Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 625- 668 ]Ratheesh P.K. & Anr v. Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 625Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P. Joseph 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 626Wilson C.C. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 627Anti-Corruption Peoples Movement and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors and Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 625- 668 ]
Ratheesh P.K. & Anr v. Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P. Joseph 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
Wilson C.C. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
Anti-Corruption Peoples Movement and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors and Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 628
Rahul P.U. v. The Geologist and Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
State Of Kerala v. Eldhose Kunnapilly and XXXXX v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
M/s Crescent Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
Dr V. V. Haridas MD v. State of Kerala and ors. and Kinder Women's Hospital and fertility centre v. State of Kerala and ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
A. Salim v. M/S Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
Najeeb Kanthapuram v. K.P. Mohammed Musthafa @ K.P.M. Musthafa & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
Suneesh v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
M. S. Anil and Anr. v. M/S Hil (India) Ltd and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
Anvar Sadath Ibrahimkutty and Anr. v. The Chief Registrar General of Marriage and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
Haneefa and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
Mathew v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
Anup Disalva & Anr. v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
Biju P. Cheruman @ Aadi Margi Maha Chandala Baba v. Election Commission of India and Ors. and Vayalar Rajeevan v. Saji Cherian MLA and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 641
Dr. Dileep Kumar S.R. v. Veena S. Nair & Ors. and Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. The State Information Commission & Anr. and other connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
Sajeevan v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
Neetha Lukose v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
G. S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 646
All Kerala Private Bankers' Association v. The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
P.T. Prasannakumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
X v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 650
Gauri Sajit v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 651
X v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
Muhammed Ajmal v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 653
M.K. Gheevarghese v. Mariam Gheevarghese 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 654
K.G. Sunilkrishnan v. K.G. Premsankar 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
Vineeth v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 656
Suresh B @ Vava Suresh v. State of Kerala & Anr 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 657
Dr Asha Sreedhar v. Dr Shahinamole S and Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
Amaldev v. Preeja & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
Ressy Mol Babu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
Sreeja T. & Ors. v. Rajaprabha 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
Devananda P P v. Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 663
Mohammed Nazer M.P. & Ors. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India & Anr. And Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Dr. K.K. Ramachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
Arun v. Reshma 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
Orders/Judgments This Month
Case Title: Ratheesh P.K. & Anr v. Cochin International Airport Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 625
The Kerala High Court recently held that auto rickshaw drivers cannot claim any fundamental right to ply their vehicles within the premises of the Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL), without specific permissions.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that,
"Any right of the petitioners to ply their vehicles or to exercise their right of occupation is obviously not an absolute right to enter into any premises regardless of any restrictions whatsoever. All such rights, can, obviously be exercised only subject to such reasonable restrictions".
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P. Joseph
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 626
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the Police to register the FIR and take cognizance of the offence of attack against the doctors and other healthcare professionals within an hour of receiving the information.
The court issued the direction after taking into consideration the increasing instances of attacks against doctors and healthcare Professionals.
The Division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath while Suo Motu impleading the State Police Chief in a case, in the order said:
"...as a first step, in addition to the earlier directions, we are of the firm view that every incident of attack on a Doctor or a Healthcare Professional, including any other staff of the Hospital - be that Security or other - will have to be taken cognizance of by the Station House Officer of the concerned Police Station not later than one hour from the time on which it is reported to him.
Case Title: Wilson C.C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 627
The Kerala High Court Monday considered the legal question that whether in a case of recovery of contraband on driver's body search, it would be fair to hold that the vehicle also had been used for the purpose of conveying the contraband.
Justice A. Badharudeen said when contraband is recovered on search of a person, who is driving the vehicle alone, after compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act, it would not be safe to hold that vehicle also was used for transporting the drug so as to make the vehicle a subject matter of confiscation.
Case Title: Anti-Corruption Peoples Movement and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors and Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 628
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of PILs challenging the validity of the appointment of personal staff to the office of the Chief Minister, Ministers, leader of the opposition, and the Chief Whip by the Special Rules of 1959.
Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed:
to attain good governance and good practices in civil, cultural, economic, political, justice, social right, accountability, etc., the Government in power has to modulate its activities and discharge its functions, taking into account its political theories, election manifesto, and perceptions. For that, it must have a good and loyal team to its satisfaction producing results that meet the needs of the community at large, and to provide timely instructions and guidance from the political and social angle... In that view of the matter, we are of the undoubted and considered opinion that the petitioners have not made out a case of arbitrariness or unfairness, so as to secure the reliefs as are sought in the writ petitions.
Case Title: Rahul P.U. v. The Geologist and Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 629
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that non-constitution of Special Courts under Section 30B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act) cannot affect seizure and confiscation proceedings under the Act.
Justice N. Nagaresh, in this regard, relied upon the decision in Pradeep S. Wodeyar v. State of Karnataka which held that the Special Court does not have, in the absence of a specific provision in the MMDR Act, the power to take cognizance of an offence under the Act without the case being committed to it by the Magistrate under Section 209 CrPC.
Kerala High Court Upholds MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly's Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case
Case Title: State Of Kerala v. Eldhose Kunnapilly and XXXXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 630
The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the petitions seeking cancellation of Congress MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly's anticipatory bail in the case accusing him of rape and attempt to murder of a woman.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that:
The cancellation of bail is directly linked with the personal liberty which is one of the cherished constitutional freedoms guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and hence it must not be lightly resorted to.
Wrong VAT Rate Can Be Rectified: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Crescent Construction Versus Deputy Commissioner of State Tax
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 631
The Kerala High Court has held that the mistake of applying the wrong value-added tax (VAT) rate can be rectified.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that, as per Section 66 of the KVAT Act, once it is brought to the notice of the officer that there is a mistake in applying the correct rate of tax, it is within the power conferred on the officer to rectify the mistake.
Case Title: Dr V. V. Haridas MD v. State of Kerala and ors. and Kinder Women's Hospital and fertility centre v. State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 632
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dismissing two Writ Petitions, observed that Section 191 of Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 is an efficacious, alternate statutory remedy against any resolutions or decisions taken by the panchayat.
Section 191 of the KPR Act deals with the power of cancellation and suspension of resolutions etc. and the Court observed that as per the provision, the Government is well-equipped to decide the legality of any resolution passed or decision taken by the Panchayat.
Justice Murali Purushothaman rejected the contention that approaching the government under the provision is futile because the decision impugned is taken by government functionaries and observed, "The power conferred on the Government under Section 191 of the K P R Act is quasi-judicial and any administrative decision of the functionaries of the Government cannot preclude the Government from exercising its quasi-judicial functions".
Case Title: A. Salim v. M/S Asianet Satellite Communication Ltd.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 633
The Kerala High Court recently held that arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is barred in respect of matters which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (TDSAT) under the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 (TRAI Act).
