Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: August 2023 [Citations: 363-440]

R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 364

Mohandas v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 365

Kerala State Legal Services Authority v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 366

Dotty Shiby v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 367

Shaju A.N v Rahoof P.K and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 368

M/S. Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 369

Suresh K M v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 370

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 371

P.K.Abdul Salam v. Abdul Jabbar (Deceased) 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 372

Amod Mathew v. A.P.M Mathew & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 373

Nirmala & Ors v. Sundaresan & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 374

Bhaskaran KP v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 375

State of Kerala & Ors. v. Moushmi Ann Jacob 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 376

National Insurance Co Ltd v. Jareesh & Ors 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377

Zulu Haris v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 378

Deepak K. Balakrishnan v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 379

State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 380

Luciya Francis v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 381

XXX & Anr. v. The Health Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 382

Poongottil Prasad v Melattur Grama Panchayat 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 383

Santiago Martin & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 384

Rahib K.Y. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 385

Vineesh v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 386

Joseph John v State of Kerala & Connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 387

Sandhya v Secretary & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 388

Faizal K V v. State of Kerala & Anr 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 389

M/S Srinivasa Builders v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 390

Suo Moto v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 391

Abdul Mujeeb v Suja 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 392

Shajan Scariya v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 393

Thressiamma Jose v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 394

Vineet Ganesh v. Priyanka Vasan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 395

Shaju v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 396

Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 397

Mattanur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v The Co-operative Arbitration Court 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 399

Adv. Hasna Mol N.S. v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 400

Managing Director, KSRTC & Anr. v. S.A. Suneesh Kumar & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 401

Pauly v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 402

Ciby George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 403

Gopi v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 404

Lijeesh M.J. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 405

M A Mohanan Nair v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 407

Prameela L. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 408

Usha Kumari v Santha Kumari 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 409

B.K. Shyamala Kumari v. Ragi Rajendran & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 410

X v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 411

Minimol v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 412

Saiby Jose Kidangoor v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 413

Jagankumar K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 414

Nandakumar N v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 415

Faziludeen v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 416

Rejis Thomas @Vayalar V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

Sreelatha P. T. V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 419

National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Sudeep Kumar 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 420

B.W. Jyothikumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 421

Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Nirmala Padmanabhan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 422

K.O. Antony V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 423

Asif Azad V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 424

Kshetra Upadeshaka Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

State of Kerala V Varghese MA 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 426

Chandhini T.K. V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 427

Naveen v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 428

X v. Y 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 429

Rajayyan v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 430

S Sukumaran Chettiyar V State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 431

Angels Nair V The Principal Secretary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

Case Title: S. Surendran v. State of Kerala and K. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 363

The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail applications filed by former DIG S Surendran and MP, President of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee K. Sudhakaran, in the case pertaining to their alleged involvement in the cheating case involving controversial antique dealer Monson Mavunkal.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. made its interim order granting them anticipatory bail absolute.

CMDRF Misappropriation: Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Lokayukta's Decision Referring Complaint Against CM, Others To Full Bench

Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 364

The Kerala High Court dismissed the plea against order of the Lok Ayukta referring the case against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the former Ministers for alleged misuse of Chief Minister Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF), to a Full Bench comprising the Lok Ayukta and both the Upa-Lok Ayuktas.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun observed that considering that a difference of opinion had arisen between the Lok Ayuktha and Upa Lok Ayuktas, the only option would be to refer the matter in order to decide the same by three members, whereby the decision of the majority would prevail.

"In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere in this matter. The application is dismissed," the Court thus held.

Summons By Criminal Court Affects Image In Society, Suppressing Civil Proceedings To Pursue Criminal Complaint Is Harassment: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mohandas v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 365

The Kerala High Court recently held that approaching a criminal court and filing a criminal complaint subsequent to filing of a civil suit, suppressing the pendency of the civil suit is a form of harassment.

Justice Sophy Thomas, while quashing criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate Court in Thiruvananthapuram observed thus:

“As he had already approached the civil court resorting to the civil remedy, the subsequent criminal complaint filed by him, suppressing pendency of the civil suit, can be viewed only as a weapon of harassment".

State Should Amend Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme And Enable POCSO Victims To Claim Compensation For 'Sexual Harassment': High Court

Case title: Kerala State Legal Services Authority v. state of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 366

The Kerala High Court considered whether victims of sexual harassment can claim compensation under the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 (amended in 2021). The issue arose for the reason that ‘sexual harassment’ punishable under Section 11 of the POCSO Act is not included as an ‘injury’ under the schedule of Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme.

