Kerala High Court Annual Digest 2022: Part- I [Citations 1- 222]

Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1

Rajeswary vs State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3

Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

Aroon Purie v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

Suo Motu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37

V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

Mohammed Suhail v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47

State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50

Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 155

K.A John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 156

Nisha Haneefa v. Abdul Latheef & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 157

Leelamma Eapen v. District Magistrate & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 158

Vijayakumar v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 159

Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160

Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161

Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162

Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164

Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165

Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 166

M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 167

M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 168

Bibin K. B. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 169

Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170

Santosh Kumar K. v. The Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

X. v. State Of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 172

Aneeshkutty v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 173

Dr. Abdul Haleem PP v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 174

Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 175

T. Anjana v. J.A Jayesh Jayaram, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 176

Minor v. Ministry of Education, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 177

Lloyed Insulations (India) Ltd versus Foremexx Space Frames, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 178

Suryansh Broadcasting Pvt Ltd & Anr v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 179

Annamma & Ors v. P.V. Varkey & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 180

Muhammed Hasheer Poolakkal v. United Arab Bank & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 181

Reji K. Joshy & Ors. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 182

Joseph v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 183

P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 184

T.N. Suraj v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 185

T.N. Suraj v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 186

M/s Bativala and Karani v. K.I. Johny & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 187

Deepa Srinivasan & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 188

Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 189

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 190

Suresh George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 191

Asha Joseph v. Babu C. George & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 192

Greenlights Power Solutions Versus State Tax Officer, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 193

Jaganadhan v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 194

S. Raveendranath Pai & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 195

Arun Jose v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 196

Chengalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Rajkumar & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 197

Satyendra Kumar Jha v. Secretary (Transport) & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 198

Simi C.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 199

Shameena Siddique & Anr. v. M. Abubekhar Siddiq & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 200

Kerala High Court Upholds 10% EWS Reservation For Veterinary & Dental Courses Under KEAM

Section 138 NI Act - Cheque Bounce Case Can Be Closed If Convict Pays Fine Directly To Complainant: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

The Court ordered the Devaswom Commissioner to institute disciplinary action against employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board who failed to report for special duty at Sabarimala, Pampa and Nilakkal. While issuing the directive, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar recorded that it is the surplus income from the Sabarimala Temple that aids the functioning of over a thousand other temples under the Board. The Court also directed the Devaswom Commissioner to obtain the names and take action against the staff in the establishment wing and class-4 employees who failed to report for special duty, except on genuine medical grounds.

Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Husband, Releases His Parents

Case Title: Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

The Court refused bail to the accused husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. However, his parents, who are co-accused in the case, were granted bail. During the proceedings, the de facto complainant (Mofiya's father) also brought to the fore that the accused husband was diagnosed with sexual perversion and personality disorders during a counselling session he had attended with the deceased. In her complaint, she had also mentioned her ordeals of having been forced to perform unnatural sexual acts by the accused husband.

Reconstitution Of Board Of Studies At Kannur University Prima Facie Not In Accordance With Law: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

The Court observed that it is prima facie of the view that the notification issued by the Registrar in charge appointing a new board of studies at the Kannur University was not in consonance with the statutory provisions. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also issued notice to the Registrar and Board Members on the appeal filed against a Single Bench's order. The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition challenging the reconstitution of the board of studies.

Satisfaction Of Court Cannot Be Substituted By Expert Opinion: Kerala HC Acquits Murder Accused Citing Lack Of Reliable Evidence

Case Title: Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7

While acquitting a man accused of murder on the ground of negligent evidence collection, the Court ruled that the satisfaction of the Court cannot be substituted by expert opinion. In the criminal appeal, the preliminary question before the Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was whether there was sufficient material before the trial court to find the accused guilty. It was noted that the case against the accused was largely based on fingerprints and chemical evidence. However, the Court noted that there wasn't sufficient reliable evidence for the trial court to have found the accused guilty of the crime.

Non-Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice A Valid Ground For Setting Aside Arbitral Award, May Be Urged At Any Stage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V. G. Thankamani & Ors & National Highway Authority of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

The Court has ruled that non-compliance with principles of natural justice is a good ground to set aside an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, while allowing an appeal, set aside the order of the Additional District Court and the impugned award. The Court also added that only an adjudicator not favouring one party more than another, unprejudiced, disinterested, equitable and just, can be said to be an impartial adjudicator.

NEET PG: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking To Quash State Circular Granting 27% Reservation To SEBC

Case Title: Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9

The Court dismissed a plea moved by MBBS graduates challenging a circular issued by the State government increasing reservation for the socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) from 9% to 27% in medical postgraduate courses. After having elaborately heard the matter over the course of the past couple of months, Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the plea.

Walayar Rape-Death Case: Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas Moved By Three Accused, Asks Them To Approach Trial Court

Case Title: Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 10

The Court dismissed the bail applications moved by the prime accused in the infamous Walayar case that had built up public outrage in the State. Noting that the final report had already been filed before the trial court, Justice P. Gopinath asked the applicants to approach the trial court with their bail applications since that would be the appropriate forum to consider the same:

Kerala High Court Directs Treasury To Hand Over KR Gouri's Savings To Her Niece

Case Title: Dr PC Beenakumari v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 11

Coming to the rescue of K.R Gouri's niece, who was her caretaker till her death, the Court ordered the Department of Treasuries to release her entire treasury savings amounting to over Rs 30 lakh. Justice N Nagaresh issued the order on a petition filed by Beenakumari, the daughter of Gouri's younger sister, challenging the treasury secretary's order rejecting the request to release the money deposited in the Pension Treasury savings account in two District Sub-treasury savings accounts.