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that TRAI Act is a special law and would prevail over the Arbitration Act, which is a general law.
"The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 being a later statute and having been specially enacted for the Telecom Sector, will certainly prevail over the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was enacted in the year 1997 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act was enacted in the year 1996. When the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India Act, 1997 was enacted, the Parliament was aware of the remedy of arbitration available under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. Even then, the Parliament chose not to exclude the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 from the ambit of the Act, 1997", it observed.
Case Title: Najeeb Kanthapuram v. K.P. Mohammed Musthafa @ K.P.M. Musthafa & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 634
Rejecting Perinthalmanna MLA Najeeb Kanthapuram's objections against an election petition pending against him, the Kerala High Court recently said the case will go for trial for a decision on the rejection of 348 ballot papers in the matter.
Justice A. Badharudeen in the ruling considered the question whether it is necessary to plead all essential facts in detail and if deviation or lack of pleadings would lead to summary rejection of the plaint. The counter argument before the court was that the importance of pleadings and its meticulous evaluation would apply only in such cases where the election is challenged on the ground of any corrupt practice.
The court said when corrupt practice is alleged to set aside the election of a returned candidate, the very minute details of the allegation are required to be specifically pleaded as provided under Section 83(1)(b) of the R.P Act and any sort of omission is a reason to reject the Election Petition. "However, when the election of a returned candidate is put under challenge specifically for the ground (iv) of S.100(1)(d), for any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act, then also the Election Petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies as mandated under Section 83(1)(a) of the R.P Act with sufficient pleading highlighting the non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or of the R.P Act or of any rules or orders under the R.P Act," the court added.
Case Title: Suneesh v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 635
The Kerala High Court on Monday reiterated that the penalty provided under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act would attract only for the breach of the protection orders passed under Section 18 of the Act and in case of violation of any other order passed under the 2005 enactment, the provisions of CrPC can be resorted to.
The breach of a protection order passed under Section 18 is an offence under Section 31 and can lead to imprisonment of one year. Justice A. Badharudeen in the decision dated December 5 considered the question that whether failure to comply with the order passed under Section 20 (monetary reliefs) would also attract penal proceedings under Section 31. The court said while incorporating provisions under Section 31 to impose penalty for breach of 'protection order', the legislature never intended to impose penalty for violation of 'residence orders' or 'monetary reliefs' under the Act.
"Based on this principle, this Court in Velayudhan Nair v. Karthiayani's case held that Section 31 of the D.V Act would apply only on violation of the interim order or final protection order passed under Section 18 of the D.V Act and it was held further that in case of violation of any order passed other than an order passed under Section 18 of the D.V Act, the provisions of the Cr.P.C can be resorted to," said Justice Badharudeen.
Case Title: M. S. Anil and Anr. v. M/S Hil (India) Ltd and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 636
The Kerala High Court on Monday reiterated that the convenience of the retired employee must be given preference in petitions filed for claiming terminal benefits admittedly due to them. The aforesaid petitions can be moved before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where he belongs to and was receiving pension at.
Justice Anu Sivaraman observed, "To now require the petitioners who are service pensioners to approach the High Courts at Delhi and Bombay for receiving amounts which are admittedly due to them, according to me, is a complete misconception and would amount to denial of the petitioners' valuable rights".
Case Title: Anvar Sadath Ibrahimkutty and Anr. v. The Chief Registrar General of Marriage and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 637
The Kerala High Court recently held that authorities can entertain an application under Rule 13 of Kerala Registration of Marriages Rules 2008 for correction or cancellation of entries in the Register of Marriages (Common) only at the instance of the parties to the marriage.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that a third person who is not a party to the marriage cannot file an application for correction or cancellation of entries in the Register of Marriages (Common).
"From a plain reading of Rule 13 of Rule 2008, it clear that the 'application of the parties' referred to in Rule 13(1) means the parties to the marriage. Parties to the marriage means the spouses, that is husband and wife. A third person who is not a party to the marriage cannot file an application for correction or cancellation of entries".
Case Title: Haneefa and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 638
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday quashed trial court proceedings in a criminal case accusing two men and a woman of creating a "parallel telephone exchange", after ruling that the police could not have initiated a probe in the case, alleging commission of non-cognizable offences, without obtaining an order from the Magistrate.
"Incorporation of a cognizable offence at the time of filing of the final report cannot be utilized as a method or as a device to circumvent the mandate of S.155(2) Cr.P.C. by the officer in charge of the police station or any investigating officer." said the court.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C prohibits not only an investigation but even the commencement of an investigation by the police without orders from the Magistrate concerned in cases where only non-cognizable offences are alleged.
Brothel Customer Can Be Prosecuted U/S 7 Of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mathew v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 639
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that a 'customer' in a brothel can be proceeded against criminally under Section 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 if the conditions specified in the provision are satisfied.
Section 7 of the Act makes prostitution in certain specific areas punishable and the Court in this instant case observed that the words 'person with whom such prostitution is carried on' as appearing in section 7(1) of the Act will include a 'customer'.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "In the absence of the customer falling within the penal umbrella of the statute, the objects of the enactment can never be achieved. Thus, in my considered opinion, the words 'person with whom such prostitution is carried on' as appearing in section 7(1) of the Act will include a 'customer'".
Case Title: Anup Disalva & Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that the fixation of the minimum period of separation of one year under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 is violative of the fundamental rights and struck it down.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, noted that the Legislature had imposed such a period in its wisdom, in order to act as a safeguard against impulsive decisions that may be taken by parties to separate and rid themselves of the marriage. "This period will insulate possible peril that may ensue for the parties as a follow-up of the decision for mutual separation. In the Indian social context, though marriages are solemnized by two individuals, it is seen more as a union for laying the foundation for a strong family and society. Many laws have been made and many rights have been created based on familial relationships. The legislature, therefore, decided that a minimum period of separation must precede before presentation of a petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent".
However, the Court was quick to note that in the instant case, it was posed with the question as to whether, in the absence of any provisions allowing the parties to a marriage to move the Court before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage or the date of separation, the provisions could stand the test of constitutional scrutiny. "We would not have thought of interfering with a minimum period as it carries a laudable object behind it. But we are constrained to note that no remedy is provided by statute in exceptional and depraved conditions for a spouse to approach the Courts to get rid of the minimum period. The legislature in their wisdom felt that some provisions are to be made to relax the rigour of the minimum period to entertain a petition within the waiting period of separation in other statutes. This essentially ensures that efficacious judicial remedy is provided in cases of exceptional hardships to the parties. The denial of such a remedy to Christians bothers us", it observed.
Case Title: Anup Disalva & Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 640
The Kerala High Court on Friday said that the Union Government should seriously consider having a uniform marriage code in India in order to promote the common welfare and good of spouses in matrimonial disputes.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen said the law at present differentiates parties on the basis of their religion, when it comes to matrimonial relationships.