Justice Kauser Edappagath, while upholding the compensation given to the sexual harassment victims held that a beneficial legislation or scheme must not distinguish between victims. The Court opined that the existing schemes are inadequate for compensating victims of sexual abuse under the POCSO Act and held thus:

“….it is obligatory on the part of the State Government to formulate a comprehensive victim compensation scheme specifically for the victims of sexual offences under the POCSO Act or to make necessary amendments in the existing Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 (As amended in 2021) incorporating a separate Schedule applicable to sexual offence victims under the POCSO Act. The State Government shall take necessary steps in this regard forthwith.”

Quarrying Outside Permissible Limits Warrants Police Investigation For Theft: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dotty Shiby v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 367

The Kerala High Court recently took the view that police investigation is necessary in a case involving quarrying of granite stones outside the permissible limits of the quarry area.

State Authorised To Integrate Police Services Unless Unfair To Appointments Made Pre-Integration: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shaju A.N v Rahoof P.K and connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 368

The Kerala High Court recently affirmed the State's authority to validly integrate different services under the Public Service Commission and held that such integration is usually legally sound as long as it is derived from its source of power.

A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas added that the order of integration can only be challenged if there is a lack of fair play, but this applies only to those appointed to different streams before the integration took place.

"The authority of the state to integrate different services cannot be questioned, especially, when it is found out that the order of integration is valid, referable to its source of power. The order of integration can be questioned only when there is no fair play but that would be applicable only to those who have been appointed to different streams prior to the integration."

DGFT Circular Providing 4% of SAD Refund Published On The Official Website Amounts To Public Notice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S. Elite Green Pvt Ltd Versus Under Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 369

The Kerala High Court has held that a circular issued by the Directorate General Of Foreign Trade (DGFT) providing 4% of the Special Additional Duty (SAD) refund published on the official website amounts to public notice.

The bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh noted that when the Circular itself provides that if any exporter claims a refund of 4% SAD, the amount should have been paid in cash. The petitioner did not pay the amount in cash but in scrips. Therefore, under the provisions of the Circular, he was not entitled to the refund of 4% SAD on the Bills of Entries for the year 2014–2015.

Subsequent Bail Plea Cannot Be Filed In Routine Manner, Material Change In Facts Or Law Sine Qua Non: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suresh K M v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 370

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a material change in fact situation or law is sine qua non for the Court to entertain a second application for pre-arrest bail.

Single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath held,

“Even though there is no absolute embargo in filing the subsequent application for pre-arrest bail, it can be entertained only if there is a substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, which requires the earlier view be interfered with or where, the earlier finding has become obsolete. Ordinarily, the grounds canvassed in the earlier application cannot be permitted to be reurged in the subsequent application.”

Devaswom Boards Should Provide Adequate Facilities For Devotees: Kerala High Court Reiterates Amid 'Naalambala Darshanam'

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 371

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the Devaswom Boards and temple managements have a statutory duty to provide adequate facilities and arrangements for devotees during 'Naalambala Darshanam', as per the relevant provisions of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act. 'Naalambala Darshanam' involves visiting four temples and it is an important pilgrimage for many devotees.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar accordingly issued directions to ensure compliance with these statutory obligations and protect the rights of the devotees.

Once Party Enters Agreement To Convey Property, It Cannot Take Defence Of 'Defective Title' In Suit For Specific Performance: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.K.Abdul Salam v. Abdul Jabbar (Deceased)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 372

The Kerala High Court recently considered as to whether a vendor who enters into agreement for sale of property can take the defence of absence of conveyable title in a claim of specific performance.

Justice Sathish Ninan held,

“Having entered into an agreement to convey the same, it is not open for him to defend the claim for specific performance contending that he does not have a conveyable title. It is for the purchaser to opt whether he is willing to take whatever right the vendor has.”

Principle Of Merger Should Not Be Applied Absolutely In Contempt Cases: Kerala High Court Overrules 2011 Decision

Case Title: Amod Mathew v. A.P.M Mathew & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 373

The Kerala High Court held that the principle of merger is not universally applicable to contempt cases and that its application varies depending on the nature of the appellate or revisional order and the statutory provisions conferring jurisdiction.

A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha added that applying it absolutely could lead to anomalies.