No Violation Of Right To Privacy Just Because Peaceful Residence Is Affected : Kerala HC On Toddy Shops In Residential Areas

Case Title: S.K. Pavithran & Ors. v. Laisy Santhosh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

The Court reversed a Single Bench judgment that held that establishing a toddy shop in a residential locality would be in derogation of right to privacy. A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the view taken by the Single Judge is that "anything and everything that affects the peaceful residence of a person would affect its privacy rights". Disagreeing with this view, the Division Bench recorded in its judgment.

Private Medical Colleges Collecting Annual Fees In Advance Before Completion Of Current Academic Year 'Profiteering' : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sanju Simon & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

While restraining private medical colleges in the State from collecting fees for any academic year other than the one currently being taught, the Court has held that collecting annual fees from students for the next year in advance when the previous year's studies have not been completed by an institution would amount to "profiteering". A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. justified its stand observing that conceptually a fee was remuneration for a service already rendered.

Temporary Shift Of Residence By Itself Not A Valid Ground For Transfer Of Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

While considering a series of transfer petitions moved by a woman, the Court ruled that shifting from permanent residence to a temporary residence by itself is not a ground to transfer cases pending within the jurisdiction of the permanent residence of both parties. Justice A. Badharudheen dismissed the transfer petitions observing that allowing such pleas would result in cases being transferred frequently.

Family Court With Territorial Jurisdiction Is The Competent Authority To Give A Child In Adoption : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thomas P. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

The Court recently laid down that the Family Court with the respective territorial jurisdiction is empowered to give a child in adoption. After perusing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the 2014 Rules framed thereunder and the Adoption Regulations 2017, Justice M.R. Anitha observed: "In the said circumstance, the finding of the learned District Judge that the court is not a proper forum and they have to approach the Child Welfare Committee is illegal and perverse."

Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Interim Order Staying GO Fixing Bottled Water Prices At ₹13

Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging a Single Judge decision that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. During the previous hearing of the case, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly had refused to stay the single bench decision while issuing notice to the respondents.

Non-Commercial Associations Can Use 'Kerala', 'India' In Their Names : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Riyasudheen K. & Ors v. Inspector General of Registration & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

The Court recently ruled that an association formed by private individuals cannot be prevented from naming after 'Kerala' or 'Bharat' or 'India' under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 if their activities are not related to any trade or business. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the said Act only banned the naming of commercial entities after India or Kerala: "Since the petitioners' Association is not an Association related to any trade, business, calling or profession, it is declared that the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 cannot be applied to the petitioners."

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) Of Municipality Rules On Property Tax Fixation

Case Title: K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Court has set aside Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year if the property tax arrived at on computation as per the Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year. Justice N. Nagaresh pointed out that Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 does not permit the fixation of a property tax over and above the upper limit fixed by the Government.

'Balance Of Convenience' To Be Considered While Deciding Interim Custody Of Seized Articles U/S 451 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Union of India v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 21

Ruling that balance of convenience should be considered while deciding interim custody of seized articles under Section 451 of CrPC, the Court released unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs to the Income Tax Department. Allowing a petition filed by the Department, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A observed that the balance of convenience was in favour of the IT department rather than Abdul Razak, the person found possessing the cash. The Judge noted that since the Income Tax Department was a statutory authority armed with various powers under Sections 132-A, 132-B and 153A of the Income Tax Act, preference should be given to the Department in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 3 Accused In SDPI Leader Shan's Murder

Case Title: Akhil & Ors v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

The Court granted bail to three of the accused in the shocking political murder of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary K.S Shan who was hacked to death in December 2021. Justice Gopinath P. released the accused on bail citing that the only offence made out against them was under section 212 (harbouring an offender) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court recorded that since the release of the accused on bail may result in a retaliatory attack and that the law and order situation is still volatile in Alappuzha district, where the attack took place.

Must Prove Accused Is Absconding With No Immediate Prospect For Arrest To Record Witness Deposition U/S 299 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Rafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr. and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

In a significant judgment, the Court ruled that before recording witness depositions under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it should be established that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was called upon to answer an intriguing question on the interpretation of Section 299 of the CrPC. The Bench added that proof of the accused absconding is a condition precedent to record witness deposition for the purpose of Section 299; enabling its use in the subsequent trial against those absconded but later apprehended.

Malls Can't Collect Car Parking Fee : Kerala High Court Makes Prima Facie View In Lulu Mall Case

Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

The Court opined that prima facie, the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall was not appropriate while adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan sought a clear response from the Kalamassery Municipality on this question and posted the matter to be taken up after two weeks.

No IPC Provision For Vicarious Liability On Company Directors, Cannot Implicate Them Without Specific Averments: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aroon Purie v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

The Court ruled that Directors of a company cannot be implicated without specific averments indicating their role in the offence, particular because no provision in the Indian Penal Code provides for vicarious liability upon them. While adjudicating upon a batch of applications filed by Directors of the India Today TV news channel, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A held that it is not possible to implicate the Directors, in the absence of specific averments indicating their role in the commission of the offence.

Actor Assault Case : Kerala High Court Allows State To Summon 5 New Witnesses; Rejects Plea To Recall 3 Witnesses

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

The Court partly allowed the application filed by the State government challenging the trial court's order in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, which had rejected the prayer to re-examine certain witnesses and summon additional witnesses. The prosecution had sought before the trial court to re-examine 6 witnesses, 1 witness cited but not examined and 9 additional witnesses who were not cited as witnesses in the final report.