"In a secular country, the legal paternalistic approach should be on the common good of the citizens rather than based on religion. The State's concern must be to promote the welfare and good of its citizens, and religion has no place in identifying the common good," said the court.
Case Title: Biju P. Cheruman @ Aadi Margi Maha Chandala Baba v. Election Commission of India and Ors. and Vayalar Rajeevan v. Saji Cherian MLA and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 641
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the petitions seeking a writ of quo warranto against Chengannur MLA Saji Cherian over his alleged "derogatory remarks against the constitution".
The division bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that it is not for the court to go to the contentions, decipher the truth of it, and grant the reliefs sought by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when there is a clear procedure prescribed in the law.
"Whether the 1st respondent has violated the Oath of office, on the basis of the subject matter, is a matter which could be identified or deciphered only by a fact finding body, taking into account the attendant circumstances. So also, Article 173 of the constitution of India deals with the qualifications of a person to become a member of a Legislative Assembly, which has nothing to do with the case projected by the petitioners. Therefore, we are of the view that, if at all the allegations have any intrinsic relationship with the disqualifications deliberated above, there is a straightforward remedy specified under the Constitution of India."
Case Title: Dr. Dileep Kumar S.R. v. Veena S. Nair & Ors. and Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 642
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the petition challenging the proceedings initiated by the Lok Ayukta on a complaint alleging corruption in the purchase of PPE kits and other surgical equipment during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while dismissing the petition, observed that, "On a perusal of the complaint, we are of the clear opinion that the complainant/1st respondent herein has not challenged the manner in which contract was provided, by invoking Section 50 of the [Disaster Management] Act, 2005; the allegations made in the complainant is with respect to the alleged corruption or maladministration that has taken place in the purchase of materials by making exorbitant and huge amount to the products than the maximum retail price".
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. The State Information Commission & Anr. and other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 643
The Kerala High Court last week ruled that Cochin International Airport Ltd (CIAL) is a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), while upholding a decision of the State Information Commission.
Justice Amit Rawal observed that the aims and object of the Cochin International Airport (CIAL), read with provisions of Article 95 and 125 of the Articles of Association, lead to an irresistible conclusion that Kerala Government has a "deep and pervasive control" over the company. The court noted that as per the provisions of the company's Articles of Association, the Managing Director - who is an IAS Officer, has the management and supervision of the business of the Company with powers to do all acts, matters and things deem necessary for carrying out the business of the Company.
"The Board de facto is controlled by the Chief Minister and three other ministers of the Cabinet and the senior IAS officer of the State. The Government order of 15.6.2016, also is a testimony to the fact that the Managing Director of the CIAL would be drawing a salary from the Government of Kerala in the capacity of the Additional Chief Secretary in the Government," it added.
Case Title: Sajeevan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 644
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that, the inquiry envisaged under Section 340 of Cr.P.C is mandatory in nature and such an enquiry should be conducted before proceeding further, in cases involving allegation of commission of offences under Sections 192, 193 and 195 of IPC. Here, evidently, no such enquiry was conducted and therefore, the entire proceedings, thereafter, are non-est.
Case Title: Neetha Lukose v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 645
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that for the purposes of claiming vacation salary, the teacher should have a continuous service of eight months in the vacancy (not permanent) which extends over summer vacation, as per Rule 49 of Chapter XIV-A of the Kerala Education Rules.
The Court arrived at this finding while answering the pointed query as to whether service under two different appointments against two different vacancies which are not permanent could be reckoned for the purpose of claiming vacation salary.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed, that "the expression "vacancies" has been used in the provision, as there would be different types of vacancies which are not permanent and the purpose of the Rule is to confer on all those who are appointed in such vacancies, the benefit of vacation salary, provided the conditions stipulated in the provision are duly satisfied. If the provision is understood in the said fashion, there cannot be any doubt to the fact that the expression 'continuous service' has been used in the context of those vacancies which extend over summer vacation in which the teacher is appointed".
Case Title: G. S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 646
The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the plea moved by an ex-councillor of Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation for CBI or judicial investigation into Thiruvananthapuram Mayor Arya Rajendran's purported letter seeking a list of CPI(M) party members for appointment to various posts on a contract basis in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.
Justice K. Babu dismissed the plea.
Case Title: All Kerala Private Bankers' Association v. The Commissioner of State Tax & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 647
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by All Kerala Private Bankers' Association against RBI's insistence requiring small financiers to not use the word 'Bank' as part of their names.
The Association, comprised of small financiers and unincorporated bodies registered under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, had also sought renewal of its members' licenses.
Justice V.G. Arun held that a writ petition by the Association would not be maintainable since the Association is not conducting money lending business on its own, and thus, could not amount to an 'aggrieved person'.
Case Title: P.T. Prasannakumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 648
The Kerala High Court has expressed concern over the tendency of state authorities to sit on business renewal license applications, which in turn disrupts business activities and may pave way for corruption.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while quashing the FIR registered against M/S Aditya Finance, a hire-purchase business entity regulated under the Kerala Money Lenders Act, 1958 said, that "a licensee of a running business establishment who had applied for renewal of his license, cannot be asked to wait indefinitely until the authority takes a decision. If the licensee has to stop his running business until a decision is taken, it will disrupt the business. This can also pave they way for corrupt practices and will be giving a premium to the ineptitude of the licensing authority".
Vismaya Dowry Death Case: Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Husband Kiran Kumar's 10-Yrs Sentence
Case Title: Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the application filed by Kiran Kumar, the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case, seeking an interim order for suspension of his 10 years sentence.
The application was moved in a Criminal Appeal against his conviction and sentence handed down in May this year following his wife's death under mysterious circumstances, after she had complained of dowry harassment.
The Division Bench consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that, taking into account the nature of accusation, seriousness of the offence and also its social impact, this is not a fit case warranting suspension of sentence. Moreover, the presumption of innocence goes with the conviction and sentence. There is no patent infirmity in the order of conviction to render it prima facie erroneous...Pending appeal, if the sentence is suspended so as to release the applicant/appellant on bail, it will send a wrong message to the society. For all these reasons, we are not inclined to allow this application.
Case Title: Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 649
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dismissing the application filed by Kiran Kumar, the convict in the Vismaya dowry death case, seeking an interim order for suspension of his 10 years sentence, observed that even if there was no demand for dowry before or at the time of marriage, the subsequent demand made is sufficient to attract the definition of dowry under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
Division Bench consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas while expressing concern on the rise in atrocities against women in their matrimonial homes and harassment for dowry, observed that while enacting Section 304B of the IPC, the Legislature strongly intended to curb the social evil of dowry demand. Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was amended with effect from 19.11.1986, and Section 304B dowry death was introduced in the Indian Penal Code with effect from the very same day, i.e., on 19.11.1986. Section 113 B presumption as to dowry death was also introduced in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, on the same day i.e., 19.11.1986. So the Legislative intent in bringing out these amendments in all the three statues simultaneously will show the strong desire to eradicate the social evil of dowry death from the society using the iron hands of law.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 650
The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that many innocent persons are victims of false implication under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
"It is shocking, rather a mind blowing fact that many innocent persons are victims of false implication under the SC/ST (POA) Act", the Court observed while considering an application seeking anticipatory bail. It cautioned that possibility of false implications of innocent people as accused, with a view to achieve ulterior motives of the complainant, must be ruled out.