"The principle of merger is not a principle of rigid and universal application and its application depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provisions conferring the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. If this principle is applied absolutely, it will lead to anomalous situations."

Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Stranger To Suit Can Challenge Sale If Entitled To Share In Rateable Distribution Of Assets: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nirmala & Ors v. Sundaresan & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 374

The Kerala High Court clarified that a person, including a stranger to the suit apart from the judgment debtor or those claiming derivative title from the judgment debtor, is competent to challenge a sale of property under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC if their interests are affected by the sale.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice A Badharudeen added that the categories covered by this rule include the decree-holder, the purchaser, anyone entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets, and any person whose interests are affected by the sale.

"Going by the facts of the case with particular mention with regard to status of Sundareshan as a person, who obtained decree and applied for execution of the decree, he could very well challenge the sale by filing application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC and his stature is that of “any other person entitled to share in a rateable distribution of assets”. This position has been clarified by this Court in Govindan Master v. Janaki V. & others [2011 (3) KHC 581]. Therefore, it has to be held that a person, who could claim rateable distribution of assets of the judgment debtor/s, has competence to challenge the sale by invoking Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC, though he is not a party to the Suit."

Disciplinary Authority Cannot Take Upon The Role Of Enquiry Officer: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Bhaskaran KP v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 375

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the orders in a disciplinary proceeding because the disciplinary officer took upon himself the role of the enquiry officer, found the petitioner guilty and quantified an amount as personal liability.

Justice Devan Ramachandran, held thus:

“This is because, once the ‘Investigating Team’ had found liability against the petitioner, the matter should have gone back to the Enquiry Officer for completing the disciplinary proceedings because, as I have said above and as is conceded in all pleadings and documents, said Authority had found the charge to be inconclusive for want of proper inputs. Instead of doing so, the Disciplinary Authority took upon himself the role of the Enquiry Officer also, thus to find the petitioner guilty and to finally conclude that the afore figure should be reckoned as his ‘personal liability’. “

Paddy Land Act - 25 Cents To Be Excluded To Compute Conversion Fee Under Section 27A : Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors. v. Moushmi Ann Jacob

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 376

As per a recent Kerala High Court decisions, properties in excess of 25 cents can be converted from paddy land as per Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act by paying by the fee for the land in excess of 25 cents.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun passed the Order in an appeal filed by the Government challenging the Single Judge's order in this regard. The Court noted that the Single Judge had issued the said directive in terms of the statutory provision, Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wet Land Act and the schedule of fees thereunder, and thus found no reason to interfere with the same.

Case Title: National Insurance Co Ltd v. Jareesh & Ors

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 377

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the right of insurance companies to recover compensation amounts from the insured (vehicle owner) if the driver involved in the motor accident did not have a valid driving license, as long as the insurance company proves its defence under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

Justice C. Jayachandran emphasised that the insurer must establish a clear breach of policy conditions by the owner to be entitled to reimbursement and that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in ensuring that the driver had a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

"Insofar as the insurer's claim for reimbursement from the insured, all what is required is to establish a clear breach of a policy condition in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). This Court will further clarify that, if the findings/stipulations in Clauses (iii), (iv) and (vi) are satisfied, the insurer will be entitled to seek complete exoneration of the liability, that is to say, even as against third party; else, the insurer will be duty bound to own the claim as against the third party, but in which case he will have the liberty to seek reimbursement from the insured upon establishing a clear violation of a condition of the policy."

Kerala High Court Directs Commissioner Of Entrance Exams To Consider Medical Aspirant's Request For KEAM Allotment

Case Title: Zulu Haris v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 378

The Kerala High Court recently directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations to consider the case of a student who had qualified the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test (UG)-2023 (NEET), but whose name was not included in the final category list of KEAM-2023 on the ground that she did not upload her NEET (UG) Scorecard.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the said authority to pass appropriate orders in the case within a period of one week.

No Consent For Sexual Act When Victim Was Semi Conscious: Kerala High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Accused Under SC/ST Act

Case Title: Deepak K. Balakrishnan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 379

The Kerala High Court refused anticipatory bail to a college student accused of committing rape upon her junior, after intoxicating her.

While the accused claimed they were in a consensual relationship, Justice A Badharudheen noted that prosecutrix, who is a member of a Scheduled Caste community, had alleged that accused forcefully fed her a cake and some water after which she felt her eye sight was diminishing and she reached a semi unconscious stage.

In this backdrop the bench held that a prima facie case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter, the Act) is made out, barring anticipatory bail.