Mere Chance For Occupation Of Premises Via Licence Not Sufficient To Make One Necessary/ Proper Party In Appeal Between Licensor & Licensee: Kerala HC

Case Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a proper party in an appeal pending between the licensor and the licensee. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the application filed by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.

Defence Can Be Struck Off For Non-Payment Of Pendente Lite Maintenance Only As Last Resort & If Default Is Deliberate: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

The Court while allowing an appeal ruled that a party's defence can be struck off for non-compliance of an order for payment of pendente lite maintenance only as a last resort and if it is found that the default is deliberate and willful. A Division Bench of Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked so while adjudicating upon an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court's order striking off his defence for failing to pay maintenance pendente lite.

Consent Of Accused Not Necessary To Obtain Voice Sample; No Violation Of Article 20(3) Of Constitution: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

The Court has ruled that the consent of an accused is not necessary to acquire their voice sample for the purpose of comparison since it has already been established that obtaining voice samples of the accused do not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a petition alleging that the accused was not given an opportunity of being heard before being directed to produce his voice sample, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused has no right of option in the matter.

Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till February 21 Amid COVID-19 Surge

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the surge in Covid-19 cases and the Test Positivity Rate in the State. As such, the Bench revived an earlier order it had passed on 19, May 2021 in which it had issued directions for the extension of interim orders.

'Refusal To Consider' Different From 'Rejection For Reasons': Kerala HC Directs State Tax Officer To Reconsider Plea Seeking Copies Of Witness Statements

Case Title: Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

The Court has held that there is a clear distinction between refusing to consider an application and rejecting one with reasons while finding that an officer should specify reasons while denying copies of statements made to the parties in an investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that since it is settled law that reasons should be reflected in the order, the Proper Officer should have given reasons for refusing to grant copies of the witness statements.

Chairperson & Members Of State Minorities Commission Can Be From Same Minority Community : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

The Court ruled that merely because the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 permits appointing Chairperson and members from the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled power infringing rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act and National Commission for Minorities Act observed that such an amendment did not violate any rights under Part III of the Constitution.

Unauthorised Flagposts, Boards & Banners To Be Removed Within 30 Days : Kerala High Court Issues Further Directions

Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

The Court issued a set of further directions to ensure that no new unauthorised flag posts, banners or boards are installed in the State and to remove the already existing ones within a period of 30 days. Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative to notify such guidelines after observing that people had fallen back to their lackadaisical attitude regarding the erection of illegal boards, banners and flag posts in the State within a few months after the Court issued strict orders against the same.

Maoist Threat In Locality Valid Reason To Deny NOC For Explosive Licence : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

Justice N. Nagaresh while dismissing a petition challenging the decision of a Magistrate held that the presence of a Maoist threat in a locality is a sound reason to deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for an explosive license. It was also held that the fact that there is an Anganwadi or a PWD road nearby is also sufficient for such rejection. The Court further noted that the presence of Maoist terrorists and the perceived threat posed by them is a very relevant factor in the context of public interest.

Ashamed By 6th Pregnancy, Disabled Woman Allegedly Drowns Her New-Born: Kerala High Court Allows Bail

Case Title: Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

The Court granted bail to a 33-year-old woman suffering from multiple disabilities who allegedly dropped her newborn into a bucket of water, resulting into the infant's death. The infant was her sixth child, and reportedly a consequence of unintended pregnancy. Justice Gopinath P. released the woman on bail noting that her custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the investigation of the case.

Kerala High Court Comes Down On Relaxations Allowed Ahead Of CPI(M) District Meet Amid COVID Surge; Bans Gathering Above 50 Persons In Kasargod

Case Title: Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

The Court barred all public gatherings exceeding 50 individuals in the Kasargod district for a week citing the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, posing a major setback to the ongoing District Meet of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Court passed the order in a writ petition which alleged that the District Collector had revoked an earlier order that limited attendance in public meetings to facilitate the CPI(M)'s Kasargod District meet.

Case Title: Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37

The Court has ruled that a complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a defamatory article published in a newspaper about the RSS is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Sophy Thomas noted that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, any individual member of RSS has the locus standi to maintain a complaint against an article defaming the organisation.

'All Members Entitled To Vote' : Kerala High Court Revokes Centre's Order Upholding Representative Voting At SNDP Yogam Elections

Case Title: V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

Justice T.R. Ravi annulled the order issued by the Central Government in 1962 which upheld representation voting at the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam elections. Unlike the past 46 years, now all members will have the right to vote in the elections. This decision comes in the backdrop of the next election scheduled to take place on February 5.

Kerala High Court Holds First Urgent Late Night Hearing To Arrest Vessel In Admiralty Suit

Case Title: Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

In a first, the Court held a late-night hearing of an admiralty suit to arrest a vessel, MV Ocean Rose, from leaving the Cochin Port Trust. Justice Devan Ramachandran convened the hearing at 11.30 pm after the plaintiff in the suit approached the Court to prevent a ship from leaving the Cochin port, which was scheduled to leave at 5 am the next morning.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Regulate Crowd Funding For Treatment Of Rare Diseases

Case Title: Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

The Court has issued a set of directions to the State and the Central governments in an attempt to make available adequate funds for treating patients suffering from rare diseases, particularly for those who cannot afford such expenses, to enforce the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar directed the Centre and State to file affidavits within a month indicating inter alia the progress of the crowdfunding scheme sought to be established in the State.

