in two other cases for causing hurt by means of poison and destroying evidence. The sentencing was to run consecutively.