Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760-766]Biju Sundar v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760Deepa P.M. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 761K Tony Thomas v Vythiri Grama Panchayath, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 762XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 763Aswathy Surendran v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 764Josepheena T.T. v. Thrissur...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760-766]
Biju Sundar v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760
Deepa P.M. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
K Tony Thomas v Vythiri Grama Panchayath, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
Aswathy Surendran v Union of India, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
Josepheena T.T. v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
XXX v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: Biju Sundar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 760
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that a fine balance has to be found between the requirements of administration and the imperative to provide greater opportunities to PwD Candidates.
The petitioner, in this case, challenged the 2023 notification for appointment as District & Sessions Judge in Kerala State Higher Judicial Service (KSHJS) by direct recruitment from bar (hereafter, notification) for being violative of the rights of disabled persons.
Disposing of the writ petition, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V issued directions for the identification of posts, working out backlog vacancies, providing age relaxation, granting grace marks and filling up backlog vacancies through a special recruitment drive for ensuring full and equal rights to disabled persons to fulfil the constitutional mandate as per the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Case Title: Deepa P.M. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 761
The Kerala High Court recently berated the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy.SP), Thrissur Rural, for refusing to issue a Letter of Altruism to a maid to enable her to donate her organ to her previous employer who is suffering from renal failure.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the said authority had refused to grant the Letter, on acting upon certain surmises and conjectures entered into by the Station House Officer of the Valapad Police Station (SHO) who doubted the intention behind the transplant on account of the poor financial background of the petitioner.
Case title: K Tony Thomas v Vythiri Grama Panchayath
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 762
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the District Disaster Management Authority (DDMA) cannot expand the term 'landslide prone area' without approval from the State Disaster Management Authority (SDMA).
Relying upon Section 31 (2) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, the Court held that the District Plan prepared by DDMA has to be approved by the State Authority.
Case Title: XXXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 763
The Kerala High Court recently quashed proceedings under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against a man alleged to have sexually abused the victim.
Justice Gopinath P. noted that the allegations against the petitioner accused had been launched following his withdrawal from marriage with the victim, after the engagement ceremony had been performed. The Court also took note that the proceedings were being sought to be quashed herein following the reconciliation and marriage of the parties.
Case title: Aswathy Surendran v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 764
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that medical termination of pregnancy can only be sought when the competent medical board has diagnosed substantial foetal abnormalities.
“Statutorily, under the mandate of Section 3(2)(b) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 ('Act' for short), it is only in cases where the foetus has substantial abnormalities diagnosed by the competent Medical Board, can the termination of pregnancy be sought for”.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, on considering a plea moved by the petitioners-husband and wife did not approve the medical termination of the pregnancy of a 30-week-old foetus since the Medical Reports did not suggest lethal foetal abnormalities endangering the life of a newborn baby.
Case Title: Josepheena T.T. v. Thrissur Municipal Corporation & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 765
The Kerala High Court has laid down that the failure to inform the transfer of property under Rules 19(1) or 19(2) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 2019 ('KMBR Rules, 2019') cannot render a building permit that has already been issued invalid, when the building has not been constructed or completed.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of the considered view that the failure to inform the Secretary is only an irregularity and a curable defect, and that the prior owner and purchaser would be at liberty to apply to the Secretary, intimating him about the transfer and even request for a change of name for the building permit already issued, and that the Secretary would then have to take a decision on the same.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 766
The Kerala High Court has held that a consumer in a brothel house comes within the purview of Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (ITP Act). Section 5 makes persons liable who procure, induce or take persons for prostitution.
Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that since the word 'procure' had not been defined in the ITP Act, it has to be understood to achieve the object behind the statute. The Court stated that the statute was enacted to prevent commercialisation of the vices and trafficking among women and girls, a consumer in a brothel house can also be made liable for procuring a person for prostitution under Section 5 of the Act.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case title: Suresh Gopi V State Of Kerala
Case number: Bail Appl. 11627/ 2023
Malayalam Actor and Politician, Suresh Gopi has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a case lodged against him for allegedly misbehaving with a female reporter. A complaint against him was initially filed alleging sexual harassment under Section 354A (1)(i)(iv) IPC, which was later altered to Section 354 IPC for assault or criminal force to outrage the modesty of a woman.
Hearing his plea, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar sought instructions in the matter and posted the bail plea for the first week of January 2024.