When Judgment Debtor Pleads 'No Means', Execution Court Must Conduct Enquiry Before Issuing Arrest Warrant : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

The Court has recently held that if a judgment debtor appears before the court when served with a notice and contends that he has no means to pay off the decreed debt, the Court is bound to enquire into this contention before issuing a warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code. Justice A. Badharudeen was exploring the procedure to be followed before issuance of an arrest warrant in the execution of a decree for payment of money.

'NIA Recorded Inadmissible Confessions In Anxiety To Wrap Up The Case': Kerala High Court While Acquitting Accused In Twin Blast Case

Case Title: Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala & connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

The Court while acquitting the prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafas in the infamous Kozhikode 2006 twin bomb blast case observed that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) had failed to produce credible evidence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman also found that had it not been for the agency's hurry to wind up the investigation, there may have been more compelling evidence to find the accused guilty.

Motor Accident Claims| Multiplier To Be Determined Based On Completed Age, Not Running Age: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

The Court recently ruled that the multiplier to be used while computing compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on the basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not based on the running age. Therefore, Justice C.S Dias observed that when a person aged 50 years and 7 months dies in a motor accident, the multiplier applicable to the age bracket of 46-50 will apply and not the one applicable to the age bracket of 51-55.

Not Taking Treatment For Mental Issues To Bring Peace In Family Amounts To Cruelty To Spouse: Kerala HC Upholds Divorce Decree

Case Title: Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

While upholding a divorce decree, the Court recently observed that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, amounts to cruelty to the persons at the receiving end i.e., the Spouse.

A bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the wife's appeal as it came to the conclusion that the appellant was treating her husband with cruelty both physical and mental, and in the year 2005, she had deserted him.

Prosecution Has Right To Ask Accused To Surrender Mobile Phone; No Violation Of Article 20(3) : Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

The Court held that the prosecution has every right to seek that the accused should surrender mobile phones for forensic examination under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act.

Justice Gopinath P. rejected the argument that the surrender of mobile phones will infringe the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India after referring to a couple of landmark decisions in this area.

Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47

The Court found merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner who had sought to quash the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT to apply to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC). Finding the condition prima facie discriminatory, Justice V.G. Arun observed that there was no rationale for precluding candidates like the petitioner from the post.

'Prima Facie No Material': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Dileep In Murder Conspiracy Case

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. pronounced the highly-anticipated verdict after two weeks of elaborate hearing. "Your apprehensions regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by conditions", the Court informed the Prosecution while dictating the order. It was also clarified that if these conditions were violated, the prosecution was entitled to apply for arrest.

For Abetment By Conspiracy, Mere Agreement Not Enough; Something Must Be Done: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

The Court while granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor Dileep and other accused reiterated the clear distinction between the offences of abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. Upon referring to several decisions on this issue, Justice Gopinath P. decided that while an illegal omission or act is necessary to constitute an offence of abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is sufficient to amount to criminal conspiracy.

Excommunication Illegal Under Wakf Act, Infringes Fundamental Rights: Kerala High Court

Case Title : PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

In a notable judgment, the Court has held that ex-communication or externment, whether declared or undeclared, is illegal and impermissible under the Wakf Act. The Court further declared that any bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of the Wakf Property authorising ex-communication is also illegal as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice SV Bhatti and Justice A Badharudeen were deciding a civil revision petition challenging the orders of the Wakf Tribunal and the State Wakf Tribunal.

Municipality Act | Secretary Can Issue Notice, Take Action Upon Finding Illegal Construction Being Carried Out : Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

The Court held that the Secretary of a Municipality is empowered to issue notice and initiate suitable action if a building construction is found to be proceeding illegally within their jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while dealing with a set of appeals filed under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

'Inputs Justify Denial Of Security Clearance' : Kerala High Court Upholds Ban On MediaOne News Channel

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

The Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the license granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne for broadcast. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel) challenging the Union's decision. Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.

Also Read: Natural Justice Principles Have Limited Role In Matters Of National Security : Kerala High Court In MediaOne Case

News Report Claims Devotees Made To Wash Feet Of 12 Brahmins At Temple To Atone Sins : Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

The Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu case. The incident came to light after a Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi published a report on February 4 citing that such a practice was being followed at the temples as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'.

Declaration Proving 'Single' Status Of OCI Acceptable For Marriage Registration If Foreign Embassy Does Not Issue Bachelorhood Certificate: Kerala HC

Case Title: Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

The Court has ruled that when an Indian citizen intends to solemnise their marriage with an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Cardholder, any declaration evidencing their single status would be sufficient to register their marriage in India if the concerned foreign embassy does not issue certificates to that effect due to prevailing laws. Justice N. Nagaresh also opined that this was deemed necessary since no one can be compelled to perform an unattainable task that hinders the registration of their marriage.

Natural Justice To Be Read Into A Statute If It Is Silent On Granting Opportunity Of Hearing To Parties : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

The Court held that even if a statute does not provide for granting an opportunity of hearing to parties, principles of natural justice have to be read into the statute. While allowing a plea moved by a woman who was terminated from service without personal hearing, Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such a termination order was violative of the principles of natural justice.

Can't Dictate Filmmakers To Use Only Decent Language In Films, They Have Artistic Discretion Limited Only By Article 19(2): Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

The Court while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,

Also Read: Plea Against 'Churuli' Movie For Excessive Use Of Abusive Language Dismissed By Kerala High Court [Read Judgment]

Lawyers Should Not Criticise A Judgment Without Reading It, They Should Protect Judiciary : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

The Court while dismissing a petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments on mainstream or social media about a judgment before reading it. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that the lawyers should act as the mouthpiece of the judiciary and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.