It therefore dismissed the accused person's appeal stating,

“In this case the specific case of the defacto complainant is that she was subjected to rape after giving her a cake and a bottle of water by the accused and later she felt that her eye sight was diminishing and when she was at a semi conscious stage. In such a case, it cannot be held that the overt act alleged by the defacto complainant is one arose out of consent. Therefore, the prosecution allegations are well made out prima facie and as such anticipatory bail cannot be granted in view of the specific bar under Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST Act.”

State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau Can Investigate Corruption Offences Against Central Govt Employees: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Navaneeth Krishnan and other connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 380

The Kerala High Court recently held that the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) has the authority to register the crime and investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 that are allegedly committed by Central Government employees.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that there was no special provision in the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter, 'PC Act') or the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (hereinafter, DSPE Act') excluding or preventing the State police or a Special Agency of the State from investigating cases relating to the corruption of the Central Government employees.

"None of the provisions of the P.C Act or DSPE Act authorizes CBI or Central Vigilance Commission or any other Central Government Agency alone to investigate in matters relating to the Central Government employees. In the absence of a specific provision in the DSPE Act or PC Act divesting the power of the regular police authorities to investigate into the offences under any other competent law, it cannot be said that the power of the State police or a Special Agency of the State to register a crime and investigate into the offence allegedly committed by the Central Government employees in their State is taken away. For these reasons, I hold that the VACB, being a specially constituted body to investigate into the bribery, corruption and misconduct mainly under the P.C. Act is always clothed with the authority to investigate offences involving corruption that take place within the State, whether it is committed by a Central Government employee or a State Government employee," the Court observed.

Preventive Detention Orders Under KAAPA Issued For Maintenance Of Public Order, Not As Punishment: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Luciya Francis v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 381

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that preventive detention orders under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (hereafter, KAAPA) are issued for maintenance of public order and not as a penal measure.

A division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas held thus:

“The preventive detention law cannot be used as a punitive measure and as a substitute of criminal trial. What cannot be achieved through a trial cannot be achieved through preventive detention. It can be invoked only for maintenance of public order when activities of a person become threat or adverse to the society. The detaining authority failed to address the issue keeping the perspective of the objectives to be secured under the KAA(P)A. In such circumstances, we order that the detention order is illegal and the detenue is set at liberty. He shall be released forthwith.”

'Genital Reconstructive Surgery Without Consent Violates Child's Rights' : Kerala High Court Calls For Regulating Sex Selective Surgeries

Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. The Health Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 382

The Kerala High Court directed the Government to constitute a State Level Multidisciplinary Committee consisting of experts to examine requests for performing sex-selective surgeries on intersex children.

The Committee is to comprise of a Pediatrician/Pediatric Endocrinologist, Pediatric Surgeon and Child Psychiatrist/Child Psychologist.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun also called upon the Government to issue an order for regulating sex selective surgeries on infants and children within three months. The Bench clarified that until such order has been issued, such surgeries shall be conducted only on the opinion of the State Level Multidisciplinary Committee that the same would be essential to save the life of the child.

'Gender' & 'Sex' Distinct Concepts; Right To Choose Gender Is Vested With The Individual : Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX & Anr. v. The Health Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 382

The Kerala High Court embarked upon an elaborate medico-legal discussion on the two concepts of 'gender' and 'sex', in an interesting decision raising the question as to whether the parents of a child with ambiguous genitalia would have the right to decide the gender of the child without the latter's consent and ignorant of the child's orientation.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice V.G. Arun observed that while the terms 'gender' and 'sex' were often used interchangeably in casual conversation, they were, in actuality, two distinct concepts.

"Sex refers to the biological characteristics of a person, particularly in relation to their reproductive anatomy and chromosomal composition. Gender, on the other hand, is a social and cultural construct that encompasses the roles, behaviours, expectations and identities associated with being male-female or non-binary," the Court observed.

Panchayat Vicariously Liable For Acts Of Upper Division Clerk Done In Course Of Employment: Kerala High Court

Case title: Poongottil Prasad v Melattur Grama Panchayat

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 383

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the Panchayat can be held vicariously liable for the acts of the Upper Division Clerk (UDC) committed during the course of the employment.

