Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377-397]National Insurance Co Ltd v. Jareesh & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377Zulu Haris v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 378Deepak K. Balakrishnan v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 379State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 380 Luciya Francis v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker)...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377-397]
National Insurance Co Ltd v. Jareesh & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
Zulu Haris v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Deepak K. Balakrishnan v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
Luciya Francis v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
XXX & Anr. v. The Health Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
Poongottil Prasad v Melattur Grama Panchayat 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Santiago Martin & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
Rahib K.Y. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Vineesh v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
Joseph John v State of Kerala & Connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Sandhya v Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
Faizal K V v. State of Kerala & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
M/S Srinivasa Builders v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
Suo Moto v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
Abdul Mujeeb v Suja 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
Shajan Scariya v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
Thressiamma Jose v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Vineet Ganesh v. Priyanka Vasan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
Shaju v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: National Insurance Co Ltd v. Jareesh & Ors
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the right of insurance companies to recover compensation amounts from the insured (vehicle owner) if the driver involved in the motor accident did not have a valid driving license, as long as the insurance company proves its defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice C. Jayachandran emphasised that the insurer must establish a clear breach of policy conditions by the owner to be entitled to reimbursement and that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring that the driver had a valid driving license at the time of the accident.
"Insofar as the insurer's claim for reimbursement from the insured, all what is required is to establish a clear breach of a policy condition in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). This Court will further clarify that, if the findings/stipulations in Clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi) are satisfied, the insurer will be entitled to seek complete exoneration of the liability, that is to say, even as against third party; else, the insurer will be duty bound to own the claim as against the third party, but in which case he will have the liberty to seek reimbursement from the insured upon establishing a clear violation of a condition of the policy."
Case Title: Zulu Haris v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to consider the case of a student who had qualified the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG)-2023 (NEET), but whose name was not included in the final category list of KEAM-2023 on the ground that she did not upload her NEET (UG) Scorecard.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the said authority to pass appropriate orders in the case within a period of one week.
Case Title: Deepak K. Balakrishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court refused anticipatory bail to a college student accused of committing rape upon her junior, after intoxicating her.
While the accused claimed they were in a consensual relationship, Justice A Badharudheen noted that prosecutrix, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste community, had alleged that accused forcefully fed her a cake and some water after which she felt her eye sight was diminishing and she reached a semi unconscious stage.
In this backdrop the bench held that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter, the Act) is made out, barring anticipatory bail.
It therefore dismissed the accused person's appeal stating,
“In this case the specific case of the defacto complainant is that she was subjected to rape after giving her a cake and a bottle of water by the accused and later she felt that her eye sight was diminishing and when she was at a semi conscious stage. In such a case, it cannot be held that the overt act alleged by the defacto complainant is one arose out of consent. Therefore, the prosecution allegations are well made out prima facie and as such anticipatory bail cannot be granted in view of the specific bar under Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court recently held that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has the authority to register the crime and investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that are allegedly committed by Central Government employees.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that there was no special provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter, 'PC Act') or the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter, DSPE Act') excluding or preventing the State police or a Special Agency of the State from investigating cases relating to the corruption of the Central Government employees.
"None of the provisions of the P.C Act or DSPE Act authorizes CBI or Central Vigilance Commission or any other Central Government Agency alone to investigate in matters relating to the Central Government employees. In the absence of a specific provision in the DSPE Act or PC Act divesting the power of the regular police authorities to investigate into the offences under any other competent law, it cannot be said that the power of the State police or a Special Agency of the State to register a crime and investigate into the offence allegedly committed by the Central Government employees in their State is taken away. For these reasons, I hold that the VACB, being a specially constituted body to investigate into the bribery, corruption and misconduct mainly under the P.C. Act is always clothed with the authority to investigate offences involving corruption that take place within the State, whether it is committed by a Central Government employee or a State Government employee," the Court observed.
Case Title: Luciya Francis v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that preventive detention orders under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereafter, KAAPA) are issued for maintenance of public order and not as a penal measure.