Issuance Of Faulty Test Result From Accredited Medical Laboratory Not Cheating If There Was No 'Intention To Deceive': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

The Court ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.

Long Non-Cohabitation Due To Deliberate Avoidance Not Ground For Divorce When Other Spouse Has No Fault & Is Ready To Continue Marriage: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

In a noteworthy judgment, the Court made several important observations on matrimonial cruelty and the scope of revival of condoned matrimonial offences. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking to reverse the order of a Family Court which rejected her plea for divorce finding that she had failed to prove any form of matrimonial cruelty allegedly meted out on her.

Appointment Beyond Advertised Number Of Posts Amounts To Filling Up Of Future Vacancies, Impermissible Under Law : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

The Court ruled that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies are not permissible in law since it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that the impugned advertisement was only for one post and that the candidate who secured the first rank had already joined the post. Under such circumstances, the bank could not have appointed any further person by preparing a rank list.

Teacher Who Administers Moderate Force On Pupil To Enforce Discipline Without Malicious Intention Can't Be Fastened With Penal Liability: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

The Court held that a teacher who administers a reasonable force on a pupil without any malicious intention to enforce discipline in a classroom should not be fastened with criminal liability. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath discharged a teacher against whom the trial court had framed charges, finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against her.

Case Title: Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

The Court has held that if one of the spouses is refusing to accord divorce on mutual consent despite being convinced of the fact that the marriage has failed, it is nothing but cruelty to the other spouse. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that once the court is able to form an opinion that due to incompatibility, the marriage failed and one of the spouses was withholding consent for mutual separation, it can very well treat that conduct itself as cruelty.

K-Rail Silverline Project | Kerala High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Staying Land Survey

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

The Court set aside an interim order issued by a Single Judge directing the State to defer steps for the survey taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project of the writ petitioners' properties until the matters are considered again in February. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly allowed a batch of appeals filed by the State noting that Social Impact Assessment cannot be seen as an empty formality and that the public is entitled to know the adverse impact and consequences they are likely to suffer.

Kerala High Court Directs State Police, Motor Vehicle Dept. To Take Strict Action Against Overloading, Misuse Of Govt Boards On Vehicles

Case Title: Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

The Court has directed the State Police and Enforcement Officials of the Motor Vehicles Department to initiate stringent measures against vehicle drivers/owners found disregarding the Road Safety Policy guidelines, particularly against those who overload their vehicles or use a government nameplate without the requisite authorisation. Justice Anil K Narendran issued certain directions to reinforce the strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy, Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations in the State as directed by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety.

Wife & Children Being Employed Not A Ground To Disregard Special Consideration For Compassionate Allowance : Kerala High Court

Case Title: S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

The Court recently ruled that a government servant who was dismissed from service may not be denied special consideration for compassionate allowance merely for the reason that his wife and children are employed. While allowing a writ petition, Justice V.G. Arun found that although a government servant removed from service is not entitled to pension/ gratuity, the competent authority can sanction compassionate allowance in cases deserving special consideration.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Be Followed By Trial Courts While Sentencing

Case Title: Devarajan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

The Court has recently issued a set of recommendations to be observed by trial courts while sentencing the accused in criminal matters. The guidelines were issued by a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while allowing a criminal appeal, thereby reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by a Sessions Judge on the appellant for murder.

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act | Section 68(1) Includes Inquiry Conducted By Vigilance Officer : High Court

Case Title: Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

The Court recently held that an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act includes the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A of the Act, and that it does not have to be necessarily be done by the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies himself. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha added that merely for the reason that an inquiry under Section 65 can be conducted by the Registrar directly, such a report under Section 65 cannot be placed in a better pedestal than an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer.

Principle Of Locus Standi Alien To Criminal Law, Magistrate Can't Return Complaint Merely Because It Was Filed By Complainant's Wife: Kerala HC

Case Title: Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

The High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate cannot return a complaint merely on the ground that it was filed by the wife of the complainant. Justice K. Haripal also emphasised that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone and that principle of locus standi does not apply in criminal jurisprudence.

Merely Keeping Tobacco Products At One's Residence Not An Offence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Abhijith v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

The Court has recently ruled that mere keeping of tobacco products at one's residence does not attract any offence per se. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed a petition filed by an accused who was charged for storing a collection of tobacco products at his residence, allegedly to sell to children. Since there is no prosecution case that the petitioner had given or caused to be given tobacco products to any minor child, charges under Section 77 of the JJ Act were also dropped.

When Can A Co-Owner Maintain An Injunction Suit To Protect His Co-Ownership Right Over Property? Kerala High Court Enumerates

Case Title: J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

The Court has recently laid down the instances when a co-owner can maintain a suit for injunction to protect his co-ownership right over a property. Justice A. Badharudeen was adjudicating upon a matter where one co-owner was attempting to construct a building in the co-ownership property during the pendency of the final decree proceedings before a trial court. The Court found that construction could not be permitted without the knowledge or consent of other co-owners and added that such construction may cause prejudice to the right of enjoyment of the other co-owners as they wish on separation of shares.

'When A Woman Kills Her Progeny, There's More Than Meets The Eye' : Kerala HC Acquits Mother For Allegedly Killing 9 Yr Old Son

Case Title: Teena v State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

'God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers', quoted the High Court while reversing the trial court's conviction of a woman who was accused of killing her 9-year-old son in an attempt to avenge her disturbed marital life. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that in such cases, there is often more than meets the eye, which sensitivity often the investigators lack. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and that the trial court had erred in the marshalling of facts and scrutiny of evidence.