Noting that many innocent persons are falling victim to false implications under the SC/ST (POA) Act, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the courts should have a duty to rule out the possibilities of false implication of innocent persons as accused, with a view to achieve ulterior motives of the complaints, with threat of arrest and detention of the accused in custody, because of the stringent provisions in the SC/ST (POA) Act in the matter of grant of anticipatory bail.
Therefore, it is the need of the hour for the courts to segregate the grain from the chaff by analysing the genesis of the case, the antecedents prior to registration of the crime, with reference to existence of animosity between the complainant and the accused, with particular attention, vis-a-vis previous disputes/cases/ complaints, etc. while considering the question of prima facie case, when considering plea for pre-arrest bail.
Case Title: Gauri Sajit v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 651
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Commissioner for Entrance Commission to not permit the students who had already secured admission and joined in the first and second round of allotment to participate in the mop up counselling of NEET Examination.
Justice V.G. Arun passed the above order after taking note of the Medical Council of India Regulations on Graduate Medical Education, 1997, which stipulates that candidates who have joined for seats under the All India Quota and State Quota cannot appear for further counselling, and which aspect was also highlighted in the notification issued by the Directorate General of Health Services.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 652
The Kerala High Court on Monday allowed a minor rape victim to terminate her 26-week pregnancy.
Justice V.G. Arun said the continuation of the pregnancy could affect the mental health of the 17 year old girl, who suffers from intellectual disability.
"In the case at hand, the Medical Board after considering all aspects, has opined that the continuation of the pregnancy can seriously affect the mental health of the victim, and she is likely develop depression and psychosis. In view of the Medical Board's opinion, and considering the mental status of the victim, I am inclined to allow the prayer for medical termination of the pregnancy", the Court observed.
Case Title: Muhammed Ajmal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 653
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the request of an investigating officer seeking extension of statutory 180 days period is not a substitute for the report of public prosecutor as envisaged under Section 36A of the NDPS Act.
The provision stipulates that if it is not possible to complete the investigation within 180 days, the Special Court may extend the said period up to one year on the report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of the investigation and the specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days.
Justice A. Badharudeen remarked, that it is relevant, rather shocking to note that the Public Prosecutor who was appointed by the State to conduct serious cases of this nature, even not cared at least to read Section 36-A(4) and its proviso, before filing the report of the Investigating Officer pressing for extension of detention of the accused beyond the period of 180 days... Indubitably, it is held that, the report/petition filed by the Investigating Officer cannot be considered as a report/petition envisaged under Section 36-A(4), since the Investigating Officer has no such right. So every bit in the matter of extension is void ab initio.
S.125 CrPC Confers Implied Power To Grant Interim Maintenance: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.K. Gheevarghese v. Mariam Gheevarghese
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 654
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that in the absence of any express bar or prohibition, Section 125 Cr.P.C. could be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication to make interim order of maintenance subject to final outcome in the application.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar while holding so, noted that the Apex Court in its decision in Shaila Kumari Devi v. Krishnana Bhagwan Pathak (2008) observed, that "so far as 'interim' maintenance is concerned, it is true that Section 125 of the Code as it originally enacted did not expressly empower the Magistrate to make an order directing payment of interim maintenance. But the Code equally did not prohibit the Magistrate from making such an order. Now, having regard to the nature of proceedings, the primary object to secure relief to deserted and destitute wives, discarded and neglected children and disabled and helpless parents and to ensure that no wife, child or parent is left beggared and destitute on the scrap-heap of society so as to be tempted to commit crime or to tempt others to commit crime in regard to them, it was held that the Magistrate had 'implied power' to make orders to pay interim maintenance. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Chapter IX (Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents) is not strictly criminal in nature. Moreover, the remedy provided by Section 125 of the Code is a summary remedy for securing reasonable sum by way of maintenance".
Case Title: K.G. Sunilkrishnan v. K.G. Premsankar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 655
The Kerala High Court recently said that when an original petition is converted to a suit as contemplated under Rule 26 of the Indian Succession Rules (Kerala), 1968, the court fee has to be paid under Article 11 (k) of Schedule II of the Court Fees Act.
A trial court had earlier directed a plaintiff to pay court fees under Section 25(a) of the Act read with Article 1 Schedule I of the Court Fees Act, even after conversion of original petition to suit. However, Justice C.S. Dias said the same is incorrect and wrong.
The court said Chapter VI of the Kerala Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959 deals with the manner in which court fee is to be computed and paid on applications filed for probate, letter of administration and certificate of administration.
Case Title: Vineeth v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 656
The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that the statutory bar imposed on Special Courts by Section 33(5) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'POCSO Act') to ensure that a child is not repeatedly called to to testify in the court is not absolute.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed, that the bar under Section 33(5) of POCSO Act is not absolute. In appropriate cases, if it is necessary for the just decision of the case, of course the child witness can be recalled.
Case Title: Suresh B @ Vava Suresh v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 657
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to snake catcher Vava Suresh in a case registered against him for allegedly displaying a venomous snake at an event in Government Medical College, Kozhikode.
Justice Viju Abraham said custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be required for the purpose of investigation and only a limited custody be granted for the said purpose. "Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to stringent conditions," said the court.
Case Title: Dr Asha Sreedhar v. Dr Shahinamole S and Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated that the teaching experience prescribed under the Special Rules in force for promotion to the post of Professor (in the Department of Prasuti Tantra and Striroga) has to be read along with the provisions of Rule 10 (ab) of Part II Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR) and thereby, it observed that teaching experience can only be one that is gained after the acquisition of the essential qualification.
Division Bench consisting of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Mohammed Nias C P observed that,
"When we read the provisions in the Special Rules along with Rule 10 (ab) of Part II KS & SSR, as the Tribunal did in the instant case, the conclusion is inescapable that the teaching experience of ten years mentioned for the post of Professor is one that has to be gained after obtaining the basic PG qualification required for the post".
Case Title: Amaldev v. Preeja & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
The Kerala High Court on Monday deprecated attempts made by qualified persons to establish less income by producing salary certificates issued from private entrepreneurs, without opportunity to the other side to cross-examine the author of the document, in order to avoid paying maintenance to wife and children.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that courts shall consider the entire evidence, the professional or other qualifications, otherwise the physical condition and all other attenuating circumstances of the husband/respondent, while quantifying the maintenance allowance.