A division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas held thus:
“The preventive detention law cannot be used as a punitive measure and as a substitute of criminal trial. What cannot be achieved through a trial cannot be achieved through preventive detention. It can be invoked only for maintenance of public order when activities of a person become threat or adverse to the society. The detaining authority failed to address the issue keeping the perspective of the objectives to be secured under the KAA(P)A. In such circumstances, we order that the detention order is illegal and the detenue is set at liberty. He shall be released forthwith.”
Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. The Health Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court directed the Government to constitute a State Level Multidisciplinary Committee consisting of experts to examine requests for performing sex-selective surgeries on intersex children.
The Committee is to comprise of a Pediatrician/Pediatric Endocrinologist, Pediatric Surgeon and Child Psychiatrist/Child Psychologist.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun also called upon the Government to issue an order for regulating sex selective surgeries on infants and children within three months. The Bench clarified that until such order has been issued, such surgeries shall be conducted only on the opinion of the State Level Multidisciplinary Committee that the same would be essential to save the life of the child.
Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. The Health Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court embarked upon an elaborate medico-legal discussion on the two concepts of 'gender' and 'sex', in an interesting decision raising the question as to whether the parents of a child with ambiguous genitalia would have the right to decide the gender of the child without the latter's consent and ignorant of the child's orientation.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed that while the terms 'gender' and 'sex' were often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they were, in actuality, two distinct concepts.
"Sex refers to the biological characteristics of a person, particularly in relation to their reproductive anatomy and chromosomal composition. Gender, on the other hand, is a social and cultural construct that encompasses the roles, behaviours, expectations and identities associated with being male-female or non-binary," the Court observed.
Case title: Poongottil Prasad v Melattur Grama Panchayat
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the Panchayat can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) committed during the course of the employment.
Holding the panchayat vicariously liable for the security deposit collected by the UDC, Justice N. Nagaresh observed thus:
“In view of the law on Vicarious Liability as discussed above, if any UDC employed by the respondent-Panchayat accepts money and issue the receipts in the course of his employment, the respondents are liable to refund that amount, if the amount accepted is refundable. The fact that a vigilance case is pending and action has been taken against the fraudulent activities of the UDC cannot be an excuse to deny the amounts duly deposited by the petitioner on the basis of the receipts issued on behalf of the Panchayat. The Panchayat is vicariously liable.”
Case Title: Santiago Martin & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court dismissed 'lottery king' Santiago Martin's petition challenging ED's attachment orders freezing his and his company's movable assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that PMLA provides a comprehensive three-tier remedy for such grievances and that the petitioners ought to have exhausted their alternative remedies rather than bypassing them, unless they are unsuitable for the situation.
"a three-tier remedy is provided under the PMLA itself, as fora to alleviate the grievances of those aggrieved. When such a scheme is provided for under the PMLA, petitioners do have an efficacious alternative remedy. These remedies, available under the statute, cannot be circumvented unless they are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of the situation. Considering the timelines provided and the nature of authorities created under the PMLA, the alternative remedies cannot be regarded as ill-suited to meet the exigency. Any prejudice caused on account of the provisional attachment order can be remedied through the scheme of the Statute itself."
Case Title: Rahib K.Y. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court has held that government's decision to stipulate three years practice in criminal courts as an essential condition for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutors cannot be said to be arbitrary.
Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a plea challenging a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('Kerala PSC') in this regard. The bench observed that Assistant Public Prosecutors are expected to prosecute criminal cases and aid the delivery of criminal justice in the State, and that in any case, it is for the appointing authority to decide and fix qualifications of candidates for appointment.
"Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors serve as State’s representatives tasked with upholding the interest of the State and of the general public. They have to carry out prosecutions on behalf of the State effectively. They have a duty to ensure that false accusations against any accused do not result in unfair punishment. It is their prime duty to ensure that justice is served. They have to help the Court to identify relevant facts. They are Officers of the Court who assist in the administration of justice. They must be unbiased, just and truthful. A high level of competency is expected from Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors. The Government therefore will be justified in insisting that they should have a minimum Court experience in conducting cases," the Court observed.