'Central Govt Has Shown Scant Regard To Hardships Of Litigants': Kerala High Court On Absence Of DRT Presiding Officer

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

The Court recently expressed serious concerns regarding the non-availability of the adjudicatory mechanism of Debts Recovery Tribunal in the State for over ten months despite its efforts to kick start its functioning. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when the fundamental right to have access to justice is denied due to the absence of Presiding Officers of the forum created under a statute, the aggrieved are entitled to approach the High Court.

Duty Of Courts To Safeguard Properties Of Religious Institutions From Wrongful Claims: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

The Court held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a nine-day-long 'Ramakatha' recital programme at Pamba area, encroaching upon the pilgrimage path to the Sabarimala temple.

Marital Confidence U/S 122 Of Evidence Act Jeopardises Public Interest, Requires A Revisit: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

The Court observed that Section 122 of the Evidence Act requires a revisit since it was a legal weapon used by criminals to suppress their crimes, thereby affecting public interest. The said provision recognises the age-old concept of marital confidence, where all communications between spouses during the wedlock are considered sacrosanct. While appreciating the sacrosanctity attached to communications between spouses as laid down by the English Commission of Common Law Procedure report in 1853, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that perhaps it was time to reconsider the stand in the light of modern times.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Operation Of Unauthorised Street Vendors In Kochi

Can't Object To Issue Passports To Children Of Single Parents For Lack Of Court Order: Kerala HC Asks Officer To Pay ₹25K As Litigation Expense

Case Title: Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

The Court recently asked an Assistant Passport Officer in Kottayam to shell out litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 25,000 from his own salary for objecting to re-issue passport to a single parent's daughter. In his order, Justice Amit Rawal has also called it a classic case of highhandedness by the Assistant Passport Officer objecting to re-issue the passport of children of a single parent facing a matrimonial discord and directing them to approach the court and obtain the court order.

'Medical Services' Fall Within Ambit Of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

In a significant decision, the Court has ruled that medical services fall within the purview of the term 'service' defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Observing so, Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a plea filed by a group of doctors who prayed to declare that the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service.

Breach Of Contract | Can't Forfeit Security Deposit Towards Risk Liability In Absence Of Loss/Damage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

The Court has recently ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, one party cannot forfeit the security deposit towards risk liability when they have not suffered any loss or damage. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that it was settled that when the question is one of forfeiture of the security deposit in case of breach of contract, such sum does not ipso facto go to the respondents.

State Can Notify All Corporations, Municipalities & Panchayats U/S 58(f) Of Transfer Of Property Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

The Court has recently held that the State Government is justified in notifying all Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats in the State of Kerala under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby refused to interfere with a State notification in that regard and accordingly dismissed an appeal.

Kerala High Court Notifies Directions For Road Safety Amid Rising Accidents Involving Sabarimala Pilgrims

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

In a judgment that runs beyond 120 pages, the Court has issued a set of directions to ensure road safety and adherence with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the wake of the rising number of accidents reported concerning Sabarimala pilgrims travelling in buses and other contract carriages. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar discovered that despite several guidelines in place, vehicles were being permitted to run on public roads disregarding road safety standards, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of passengers and other road users.

Kerala High Court Drops Proceedings Against Two Nuns Accused Of Sharing Rape Survivor's Photo With Media

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

The Court quashed the proceedings against two nuns for allegedly disclosing the identity of a rape survivor by sharing her photo with the media. The nuns had shared a photograph of the rape survivor along with a few priests via email to three media personnel, however, the name or identity of the survivor was not published in the reports. Moreover, the email contained specific instructions to the recipients to not publish the photograph.

Proof Of Will : Onus Is On The Propounder To Remove Suspicious Circumstances : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

The Court has recently ruled that if there exist suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, it is the onus of the propounder to remove all those reasonable doubts in the matter and the test to be applied in this connection is the satisfaction of judicial conscience.Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S Sudha observed that suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the testator's signature or that the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time when the will was made or that the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them.

No Opportunity Of Hearing Given To Managing Director Imprisoned In UAE: Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Assessment Orders

Case Title: Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

The Court has quashed the income tax assessment order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Managing Director who was imprisoned in UAE. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients, firstly opportunity to show cause and of being heard should be given, it must be a real opportunity and not an unreal one, the right to a fair hearing is essential and secondly, the orders passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing a proper application of mind.

'Unwholesome': Kerala High Court Deletes Bail Condition Imposed On Migrant Labourers To Produce Sureties From State

Case Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.

Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.

No Compensation U/S 73, 74 Contract Act For Mere Breach Of Contract Without Actual Loss/ Damage : Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.

'Allegations Criminal In Nature, Prior Sanction U/S 17A PC Act Prima Facie Not Necessary': Kerala HC Nods To Vigilance Probe Against Ex-VACB Officer

Case Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

S.173 CrPC | Investigating Agency Can Hold Further Probe On Receiving New Information: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case

Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High Court

Kerala High Court Directs 5 College Students Accused Of Ragging Their Juniors To Engage In Social Service For 2 Weeks

Case Title: Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

The Court directed five college students of TKM Engineering College to engage in social service for two weeks, to quash the proceedings pending against them for ragging two junior students. Arguing that they had settled the matter among themselves, the accused had sought to quash the proceedings pending against them. While agreeing to quash the proceedings against them, Justice K. Haripal ordered the petitioners to undergo some kind of social service preferably in the General Hospital for two weeks.

