Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 282 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 287Nominal Index XXXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283Chekkutty v State of Kerala. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284 Sindhu B S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji, 2024 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 282 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 287
Nominal Index
XXXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
Chekkutty v State of Kerala. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
Sindhu B S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
Judgment/Orders This Week
Case Title: XXXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282
The Kerala High Court has held that a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who sexually assaulted her. The Court thus permitted a sixteen-year-old rape victim, studying in standard 11th to medically terminate the pregnancy which reached 28 weeks of gestation.
Justice Kauser Edappagath held that denying permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would equate to imposing forced motherhood and deprivation of the right to life with dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283
The Kerala High Court has permitted a married couple to undergo medical termination of pregnancy that reached 27 weeks of gestation due to substantial abnormalities of the foetus.
Justice Kauser Edappagath relying upon the report of the Medical Board observed that even though the foetus does not have a life-threatening condition, it has multiple major congenital abnormalities to the brain and spinal cord, indicating a high risk of neurodevelopment impairment, health complications and mortality.
“It is further opined that even though this is not a life-threatening condition, the child is likely to have permanent and significant neurological disabilities and handicaps. Hence, the Board recommended termination of pregnancy. It is a case squarely falling within the exception carved out by clause (2B) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 inasmuch as the Medical Board diagnosed substantial abnormalities in the foetus.”
Case Title: Chekkutty v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284
The Kerala High Court held that an accused cannot be imposed with a lesser sentence merely because he appeared before the Court through his counsel and pleaded guilty. The Court stated that punishment imposed upon the accused should find a balance between the offence committed and the injury suffered by the victim.
Justice P Somarajan set aside the Trial Court's order by which a sentence of fine was imposed upon the accused. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter for ordering a substantive sentence.
Case Title: Sindhu B S v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285
The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the India since it is a purely academic matter.
Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. t is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”
Case Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
A single judge bench of the Kerela High Court comprising of Justice G. Girish in the case of Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan has held that the right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by employer.
The court further observed since the ECA, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, its purpose cannot be defeated by circulars or internal orders passed by officers of the Appellant. The court further observed that there was no rationale to say that when an employee suffers an injury in the course of employment, they need to prefer the hospital on the panel of the Appellant instead of the hospital from which they could get the best medical care. The court observed that:
The right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by the officers of the appellant
Case Title: R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287
The Kerala High Court held that the Trial Courts should evaluate and decide regarding the acceptability of the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan before proceeding with the trial of the suit when a party to litigation moves an application challenging it.
Justice G. Girish observed that the Trial Courts should not wait to consider the challenge against the Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan until the final stage of evidence in the suit since that would cause hardships to the parties, i
Other Developments This Week
Case Title: Akash S D v State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Case Number: Bail Appl. 2306/2024 & Connected Cases
In the matter of a veterinary student's death in Kerala, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has submitted its final report, naming 19 students as accused. The CBI had taken over the investigation of the matter pursuant to the orders of the Court.
The final report of the CBI stated that the Anti-ragging squad of the college submitted a report to the police after their enquiry concluding that Sidharthan was subjected to brutal physical assault and public trial by some of his classmates and seniors.
[Manjummel Boys] Kerala HC Directs Police Not To Arrest Actor-Producer Soubin Shahir & Producer Shawn Antony In Alleged Cheating Case
Case Title: Shawn Antony v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 3848 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court passed an interim order directing the police not to arrest actor cum producer partner Soubin Shahir and producer Shawn Antony in an allegation of cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust regarding the production of the Malayalam film Manjummel Boys.
The crime was registered at Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam under Sections 120B (Punishment for criminal conspiracy), 34 (common intention), 406 (punishment for criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 468 (forgery for cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice P G Ajithkumar ordered thus: “Defacto-complainant entered appearance and seeks time to file objection. The learned Public Prosecutor takes notice for the respondent. Post on 22.05.2024. The petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with the Crime No.449 of 2024 of Maradu Police Station, Ernakulam till then.”
Case Title: Muhammed Rahi Hussain v State of Kerala
Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 3633 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court yesterday granted bail to a restaurant chef who made the shawarma that allegedly caused physical ailment to a woman leading to hospitalization.
A crime was registered under Sections 284 (Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance), 308 (attempt to commit culpable homicide), and 328 (causing hurt by means of poison etc.) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
Justice C.Pratheep Kumar allowed the bail application since the accused has been in judicial custody since April 19, 2024.
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 17179/2024
Lawyer and State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson has approached the Kerala High Court with a public interest litigation seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for committing hawala money transactions for political purposes and use in election campaigns.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P and Justice Syam Kumar V M stated that the matter will be considered on May 14, 2024. “The State has filed their charge sheet, I Income Tax Department saying regarding the source of funds they have to find out, ED is acting under the PMLA for the purpose of attaching proceeds of crime to the State, what more should be done, what more can be done”? enquired the Court orally today.
The Court orally remarked, "Our concern is only this. The Court shall not be made a venue for political slugfest. We will not permit it. You may have various reasons but we will not allow that,"
Kerala High Court Reserves Judgment On AAP Member's Plea For ED Probe Against BJP Members In Kodakara Hawala Heist Case
Case Title: Vinod Mathew Wilson v Union of India
Case Number: WPC 17179/2024
The Kerala High Court reserved its judgment in the plea filed by State President of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) Vinod Mathew Wilson who has approached the Court with a public interest litigation seeking action against individuals affiliated with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for allegedly committing hawala money transactions to the tune of 3.5 crores for use in campaigns during the 2021 State Assembly elections.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gopinath P and Justice Syam Kumar V M heard the matter and reserved its judgment.