Wooden Stick Can Be Considered As 'Weapon' Under Section 326 IPC: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vineesh v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court recently decided whether ‘wooden stick’ can be considered as a ‘weapon’ to attract Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means or weapons) of the IPC.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that the expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon” in the provision gives a broader scope to Section 326. Here, the Court noted that ‘wooden stick’ may not be considered as a weapon in its original form, but it can be considered as an instrument of weapon if it was used to cause grievous hurt. The Court held thus:
"The expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon”, gives a significantly broader scope to the said provision, capable of taking within it, any instrument which does not have the characteristics of a weapon under normal circumstances, provided the same was used as a weapon to cause grievous hut. Thus, the emphasis is on any “instrument which used as a weapon” and it is not necessary that the instrument as such should be a weapon in its original form.”
Case title: Joseph John v State of Kerala & Connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court directed the State Police Chief to issue directions to ensure that law and order problems are not created between students and bus owners/employees, regarding student concession rates.
The Court held that students cannot be discriminated from other passengers while boarding the bus, merely for availing student concession rates.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted thus:
“But as long as the student concessions are in force, the owners and the employees of a bus cannot take a discriminative stand against the students while boarding buses, only because they are paying the concession rate. Students and other passengers are on an equal footing. It is the duty of the police to see that there is no law and order problem in connection with the same. The State police chief will issue necessary directions to all its subordinates to avert all such law and order problems because of this rift between the students and the employees of the buses.”
Parole May Be Refused Even To An Eligible Prisoner For Cogent Reasons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sandhya v Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
In an important ruling, the Kerala High Court held that prisoners do not have an inherent right to claim parole or leave and that the right to seek temporary release is contingent on meeting the statutory conditions under the Prisons Act and Rules and the discretion to grant or deny such release lies with the competent authority.
A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that even in a case where a convicted prisoner satisfies the eligibility conditions, the authority is entitled to refuse leave for cogent reasons, clarifying that Rule 397 does not provide an absolute entitlement for leave and that such an interpretation would be incomprehensible as it would prioritise the Rules over the Act.
"For example, if there exists a real threat of a potential breach of peace and tranquility in the locality, or to the safety and security of the prisoner himself as envisaged in subrule (h) to Rule 397, the authority can refuse leave. The same is the case for a convicted prisoner with a high proclivity or propensity to commit crimes. An interpretation otherwise, construing Rule 397 as an absolute entitlement for leave, would amount to the Rules assuming paramountcy over the Act, which is incomprehensible."
Case Title: Sandhya v Secretary & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court recently held that Section 389 of the CrPC does not contemplate an interim suspension of sentence and release of the prisoner for short-term requirements such as disease or marriage, while clarifying that such release should be sought under the Prisons Act and Rules through the process of leave or parole.
A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that the provision is meant for suspending the execution of the sentence during the pendency of an appeal on its merits.
"Enabling release under Section 389 for short-term requirements is neither statutory, nor conducive, besides being subversive and in disregard of the special provisions of the Prisons Act and Rules."
Case Title: Faizal K V v. State of Kerala & Anr
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court recently held that until specific provisions are enacted in CrPC, Magistrates are empowered to order the collection of handwriting samples of accused for investigation purposes and that such orders do not inherently violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution (right against self-incrimination).
Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan added that Magistrates have the jurisdiction to pass orders for the collection of measurements and specimen handwriting under Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, even in the absence of the accused's formal arrest, which was further supported by the incorporation of Section 311A into CrPC.
"If a Magistrate believes it is necessary for any investigation or legal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, the Magistrate can issue an order directing a person to provide measurements under this Act. The person must comply with the order and allow the measurements to be taken according to the specified directions."