Failure Of The Dealer To Attend Assessment Proceedings, No Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

The Court has held that the failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

'Experience A Relevant Criteria In Selection Process': Kerala High Court Upholds Appointment Of Lecturer At CUSAT

Case Title: Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

The Court has upheld the appointment of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Director of Legal Studies- Dr. Vani Kesari A, by dismissing a petition challenging the selection process. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that it was up to the court to decide if the procedure followed by the statutory selection committee was legal, even if it was deviant from the one prescribed by the statute.

Kerala High Court Aids 10 Year Old Rape Survivor To Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy

Case Title: YYY v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123

The Court came to the aid of a 10-year old girl who was allegedly sexually abused by her father, by permitting her to undergo medical termination of her 8-month (30 weeks) old pregnancy. Finding the plight of the girl who became pregnant at such a tender age 'unfortunate', Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea for medical termination of pregnancy moved by the girl's mother.

Taxpayer Can't Approach High Court To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposits While Availing Appellate Remedy: Kerala HC

Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

The Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting such relief would render the provisions of the Act redundant. The Court also noted that this appeal was preferred as early as March 2020, so the liability to make the pre-deposit befalls on the date of filing of the appeal. This liability cannot be eschewed from reckoning on the basis of subsequent events, which as claimed by the petitioner to be beneficial to it, the Judge noted.

Suit Filed By Minor Without Appointing Next Friend Is A Curable Irregularity: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125

The Court held that a suit filed by a minor without a next friend need not be taken off from the file since the same is a curable irregularity and by filing a subsequent application, the defect can be cured. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the defect can be cured by filing a separate petition for the same and that the suit can be proceeded thereafter. As such, it was held that the appointment of a next friend subsequent to the filing of the suit is not bad in law.

Kerala High Court Reinstates Its Directions On Use Of Flex Boards In State

Case Title: B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126

The Court has reiterated the extensive set of directions it had issued last year on the issue of the use of plastics/flex boards in the State. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recalled the directions in a petition challenging the State's inaction in taking effective measures to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale and usage of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Flex.

Passport Cannot Be Denied To Child On Sole Ground That One Parent Is Non-Indian Citizen : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127

The Court recently ruled that even if one of the parents of a minor child refused to give consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled to issue a passport to the minor, provided the requisite form is submitted. While allowing the petition of a minor girl, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that there is no legal prohibition in incorporating a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child.

Film Production Units Have To Form ICC Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court Orders In WCC's Plea

Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 34273/2018]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128

The Court observed that film production units have the responsibility to form an Internal Complaints Committee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - commonly known as the POSH Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also recorded that AMMA has volunteered to constitute an ICC and added that if AMMA constitutes an ICC as undertaken the same shall be in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act.

Also Read: WCC Case : Kerala High Court Urges AMMA, FEFKA & Other Film Bodies To Form Joint Committee To Redress Grievances Of Women Artists & Employees

Political Parties Not Bound To Establish Internal Complaints Committee Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129

In a significant decision, the Court observed that political parties are not legally liable to establish Internal Complaints Commitee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so in a PIL moved by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA) seeking directions to constitute Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) within political parties in accordance with the POSH Act 2013.

'Stipulated Time Mandatory & Sacrosanct': Kerala High Court Discharges Maoist Leader Of UAPA Charges Citing Delay In State Sanction

Case Title: Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130

The Court discharged alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the word 'shall' in the Act and the Rules cannot be said to be merely directory and pointed out that Section 45(2) specifically speaks of the recommendation of the authority and the sanction by the appropriate Government 'shall' be within such time as prescribed.

Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till March 25

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131

The Court extended the validity of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courttill March 25 considering the difficulties lawyers may have to face if the stay on orders is vacated immediately. As such, a full bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P Chaly disposed of the suo motu petition.

Ancheri Baby Political Murder: Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Mani And Two Other Accused

Case Title: M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132

The Court allowed the discharge application moved by former minister M.M Mani and two others where they sought to quash the proceedings pending against them in the scandalous Ancheri Baby murder case of 1982. Kuttappan and O.G. Madhavan were the other two accused who have been discharged of all charges today. Justice Sunil Thomas acquitted the trio setting aside the decision of the trial court dismissing their plea to drop the charges against them in the case finding that the witnesses were not credible.

Junior In Cadre Can't Draw Higher Pay Than Senior Solely Due To Implementation Of A New Scheme: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133

The Court reiterated that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where the juniors are permitted to draw more salary than seniors in the cadre. A Division Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that if such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of the juniors.

Leave To Criminal Appeal Not Automatic, Can Only Be Granted After Application Of Mind: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134

The Court has recently established that leave to a criminal appeal can only be granted after proper application of mind by the Court to see if arguable points have been raised in the appeal. Justice Kauser Edappagath held so while referring to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475] where it was held that in deciding if leave should be granted, the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised.

Writ Petition To Initiate In-House Inquiry Against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135

The Court recently upheld a Single bench decision that dismissed a couple of petitions seeking the constitution of an In-House Committee to probe into the alleged judicial misconduct against two judges. While dismissing a couple of appeals, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P held that the In-House Inquiry was not a 'law' for a litigant to ask for its enforcement.

Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against K.P Sasikala In Sabarimala Violence Case

Case Title: K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

The Court recently dropped all charges against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K. P. Sasikala for purportedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women in Sabarimala temple in 2018. The said hartal had resulted in large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before this Court to fix liability for the damages caused. Justice K Haripal allowed Sasikala's plea to quash all the proceedings against her, finding no legal evidence to inculpate her in the crime of abetting the unlawful assembly.