Holding the panchayat vicariously liable for the security deposit collected by the UDC, Justice N. Nagaresh observed thus:

“In view of the law on Vicarious Liability as discussed above, if any UDC employed by the respondent-Panchayat accepts money and issue the receipts in the course of his employment, the respondents are liable to refund that amount, if the amount accepted is refundable. The fact that a vigilance case is pending and action has been taken against the fraudulent activities of the UDC cannot be an excuse to deny the amounts duly deposited by the petitioner on the basis of the receipts issued on behalf of the Panchayat. The Panchayat is vicariously liable.”

Can't Bypass Remedies Under PMLA Unless Entirely Ill-Suited: Kerala High Court Dismisses Santiago Martin's Plea Against ED Attachments

Case Title: Santiago Martin & Anr v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 384

The Kerala High Court dismissed 'lottery king' Santiago Martin's petition challenging ED's attachment orders freezing his and his company's movable assets under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA).

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that PMLA provides a comprehensive three-tier remedy for such grievances and that the petitioners ought to have exhausted their alternative remedies rather than bypassing them, unless they are unsuitable for the situation.

"a three-tier remedy is provided under the PMLA itself, as fora to alleviate the grievances of those aggrieved. When such a scheme is provided for under the PMLA, petitioners do have an efficacious alternative remedy. These remedies, available under the statute, cannot be circumvented unless they are entirely ill-suited to meet the demands of the situation. Considering the timelines provided and the nature of authorities created under the PMLA, the alternative remedies cannot be regarded as ill-suited to meet the exigency. Any prejudice caused on account of the provisional attachment order can be remedied through the scheme of the Statute itself."

High Level Competency Expected From Public Prosecutors, 3 Yrs Practice Experience For Assistant Prosecutor Appointment Not Arbitrary: Kerala HC

Case Title: Rahib K.Y. & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 385

The Kerala High Court has held that government's decision to stipulate three years practice in criminal courts as an essential condition for appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutors cannot be said to be arbitrary.

Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a plea challenging a notification issued by the Kerala Public Service Commission ('Kerala PSC') in this regard. The bench observed that Assistant Public Prosecutors are expected to prosecute criminal cases and aid the delivery of criminal justice in the State, and that in any case, it is for the appointing authority to decide and fix qualifications of candidates for appointment.

"Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors serve as State’s representatives tasked with upholding the interest of the State and of the general public. They have to carry out prosecutions on behalf of the State effectively. They have a duty to ensure that false accusations against any accused do not result in unfair punishment. It is their prime duty to ensure that justice is served. They have to help the Court to identify relevant facts. They are Officers of the Court who assist in the administration of justice. They must be unbiased, just and truthful. A high level of competency is expected from Public Prosecutors and Assistant Public Prosecutors. The Government therefore will be justified in insisting that they should have a minimum Court experience in conducting cases," the Court observed.

Wooden Stick Can Be Considered As 'Weapon' Under Section 326 IPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vineesh v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 386

The Kerala High Court recently decided whether ‘wooden stick’ can be considered as a ‘weapon’ to attract Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous means or weapons) of the IPC.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. held that the expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon” in the provision gives a broader scope to Section 326. Here, the Court noted that ‘wooden stick’ may not be considered as a weapon in its original form, but it can be considered as an instrument of weapon if it was used to cause grievous hurt. The Court held thus:

"The expression “any instrument which is used as a weapon”, gives a significantly broader scope to the said provision, capable of taking within it, any instrument which does not have the characteristics of a weapon under normal circumstances, provided the same was used as a weapon to cause grievous hut. Thus, the emphasis is on any “instrument which used as a weapon” and it is not necessary that the instrument as such should be a weapon in its original form.”

Students Can't Be Discriminated From Other Passengers While Boarding Bus, Merely For Availing Student Concession Rates: Kerala High Court

Case title: Joseph John v State of Kerala & Connected matters

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 387

The Kerala High Court directed the State Police Chief to issue directions to ensure that law and order problems are not created between students and bus owners/employees, regarding student concession rates.

The Court held that students cannot be discriminated from other passengers while boarding the bus, merely for availing student concession rates.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan noted thus:

“But as long as the student concessions are in force, the owners and the employees of a bus cannot take a discriminative stand against the students while boarding buses, only because they are paying the concession rate. Students and other passengers are on an equal footing. It is the duty of the police to see that there is no law and order problem in connection with the same. The State police chief will issue necessary directions to all its subordinates to avert all such law and order problems because of this rift between the students and the employees of the buses.”