"When an accused person is called upon by the court or any other authority holding an investigation to give a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a ‘personal testimony’. The giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression ‘to be a witness giving ...specimen writings by way of identification are not included in the expression ‘to be a witness’. It would be pertinent to note that the above observations were made prior to the incorporation of Section 311A and Section 5 of the Act 2022 in the Statute Book."
Case Title: M/S Srinivasa Builders v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that electricity is excluded from the definition of 'goods' as per the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) and even if electricity were deemed taxable based on its inclusion in the 1st Schedule, an assessment order would not be sustainable unless all the conditions under Section 25(1) [Assessment of escaped turnover] were fulfilled.
Justice Anu Sivaraman added that in such circumstances, the charge against the petitioner would be limited to an inaccurate return filing rather than concealing taxable turnover or tax evasion.
"Even if the contention of the revenue that electrical energy is included in the 1st Schedule is accepted, there would be no element of escaped assessment since the inclusion of electricity is in the 1st Schedule and no tax is payable. Therefore, the charge against the petitioner could, at best, be one of filing of an incorrect return and not of suppression of taxable turnover or attempt to evade tax. In the above circumstances, the essential ingredient under Section 25(1) would not be available to sustain an order of assessment on best judgment"
Mandatory For Magistrate To Examine Approver Before Committal Of Case: Kerala High Court
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court recently held that it is mandatory for the Magistrate to examine an accused who was tendered pardon under section 306(4)(a) of CrPC, prior to committing the case to the Sessions Court.
Section 306 of the Code deals with tendering pardon to an accomplice, who turns approver. An approver is also an accused in the crime, but has now agreed to provide details regarding the crime to aid the criminal proceedings in return of being tendered pardon. Section 306(4)(a) provides that an approver shall be examined as a witness by the Magistrate as well as in the subsequent trial.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, held thus:
“Without examining the person accepting the tender of pardon as a witness, the Magistrate could not have committed the case to the Sessions Court, excluding that person from the array of accused. Such a process is without authority and is irregular…If any of the accused was accepted as an approver, then that person should have been examined before committing the case to the Sessions Court treating him as an approver.”
Case title: Abdul Mujeeb v Suja
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court considered whether educational expenses paid to the children which were later reimbursed by the father's employer shall be reckoned as payment towards maintenance allowance under Section 125 CrPC.
The provision stipulates payment of compensation to wife, children and parents.
Justice VG Arun stated that educational expenses paid to children which were later reimbursed cannot be treated as maintenance allowance and held thus:
“It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not paid any amount to the first respondent/wife and payments to the other respondents (children) were towards tuition fees and other educational expenses. The object of Section 125 being to prevent destitution and vagrancy by ensuring reasonable allowance towards maintenance, payment of educational expense, which was later reimbursed, cannot be treated as the maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125.”
Case Title: Shajan Scariya v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by Shajan Skaria in the case alleging that he interacted with a priest through his YouTube channel 'Marunadan Malayali' with the intention to insult a religion.
The Single Bench of Justice K. Babu found "force" in Skaria's contention that he was implicated in criminal cases at the instigation of some influential persons against whom he reported corruption. Moreover, it observed that some parts of the alleged video reflect Skaria's secular views.
The bench further observed that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove that the Skaria's custodial interrogation was necessary in the matter.
Case title: Thressiamma Jose v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court recently held that premature release cannot be completely denied to convicts for the only reason that they have murdered a woman or a child. Also, the Court held that the decision on premature release must be taken based on the policy prevalent on the date of conviction and not based on policy on the date of considering the application.
Discerning that such a blanket restriction against premature release was opposed to the concept of reformation in a welfare society, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held thus:
“A blanket stance that all persons who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State. Such a stance will be contrary to the principles that govern the commutation of imprisonment. Commutation is based on the principles of reformation of the individual and intended to bring the convict back to society as a useful member. The supervening factors that are conducive to the convict must be taken into reckoning, while considering the issue of premature release.”