'Courts Can't Trench & Pick Holes In The Academic Pasture' : Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Moved By 92 MBBS Students

Case Title: Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137

It was reiterated that courts should steer away from replacing their views in the place of expert opinion in academic matters. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that it is not the domain of courts to trench in the academic pasture and pick holes in it and that it is better to give preference to the opinion of experts in the field in such matters.

Quashing Moral Policing Cases On Settlement Sends Wrong Message To Public : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138

The Court recently ruled that moral policing is an offence that involves mental depravity and that such cases cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement between the accused and complainant. Justice K. Haripal was adjudicating upon a case in which a violent mob had attacked an unarmed man for taking a woman belonging to a different community in his car.

Family Courts Act | Not All Transactions With In-Laws Qualify As Circumstance Arising Out Of Marital Relationship: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139

The Court has ruled that every transaction by either of the spouse or by both of them with the in-laws or relatives cannot be termed as 'in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship under the Family Courts Act, 1984. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas found that the impugned transaction in the plea was purely a business transaction between the son-in-law and father-in-law, and hence held that it cannot be termed as circumstances arising out of a marital relationship.

'Nothing Short Of Ridiculing Their Powers': Kerala High Court Denies CBI Probe For Not Approaching Statutory Authorities First

Case Title: Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140

The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Western Ghats Protection Council seeking a CBI enquiry into the allegedly illegal financial dealings of Kenza Holdings under the guise of a Villa Project. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly refused to entertain the plea noting that the petitioner society had not approached the relevant statutory authorities prescribed by law before seeking an investigation by the CBI.

'A Clear Case Of Injustice': Kerala High Court Directs Post-Office To Disburse Domestic Help's Deposit With Full Interest, Imposes 5K Cost

Case Title: Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141

The Court directed the post-office authorities to disburse the amount deposited by a domestic help under the time deposit scheme with full interest till the date of withdrawal within a month. Finding it to be a case of injustice, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the authorities as litigation cost while adding that the constitutional court cannot be a silent spectator in such situations.

Assessee's Recourse To Constitutional Provisions Not A 'Proceeding Under Income Tax Act' : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

The Court ruled that a Special Leave Petition filed by an assessee under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that while an assessment, appellate, and even revisional proceeding qualify as "proceedings under this Act', one instituted under the Constitution did not.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions For Handling Applications Of Accident Victims Or Their Dependents Under Employees Compensation Act

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143

The Court issued guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities while dealing with applications filed by accident victims or their dependents seeking compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. While disposing of a suo motu petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly accepted the report submitted by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority wherein it had suggested a few mechanisms to establish a proper system for effective consideration of such applications.

Persons Who Purchased A Portion Of Paddy Land After Commencement Of Act Can't Reclaim It For Residential Use: Kerala High Court Overrules Earlier Precedent

Case Title: Sabeena E.K v. District Collector & connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

The High Court held that owners of a portion of a paddy field who purchased it after the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are not entitled to reclaim it for the purpose of residential use. As such, a Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shaji P Chaly and Justice Sathish Ninan overturned the Division Bench decision in Yousuf Chalil v.State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33].

'Unfortunate That Father-Daughter Can't Walk On Public Road Without Being Subjected To Lewd Comments': Kerala HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused

Case Title: Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145

The Court denied anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of injuring a father for questioning him and the other accused for passing lewd comments about his minor daughter. While hearing the matter, Justice Gopinath P. orally remarked that such incidents of father and daughter being subjected to lewd comments while walking on a public road were unfortunate.

Sexual Harassment At Workplaces| Kerala HC Calls For Prompt Re-Constitution Of Local Complaints Committee Under POSH Act Upon Expiry Of Its Term

Case Title: Ukkash A v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146

While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court directed the concerned authorities to take steps to reconstitute the Local Complaints Committee established under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, whenever its term expires. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly disposed of a PIL noting that the provisions of the Act were to be strictly implemented.

Development Permit Not Needed For Residential Building In A Small Plot Just Because It Is Sub-Divided From A Large Plot : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

The High Court has ruled that a Panchayat cannot insist on the production of a development permit from an owner of a small portion of land, which is sub-divided from a large plot, to allow the construction of a residential building on his property as per Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly held that the Rules contemplate an entirely different situation from the purchase of a small plot of land by an individual from a larger area, whether the owner of the property had divided it into various plots and sold it or not.

No Illegality In Senior Lawyer Filing Joint Vakalat Along With Junior Counsel For Client : Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

The Court ruled that once a client authorises an advocate to conduct a case, the advocate is empowered to file a joint vakalat on behalf of the client. Justice N. Nagaresh added that filing a joint vakalat is not a ground to deny any lawyer his professional fee: "The said authorisation would include authorisation to do all that is necessary to conduct and prosecute the case, including filing joint Vakalat along with junior lawyer in the office of the senior lawyer."

Govt Servants Can't Participate In Any Strike; Absence From Work 'Dies Non': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

The High Court barred the government employees from participating in the ongoing two-day nationwide strike organised by the National Convention of Workers against the policies of the Centre while directing the State to declare dies non on the protest days. It declared that the participation of government servants in the ongoing two-day strike is 'illegal'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed the State to issue directions prohibiting the same while adding that no government servant shall participate in the strike as it was against Rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960.

K-Rail Silverline - No Illegality In State Invoking LARR Act For Land Acquisition : Kerala High Court

Case Title: M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150

The Court held that the State government was justified in acquiring land in furtherance of its K-Rail SilverLine Project invoking provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Railways Act, 1989 would not apply to this case since the Silver Line Project was not yet declared as a Special Railway Project by the Centre.