"Clever attempts of qualified persons to establish less income by producing salary certificates issued from private entrepreneurs, without opportunity to the other side to cross-examine the author of the document to test its genesis, shall not be the sole basis of considering the income of the husband/respondent in a maintenance petition and such certificates alone shall not be decisive in determining the income also. The courts shall consider the entire evidence, the professional or other qualifications, otherwise the physical condition and all other attenuating circumstances of the husband/respondent, while quantifying the maintenance allowance".
Case Title: Ressy Mol Babu & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State Government to consider the debts incurred by the family of an endosulfan victim as debts qualified for waiver under Debt Waiver Scheme for Endosulfan Victims, and to write off the loans immediately. The direction comes after State refused to write off loans on the ground that the concerned GO for writing off loans up to Rs.3 Lakhs was applicable only to loans availed upto 30.06.2011.
Justice V.G. Arun observed, "Neither the State nor this Court can pretend to be oblivious of the plight of the endosulfan victims and their families in Kasaragod. It is pertinent to note that the NHRC recommended to pay Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation to victims like Ann Mariya. The Commission has also recommended to increase the quantum of relief and rehabilitation to victims and their families. Of course, the State came out with relief and rehabilitation packages. The daunting question is whether, in a case of this nature, the State and its officers can stick on technicalities like cut off dates for refusing the benefits due to the family of a victim".
Section 125 CrPC | Maintenance Must Be Granted From Date Of Filing Of Petition: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sreeja T. & Ors. v. Rajaprabha
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
The Kerala High Court recently held that a petitioner under Section 125 CrPC must be granted maintenance from the date of filing of petition and not just date of passing of order.
Expressing shock at a Family Court's decision of granting maintenance from the date of order and not from the date of filing of petition, Justice A. Badharudeen said any deviation must come with reasons recorded in the order.
"...when a party claims allowance of maintenance by filing a petition, the party must get the maintenance from the date of the petition onwards and the same is the sanction of law. No doubt, deviation therefrom can be had for specified reasons to be recorded in writing and not otherwise. In the order impugned, the learned Family Court Judge not stated any reasons to deny maintenance from the date of petition and to grant the same from the date of order. Before this Court also nothing available to disallow maintenance from the date of the petition. In fact, there is no justifiable reason to uphold the said finding. To the contrary, it is held that the denial of maintenance allowance from the date of the petition without recording specific reasons is not the sanction of law and therefore, the said order is liable to be set aside..."
Case Title: Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
The Kerala High Court on Thursday said that in an ideal society, girls and women must be able to walk on the streets at any point of time, be that day or night. However, it said such an atmosphere will require the security systems to be as advanced.
Observing that concerns of parents could not brushed aside just because the children had attained age of majority, Justice Devan Ramachandran said it is also necessary that the children grow up without being under the cloak of patriarchy.
"Our children have the right to experience life in all its vicissitudes and manifestations, and cannot be locked up or secluded even on the ground of offering them protection. It is the ... duty of the society to offer the protection, and to make our streets and public spaces safe, be that day or night. The petitioners have been constrained to approach this court because somewhere along the line, the society has not yet been able to offer them such. Since this is not an ideal world, certainly, concerns of protection and requirements of security would certainly have to be given the primacy that it requires, however, without boxing in our girls, and making them feel that they require a man to protect them. They certainly have to be made ready for the world, and as they say, even though we may not be able to prepare the future for our youth, we can prepare our youth for the future," it observed.
Form ICC For Sexual Harassment Complaints In All Colleges : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the competent authorities of colleges and other statutory authorities to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee under the UGC (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal of Sexual Harassment of Women Employees and Students in Higher Educational Institutions) Regulations, in every college in the State.
Justice Devan Ramachandran passed the above order while disposing the petitions challenging the notification issued by the Higher Education Department barring female students from going out of the Hostel after 9.30 PM.
It directed that the same shall be done within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. "....I direct the competent authorities of colleges and such other statutory authorities to ensure that the Internal Committee in terms of the UGC Regulations Against Sexual Harassment is constituted in every college and notifications to that effect is constituted and published within 2 months from the date of receipt of copy of judgment. As far as UGC Regulations on Implementation of Promotion of Equity in Higher Educational Institutions is concerned, the guidelines therein shall also be fully implemented in all colleges and they shall be ensured by the supervising authorities without fail", it was observed.
Case Title: Devananda P P v. Department of Health and Family Welfare and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 663
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday granted permission to a 17-year-old minor girl to donate a portion of her liver for conducting her father's transplantation surgery, subject to the other requirements of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 and the Rules.
Justice V G Arun while passing the order said that it is heartening to note that the unrelenting fight put up by Devananda has finally succeeded.
"I applaud the petitioner's fight to save her father's life. Blessed are parents who have children like Devananda...The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to donate a portion of her liver for conducting her father's transplantation surgery, subject to the other requirements of the Act and the Rules".
Case Title: Mohammed Nazer M.P. & Ors. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
The Kerala High Court on Friday said that former Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amini island in Lakshadweep seems to have forged evidence in a criminal trial and is liable to be proceeded against under law.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed Lakshadweep Administrator to place K. Cheriyakoya, who is currently working as Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, under suspension forthwith and conduct a detailed enquiry into his actions.
"Even if a person is occupying the post of Magistrate or Judge, the law of the land is applicable to all. If there is any dereliction of duty, the constitutional courts should step in to strengthen the trust of the people in the judiciary. The Magistrate, Judges and other presiding officers are not above the law and if they commit any dereliction of duty, they have to face the consequences. This should be a lesson to all," said the court
Case Title: Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India & Anr. And Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Pronouncing a significant verdict on the "right to be forgotten", the Kerala High Court on Thursday held that personal information of the parties may not be published on the High Court website in respect of the family and matrimonial cases if the parties in those cases make such a request.
While holding that the claim for protection of personal information based on right to privacy cannot coexist in open court justice system, the Court however permitted the masking of personal identities in matrimonial cases and in cases where the law does not recognize the open court system (cases for rape and sexual offences where the trial is held in-camera).
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, said, "In family and matrimonial cases arising in family court and jurisdictions otherwise, and also in other cases where the law does not recognize open court system, the registry of the Court shall not publish personal information of the parties or shall not allow any form of publication containing the identities of parties in the website or any other information system maintained by the Court if the parties to such litigations so insist".
Case Title: Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India & Anr. and other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Observing that legislature alone is competent to enumerate grounds for claiming right to be forgotten and carve out exceptions to the claims of such a right, the Kerala High Court on Thursday said in the absence of legislation, the court may have to recognise the right and direct removal of such content available online on a case-to-case basis.
The division bench Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, therefore took the view that the court cannot prevent the dissemination of case details in the public domain citing the privacy of individual litigants.