Case Title: Vineet Ganesh v. Priyanka Vasan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court laid down that proceedings initiated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) before a Judicial Magistrate of the First Class (JFCM) cannot be transferred to a Family Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar reasoned that the Legislature had been fully conscious in enacting the D.V. Act much after the Family Courts Act, 1984, and thereby confining the jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act ('Application to Magistrates') to the Judicial Magistrates.
"As long as the Family Court or, for that matter, other civil courts cannot have original jurisdiction to entertain an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act, no application under Section 12 pending before a Magistrate can be transferred to a Family Court," the Bench observed.
Case Title: Shaju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the burden on the accused to prove that his case comes under the general exceptions given in the Indian Penal Code does not counteract the initial burden on the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha added that the burden on the accused to prove exceptions is not as stringent as the prosecution's burden and that the accused merely has to show that the preponderance of probability supports their plea.
"The burden which rests on the accused to prove the exceptions is not the same rigour as the burden of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt. It is enough for the accused to show, as in a civil case, that the preponderance of probability is in favour of his plea. It is not necessary for the accused to lead any evidence to prove his defence, because such proof can be offered by relying on the evidence led by the prosecution, the materials elicited by cross examining the prosecution witnesses and the totality of the facts and circumstances emerging out of the evidence in the case."
Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court dismissed the plea by Malayalam Cine Director, Lijeesh M.J., seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishan termed the petition 'frivolous'. The Court observed that the petitioner lacked evidence to prove their allegations of nepotism and bias, and added that the petition need not be entertained based on the hearsay evidence stated by the petitioner.
"...the allegation of bias and nepotism attributed against the 3rd respondent who is the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy are too vague and not specific. No supporting evidence is produced by the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that this writ petition need not be entertained. This is a writ petition filed based on hearsay evidence without any supporting material," the Court observed, while dismissing the plea.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Kerala State Mediation And Conciliation Centre Launches NIRNAYA Scheme
The Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre (KSMCC) officially launched NIRNAYA Scheme, a private mediation process for the resolution of disputes outside the convoluted court procedure. The Scheme was officially launched on Saturday morning at the Kerala High Court Auditorium.
The NIRNAYA Scheme aspires to create a harmonious and co-operative dispute resolution mechanism in different fields such as commerce and film production industry, particularly, the disputes pertaining to construction of apartments.
Case Title: Shaji David vs Shafa Diagnostic Centre
Recently, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram bench, presided over by Jith Kumar (Presiding Member), with Beena Kumari (Member) and Radhakrishnan (Member), dismissed a complaint regarding wrong diagnosis by a diagnostic centre. The Complainant failed to prove that the TPHA (ELISA) test reports granted by the diagnostic centre were faulty. The Commission further rejected the Complainant’s contention that due to wrong reports, his visa for Kuwait was rejected and that the diagnostic centre must compensate him.
Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges State Awards For Malayalam Films 2022 Alleging Nepotism, Bias
Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 25915 of 2023
Malayalam Movie Director, Lijeesh M.J., has moved the Kerala High Court seeking the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022 to be set aside.
The Director of the Malayalam Movie, 'Aakaashathinu Thaazhe' has alleged that the declaration of the Awards was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism exercised by Ranjith, the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.
Case Title: Sangeeth Kumar v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl MC 6332/2023
Vice President of the Nair Service Society (NSS) Sangeeth Kumar has moved the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him and about a persons for holding a prayer rally to demonstrate against Kerala Assembly Speaker AN Shamseer's remarks about Lord Ganesha, allegedly without permission.
Speaking at an inaugural event in a school in Ernakulam, Shamseer reportedly said that Lord Ganesha is a 'myth'. The Hindu organisation said it will take legal recourse if the government fails to take appropriate steps in the matter.
Case Title: State v. Hibi Eden & Ors.
A Kerala Court recently acquitted eight Congress leaders in the case alleging that they had organized themselves into an unlawful assembly in the year 2020, so as to spread COVID-19, thereby flouting then in force government orders and guidelines of the health department in this regard.