"In individual cases, the Court may, after adverting to time and space, order the erasure of past records. However, nothing prevents the Legislature from bringing in Legislation recognizing the right to be forgotten to erase such records after the expiry of such period as it deems fit to fix. Further, laying down the grounds when such a right to be forgotten can be exercised is the prerogative of the Legislature. As the right to be forgotten is not an absolute right, it is crucial that the legislature enumerates the grounds when an individual can claim this right," the Court observed.
Case Title: Vysakh K.G. v. Union of India & Anr. And Other Connected Cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
The Kerala High Court on Friday ruled that reporting and publishing of judgments are part of freedom of speech and expression.
Dealing with petitions seeking enforcement of the 'right to be forgotten' against uploading of court orders or judgements on the internet, the division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen said: "The Courtroom is open to all. The Court cannot gloss over the protection available to publishers of judgments under Article 19(1)(a) of our Constitution. Reporting and publishing judgments are part of freedom of speech and expression and that cannot be taken away lightly without the aid of law."
The Court said the identity of the judiciary based on public confidence is not ordinarily possible without there being free flow of information on judicial functioning.
Case Title: Dr. K.K. Ramachandran v. Sub Inspector of Police & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the consultation room of a doctor in a hospital is not a 'public place' in terms of Section 294(b) of IPC, while quashing a case of harassment against a doctor. The police had booked the doctor under Section 294(b) and Section 354A of the IPC.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 294(b) of IPC is attracted when the offender sings, recites or utters any obscene song or word in or near any public place, to the annoyance of others. "If the act is not obscene, or is not done in any public place, or the song recited or uttered is not in or near any public place or that it caused no annoyance to others, no offence is committed," said the court.
It further noted that the place of occurrence was the consulting room of the doctor at a hospital.
"It can never be termed as a public place or near public place. That apart, in order to satisfy the definition of obscenity to attract Section 294(b) of IPC, the words uttered must be capable of arousing sexually impure thoughts in the minds of its hearers. There is no case for the prosecution that the words allegedly uttered by the petitioner aroused sexually impure thoughts in the minds of the hearers. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the basic ingredients of Section 294(b) of IPC are not attracted," said the court.
Case Title: Arun v. Reshma
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
The Kerala High Court recently observed the wife not being able to lead a peaceful life in matrimonial home, in view of the particular circumstances there, may not always be 'cruelty' but could be a reasonable ground to deny 'joint residence' and same does not grant the husband any discretion to deny payment of maintenance.
Justice A. Badharudeen, while dealing with an argument that wife may not be legally entitled to get maintenance from husband after leaving matrimonial home voluntarily, said:
"... when a party seeks divorce on the ground of cruelty, there shall be sufficient pleadings alleging cruelty, and evidence to prove the cruelty, to succeed in the divorce petition. But difference of opinion otherwise, in view of the particular circumstances at the matrimonial home, whereby the wife could not lead a peaceful life time, shall not, always be 'cruelty', but these are also reasonable grounds to deny joint residence. In such cases, it could not be held that there was willful discretion to deny payment of maintenance".
Case Title: M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Senior Inspector & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while dealing with a petition filed by M/S Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against it for not displaying the retail sale price printed on the 'principal display panel' on its FROOTI bottle, but printed on the neck of the bottle, held that same was not violative of the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011. The instant case arose in the year 2014, while the amendment to the Legal Metrology Act, 2009 and Rules thereunder were enacted in 2017. The Court therefore discerned that the Rules as in force on the date of incident would alone be applicable herein.
While noting so, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that: "As per rule 8(1), every declaration ought to appear on the principal display panel. However, Rule 2(h) defines the principal display panel as the total surface area of the package. An option is also given to the manufacturer to print all the information (both pre-printed and online) either grouped together at one place on the principal display panel, or the pre-printed information grouped together and given at one place and the online information grouped together and given at another place of the principal display panel. In the instant case, the pre-printed information is given on the wrapper encircling the bottle, while the online information, though grouped together, is printed on the neck of the bottle".
The Court further noted that Rule 8(2) stipulates that for soft drinks and ready-to-serve fruit beverages that the retail sale price shall be indicated either on the crown cap or on the bottle or on both, if the bottle is one which can be refilled. "There is nothing in Rule 8(2) which indicates the clause to be restrictive in character. Rule 8(2) can be regarded only as an addition to and not as a restriction or exception to Rule 8(1). In other words, Rule 8(2) is only an enabling provision, enabling the manufacturer to have the option to specify those required details printed in the places mentioned in the sub-rule also".
Other Significant Developments This Month
Case Title: Mohammed Nazar M.P. & Ors. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday issued show-cause notice to former Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate at Amini island in Lakshadweep, asking him to explain why disciplinary proceedings should not be recommended against him for allegedly manipulating evidence of a witness in a 2015 case.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed,
"The main allegation against him is that, he manipulated the evidence of a witness. It is fundamental in criminal law that if a witness is examined before the Court, the deposition should be read over to the witness and he should sign the deposition then and there. The explanation of the Magistrate shows that PW7, the Investigating Officer in this case, after giving evidence, left the court premises without signing the deposition. Even if this is accepted, I am of the prima facie opinion that this is a clear case of dereliction of duty. If PW7 has committed that mistake, he is also responsible".
Case Title: M. Sarath Mohan and others v. State of Kerala and others and Manilal K N v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted interim protection from arrest to the three officials of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre till December 5 in the TRS MLA poaching case.
The petitioners filed an anticipatory bail application in the court as they are apprehending arrest in relation to the ongoing investigation into the whereabouts of Dr Jaggu Kottilil, who is a doctor at the hospital.
Justice K. Babu took note of the fact that the petitioners have not been arrayed as accused in the case being probed by the SIT of Telangana Police.
"The Petitioners shall not be arrested till 5.12.2022," the court said.
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors. and other connected cases
In light of the ongoing protests at Vizhinjam that took a violent turn last Sunday, the Kerala High Court has asked the Additional Solicitor General for India to get instructions regarding deployment of Central forces to maintain security in the port area.
Justice Anu Sivaraman directed both the State Government and the Central Government to discuss the matter and inform the Court regarding the steps taken.
In relation to the copyright dispute regarding "Varaharoopam" song in the Kannada superhit movie "Kantara", the Kerala High Court on Friday clarified that its order staying the Kozhikode District Court's order, which returned the plaint filed by music band Thaikkudam bridge against the film's maker, will not result in the revival of the earlier interim order passed by the District Court against the use of the song in the movie.
The fact that a stay has been ordered on the District Court's order which returned the plaint will not mean that all the previous orders passed in the said suit have been revived by the High Court, said a bench of Justice P Somarajan.
The High Court passed this clarification today after an urgent mention of the matter was made by the counsel of Hombale Films Advocate Santhosh Mathew, who was appearing on caveat.
Case Title: M/S Ansu Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar, DRT-I Ernakulam & Ors
The Kerala High Court on Friday stayed the operation of notification issued by the Ministry of Finance, dated October 4, 2022, to the extent it transfers/confers jurisdiction of all applications involving a debt amount of Rs.100 Crores and above falling within the jurisdiction of Debts Recovery Tribunal-I and Debts Recovery Tribunal-II, Ernakulam with the Debts Recovery Tribunal-I, Chennai.
The Court clarified that the stay order shall operate until disposal of the petition.
In A First, Kerala High Court Live Streams Hearing On Youtube
The Kerala High Court on Saturday live-streamed its proceedings on YouTube, for the very first time.
The court held a special sitting on Saturday to hear a batch of petitions which challenged the Dewaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayala Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi of Sabarimala.
The matter was heard by the division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Ajith Kumar. The Court has adjourned the same to December 17, 2022, for further hearing.
Case Title: Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary and Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court on Saturday, in a special sitting, heard a batch of petitions challenging the Travancore Dewaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayala Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi(chief priest) of Sabarimala-Malikappuram temples.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Ajith Kumar heard the petitions which challenge the notification on the ground that it is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 (1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Manikandan v. Raveena
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed all Family Court judges to release the amount deposited towards arrears of maintenance under the orders of the High Court or otherwise, at the earliest.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen's observed, "when arrears of maintenance being deposited before the Family Courts in obedience to the order/interim order or otherwise, Family Courts are reluctant to release the amount deposited to the claimants and unwantedly insist for orders from this Court to release the amount. It appears to be a bad practice which is detrimental to the interest of the claimants. In fact, it is the duty of the Family Courts to release the amount deposited within no time to the respondents, so as to help them for their survival".
The Court thus issued aforementioned direction noting that this was the practice in almost all the Family Courts.
Kerala High Court Directs Police To Ensure Safety Of Archbishop Andrews Thazhath
Case Title: Archbishop Andrews Thazath v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Station House Officer, Central Police Station, Ernakulam, to ensure adequate protection of Archbishop Andrews Thazhath, apostolic administrator of Ernakulam-Angamaly Archdiocese of the Syro-Malabar Church, in case of any "overt acts" against his life. The order was passed in the archbishop's petition seeking police protection for his safety as well as for smooth ingress and egress to the Major Archbishop's House in Ernakulam.
Justice Anu Sivaraman, while listing the matter for hearing on December 8 said, "In the meanwhile, in case of any overt acts against the life of the petitioner, the petitioner may inform the Station House Officer who shall take appropriate steps to see that adequate protection is granted to the life of the petitioner."
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sreeram Venkitaraman
The Kerala High Court on Monday said that in addition to stay on the operation of the order dropping culpable homicide charges against IAS officer Sreeram Venkitaraman in the 2019 rash driving case, the trial proceedings against him shall also remain stayed.
"It is clarified that in addition to the operation of the Order passed in Crl. M.P. 2325/2022, the proceedings in the SC 595/2021 shall also be stayed," the Court directed.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. passed the order.
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors. and other connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday closed the contempt case alleging wilful disobedience of an order granting police protection to employees and workmen of Adani Vizhinjam Port for free ingress and egress to the construction site in Vizhinjam.
When the matter was taken up today, the counsel representing the State submitted before the bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman that the protest has been called off. The counsel representing the respondents also submitted that instructions have been given for removal of the tent, erected by protestors on the road leading to the under-construction Vizhinjam Port, today itself.
Case Title: Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court, on Wednesday, criticising the notification issued barring female students going out of the Hostel of Govt Medical College Kozhikode after 9.30 PM, questioned why should there be a curfew for Girls alone, when there are no such restrictions for boys.
The Court in the instant case was considering a plea moved by certain girl students of Government Medical College Kozhikode against the impugned notification issued by the Higher Education Department barring female students from going out of the Hostel after 9.30 PM.
A bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran remarked that, "Lock up the men, I am saying (this) because they create trouble. Put the curfew for men after 8:00 pm. Let Ladies walk out".
The Supreme Court Collegium, on Friday, approved the proposal for the appointment of three Additional Judges as Permanent Judges in the Kerala High Court.
The three Additional Judges are: 1. Justice Abdul Rahim Musaliar Badharudeen 2. Justice Viju Abraham 3. Justice Mohammed Nias C.P.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the Transport Commissioner through the concerned Enforcement Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department to ensure that buses operated by KSRTC for Nilakkal-Pamba chain service, which are wrapped with advertisements, are not used for the transportation of Sabarimala pilgrims.
The Court passed the direction noting that few KSRTC buses used for Nilakkal- Pamba chain services are wrapped in advertisements, openly flouting the prohibitory orders issued by the Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar had previously directed the Transport Commissioner and State Police Chief to ensure that no KSRTC bus exhibiting advertisements on the body are allowed to operate in public places. It said that advertisements are likely to distract the attention of other drivers.
Kerala High Court Closes Adani Vizhinjam Port's Petition Seeking Police Protection
Case Title: Howe Engineering Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. and M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd & 2 Ors v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday closed the petition filed by Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd and its contracting company Howe Engineering Projects for police protection of their employees and workers at the under-construction port, which had till recently faced protests.
Justice Anu Sivaraman made the interim order dated September 1 for workers' protection and free ingress and egress to the construction site absolute.
Though affidavits have been placed on record by the contesting respondents, in view of the fact that the question with regard to the viability of the project or the award of contracts are not matters being considered by this Court in these proceedings, all other contentions of the parties are left open to be decided in appropriate proceedings", the Court added.
Kerala High Court Issues Directions For Crowd Management At Sabarimala
Case Tile: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High on Monday issued directions for crowd management in Sabarimala Temple, anticipating heavy footfall for the upcoming days amid Mandala festival. State has also decided to limit the number of online virtual queue bookings to 90,000 per day, Senior Government Pleader informed the Court. However, spot booking will be permitted without any restrictions.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar was considering issues regarding crowd management at Nilakkal Pamba and Sannidhanam. It directed the District Administration to ensure that all pilgrims have comfortable pilgrimage and darshan.
Case Title: Sabu M Jacob and Ors. v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday restrained the police from arresting Twenty20 party leader Sabu M Jacob and five other accused in a case registered under the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act based on a complaint filed by Communist Party of India (Marxist) MLA P V Sreenijin.
Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed the investigation to proceed but granted interim protection from arrest to the accused,
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the investigation has to be proceeded with. However, the arrest of petitioners does not appear to be necessary for the time being," said the court. The court directed the petitioners to appear before the investigating officer for the purpose of interrogation, as and when directed.
Case Title: State of Kerala represented by Additional Secretary to Government v. The Chancellor
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday stayed a Single bench order directing to include the Chancellor's representative in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for appointment of Vice Chancellor of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said that Chancellor's representative is not necessary in the search committee for appointment of the KTU VC, and that the Single Judge's order is against statutory regulations to this extent.