The case was registered in June 2020 against Member of Parliament Hibi Eden, Leader of Opposition VD Satheeshan, the Members of Legislative Assembly TJ Vinod, Anwar Sadath, and Roji M. John, and Congress Leaders V.P. Sajeendran, M.P. John and Tony Chammani.
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ernakulam, Naina K.V., passed the Order noting that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove the allegations.
Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar Of Kerala High Court Awarded Doctorate In Law
Judge of the Kerala High Court, Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, was awarded a Doctorate in Law by the O.P. Jindal Global University at a convocation ceremony held in New Delhi on Monday.
Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 25915 of 2023
The Kerala High Court sought the response of the State government on the plea filed by Malayalam Movie Director, Lijeesh M.J., seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Basant Balaji declined to grant a stay for now on the distribution of the Awards scheduled on August 17, 2023. However, it listed the matter on August 11, i.e. before the Award distribution ceremony seeking State's response.
Case Title: State v. Jose R.
A Kerala Court recently convicted a man for making more than 300 phone calls to the official phone of Vanitha police station, Kochi city, in order to harass a woman Civil Police Officer.
The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, Sajini B.S. sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and imposed with a fine of Rs. 15,000.
Case title: C Jayakumar v G Gopakumar & Ors
Case number: IA 1/2022 in OS 55/2022
A Kerala Court has ordered conditional attachment of a Police Sub-Inspector's property for prima facie custodial torture of a Kollam based lawyer.
Sub Judge Santhosh Das at Karunagapally has also asked the officer to either furnish security of ₹25,00,000 or show cause why he shall not furnish the security, by October 19.
Case Title: Rachel Mathew & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 25929 of 2023
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by 33 female engineering students of Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam, against the imposition of hostel entry deadline as 6:30 PM for the female students.
Single Judge Bench of Justice Basant Balaji has listed the case on Friday along with other connected cases.
Case Title: Dhisha v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) 15800/ 2023
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the Secretary, Department of Woman and Child Development to file an affidavit detailing the concrete steps that would be taken to ensure that children would not be compelled to perform the ritualistic dance performance of 'Thee Chamundi Theyyam'.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun issued the above direction while considering the plea filed by NGO Dhisha, seeking a ban on the participation of children in the ritualistic dance performance in north Malabar region of Kerala.
Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24828 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court directed the State to come out with steps to ensure that education of tribal children and medical facilities for tribal families in Pothugal, Vazhikadavu, and Karulai villages in Nilambur Taluk are not hindered.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun was considering the plea filed by the former Chairperson of Nilambur Municipality, Aryadan Shouketh, and a social worker residing in Vaniyampuzha colony in Pothugal Grama Panchayat, alleging "grave human rights violation and injustice" faced by the tribal communities in the aforementioned villages.
The Court orally remarked:
"Our immediate priority at present is regarding the reconstruction of the bridge, ensuring that the education of children is not suffered, provision of medical facilities, and toilet facilities. For medical facilities, they have to cross the river...pregnant ladies find it impossible to do so for hospitalization, and so on".
Lord Ganesha Myth Remark: Kerala High Court Stays Proceedings Against NSS Members For Four Weeks
Case Title: Sangeeth Kumar v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl MC 6332/2023
The Kerala High Court stayed for four weeks all proceedings in connection with a crime registered against Nair Service Society Vice President Sangeeth Kumar and 1,000 identifiable persons purported to be NSS office bearers and activists, for holding a prayer rally to demonstrate against Kerala Assembly Speaker AN Shamseer's remarks about Lord Ganesha, allegedly without permission.
The interim relief was granted by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V while his plea for quashing the FIR dated August 3.
Case Title: George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors.
Case Number: OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2022
The Amicus Curiae appointed by the Kerala High Court in a case seeking reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'DV Act, 2005'), Advocate Ashok Kini M., has submitted that an original petition seeking reliefs under Sections18-22 of the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable before the Family Court.
Last week, a Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas had appointed the amicus to aid the Court in ascertaining whether the Family Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.