"Indisputably by the learned counsel appearing for all parties, Search-cum-Selection-Committee of the UGC is constituted only by the State Government through a public notification, and the said Committee, after considering the factors / parameters, submit a panel to the Visitor / Chancellor. Thereafter, Visitor / Chancellor shall appoint the Vice Chancellor, out of the panel of names recommended by the Search-cum-Selection-Committee. Prima facie, statutory regulations does not contemplate or empower nomination by the Chancellor in the Search-cum-Selection Committee for any University", the Court observed while staying the directions of the writ Court in this regard.
Case Title: M. Sarath Mohan and others v. State of Kerala and others and Manilal K N v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday closed the anticipatory bail applications moved by four officials of Amrita Institute of Medical Sciences & Research Centre in relation to the ongoing investigation into the whereabouts of Dr Jaggu Kottilil, who is a doctor at the hospital.
Justice K Babu directed the petitioners to cooperate with the investigation as it closed the proceedings in the pre-arrest bail pleas after Telangana police submitted that they have no intention to arrest them.
Case Title: Kerala Private Hospitals Association v. Advocate Sabu P. Joseph
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the state government to publicize a circular issued by the State Police Chief (SPC) last month instructing all District Police Chiefs and Station House Officers to comply with the court order directing police to register the FIR within an hour of receiving the information about any attacks on doctors and other healthcare professionals.
The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Kauser Edappagath said the circular be publicised through the news media or other appropriate methods.
"This will ensure that citizens understand that any attack, howsoever small or big it may be, is unacceptable and will be visited with the severest of consequences under law. We are persuaded to this course because if the patients and their by-standers understand that [whatever] be the provocation that they may face, an attack on a healthcare professional will be treated with the severity as is required in law, the number of attacks will certainly come down", the Court observed.
Case Title: Vishnunarayanan v. The Secretary and Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court in its Special sitting on Saturday continued its hearing on the batch of petitions challenging the Travancore Dewaswom Board notification inviting applications only from Malayala Bhramins for appointment as Melshanthi(chief priest) of Sabarimala-Malikappuram temples. The notifications herein were challenged on the ground that the same is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 15 (1) and 16(2) of the Constitution of India.
The matter is pending before the Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajith Kumar.
Case title: Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malayalavedi v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Monday pulled up the State over the delay in recovery of damages from banned Popular Front Of India (PFI) and its office bearers. The government had earlier initiated recovery proceedings against PFI for realisation of Rs 5.20 Crore, the amount estimated towards the damage caused during the flash hartal in September.
The division bench Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. said despite the issuance of peremptory directions to proceed against the assets of PFI and its office bearers including the Secretary, "nothing substantial" has been done by the State.
Kerala High Court Directs Govt Medical Colleges To Implement Order Relaxing Timings Of Hostels
Case Title: Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed all Principals and other concerned authorities of Medical Colleges to act in terms of the Government Order dated 06.12.2022, which has substantially relaxed the timings of Government Medical College Hostels, with immediate effect.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, noted that the said GO although stipulates the closing time of gates for both girls and boys to be 9.30 P.M., does give sufficient leeway to the students to enter it after that time, subject to certain bare minimum conditions.
"Prima facie, I find this order to be a welcome step forward, particularly when Smt.Parvathy Menon – learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Women's Commission, affirms that it does not brook of any gender discrimination", the Court observed.
Case Title: Fiona Joseph v. State of Kerala
A written statement has been filed by the Kerala University of Health Sciences in the issue pertaining to the notification issued by the Higher Education Department barring female students from going out of the Government Medical College hostels after 9.30 PM.
In the statement filed through the Standing Counsel of the University, Advocate P. Sreekumar, it has been averred that the writ petition was filed by certain girl students of the Government Medical College Kozhikode without properly understanding the import and purpose of the impugned Government Order (G.O.). The counsel averred that there was no element of discrimination involved in the issuance of the said G.O., and that it was issued taking into account the right to have equal treatment to the students without any gender bias.
Case Title: Sajeev Kumar P.P. v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday asked the state government to consider and take a decision at the earliest on the proposal made by a Committee of Judges regarding enhancement of age of superannuation of its staff, in light of judicial reforms proposed on the basis of 'Model Digital Court'.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said:
"It is thus clear that, on one side, it is obligatory on the Government to consider the proposal of this Court in its proper perspective; while, on the other, the requirement of experienced staff for it, during the transitory period, is unexpendable. To obtain a balance, I am certain that Government must take a decision on Ext.P3 at the earliest, keeping in mind the above important aspects, especially that the 'transitory stage' is commencing soon".
Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Appointment Of NUALS Registrar
Case Title: Adv. Sanjai D. Rajan v. The National University of Advanced Legal Studies & Ors.
A plea has been filed in Kerala High Court by a lawyer, challenging the appointment of the Registrar of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS) Mahadev M.G.
In the plea filed by Advocate Sanjai D. Rajan, it has been averred that the appointment of the Registrar of NUALS was made in violation of the University Grants Commission Regulations and mandates.
According to the petition, Mahadev M.G. only has 2 years and 8 months of experience as Deputy Registrar, 1 year and 1 month experience as Assistant Registrar, and less than 4 years and 2 years experience as Private Secretary to the Vice Chancellor. He does not have the requisite minimum qualifications, the plea argues.
Human Sacrifice Case | Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Laila Bhagawal Singh's Bail Application
Case Title: Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday reserved its order on the bail application moved by Laila Bhagawal Singh, one of the accused in the Human Sacrifice Case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has asked for the Case Diary to be placed before the court for consideration.
"In this case, I was impressed with your [argument] that she was only a spectator and she had no active role but now the prosecution says she has specific role in it, that is where they can satisfy prima facie the Court's conscious. I was going to pass orders today but now I will go through the case diary and consider it".
Case Title: Kerala Cycle Polo Association v. Dinesh Sanwe
The Kerala High Court on Friday issued notice to Cycle Polo Federation Of India's Secretary and others in the contempt case filed in connection with the death of Nida Fathima, a cycle polo player.
Justice V G Arun, while adjourning the case for January 12, directed them to appear before the court on that day.
Kerala Cycle Polo Association has approached the Court, seeking initiation of a contempt of court case against Dinesh Sanwe, the Secretary of Cycle polo federation of India and Praveen Chandra, Secretary, Cycle Polo Association of Kerala.
Case Title: Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry v. State of Kerala and Malayalavedi v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday took note of the assurance given by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Dr. Venu IAS, that clear instructions would be issued in order to ensure that the directions issued by the Court in matters of public interest would be promptly supplied with, and acted upon by the executive.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., expressed hope that the same would augur well for the coming year in improving the executive-judiciary relations.