Parole May Be Refused Even To An Eligible Prisoner For Cogent Reasons: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sandhya v Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 388

In an important ruling, the Kerala High Court held that prisoners do not have an inherent right to claim parole or leave and that the right to seek temporary release is contingent on meeting the statutory conditions under the Prisons Act and Rules and the discretion to grant or deny such release lies with the competent authority.

A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that even in a case where a convicted prisoner satisfies the eligibility conditions, the authority is entitled to refuse leave for cogent reasons, clarifying that Rule 397 does not provide an absolute entitlement for leave and that such an interpretation would be incomprehensible as it would prioritise the Rules over the Act.

"For example, if there exists a real threat of a potential breach of peace and tranquility in the locality, or to the safety and security of the prisoner himself as envisaged in subrule (h) to Rule 397, the authority can refuse leave. The same is the case for a convicted prisoner with a high proclivity or propensity to commit crimes. An interpretation otherwise, construing Rule 397 as an absolute entitlement for leave, would amount to the Rules assuming paramountcy over the Act, which is incomprehensible."

Convicts Can't Invoke Section 389 CrPC To Seek Interim Suspension Of Sentence For Short Term Release: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sandhya v Secretary & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 388

The Kerala High Court recently held that Section 389 of the CrPC does not contemplate an interim suspension of sentence and release of the prisoner for short-term requirements such as disease or marriage, while clarifying that such release should be sought under the Prisons Act and Rules through the process of leave or parole.

A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that the provision is meant for suspending the execution of the sentence during the pendency of an appeal on its merits.

"Enabling release under Section 389 for short-term requirements is neither statutory, nor conducive, besides being subversive and in disregard of the special provisions of the Prisons Act and Rules."

S.5 Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act | Magistrate Can Order Accused To Give Handwriting Sample Even In Absence Of Arrest: Kerala HC

Case Title: Faizal K V v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 389

The Kerala High Court recently held that until specific provisions are enacted in CrPC, Magistrates are empowered to order the collection of handwriting samples of accused for investigation purposes and that such orders do not inherently violate Article 20(3) of the Constitution (right against self-incrimination).

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan added that Magistrates have the jurisdiction to pass orders for the collection of measurements and specimen handwriting under Section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act, 2022, even in the absence of the accused's formal arrest, which was further supported by the incorporation of Section 311A into CrPC.

"If a Magistrate believes it is necessary for any investigation or legal proceeding under the Code of Criminal Procedure or any other law, the Magistrate can issue an order directing a person to provide measurements under this Act. The person must comply with the order and allow the measurements to be taken according to the specified directions."

"When an accused person is called upon by the court or any other authority holding an investigation to give a specimen of his handwriting, he is not giving any testimony of the nature of a ‘personal testimony’. The giving of finger impressions or of specimen writing or of signatures by an accused person, though it may amount to furnishing evidence in the larger sense, is not included within the expression ‘to be a witness giving ...specimen writings by way of identification are not included in the expression ‘to be a witness’. It would be pertinent to note that the above observations were made prior to the incorporation of Section 311A and Section 5 of the Act 2022 in the Statute Book."

KVAT Act | Electricity Excluded From 'Goods'; Assessment Order Invalid Unless Compliant With Section 25(1): Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S Srinivasa Builders v. Commercial Tax Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 390

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that electricity is excluded from the definition of 'goods' as per the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT Act) and even if electricity were deemed taxable based on its inclusion in the 1st Schedule, an assessment order would not be sustainable unless all the conditions under Section 25(1) [Assessment of escaped turnover] were fulfilled.

Justice Anu Sivaraman added that in such circumstances, the charge against the petitioner would be limited to an inaccurate return filing rather than concealing taxable turnover or tax evasion.

"Even if the contention of the revenue that electrical energy is included in the 1st Schedule is accepted, there would be no element of escaped assessment since the inclusion of electricity is in the 1st Schedule and no tax is payable. Therefore, the charge against the petitioner could, at best, be one of filing of an incorrect return and not of suppression of taxable turnover or attempt to evade tax. In the above circumstances, the essential ingredient under Section 25(1) would not be available to sustain an order of assessment on best judgment"

Mandatory For Magistrate To Examine Approver Before Committal Of Case: Kerala High Court

Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 391

The Kerala High Court recently held that it is mandatory for the Magistrate to examine an accused who was tendered pardon under section 306(4)(a) of CrPC, prior to committing the case to the Sessions Court.

Section 306 of the Code deals with tendering pardon to an accomplice, who turns approver. An approver is also an accused in the crime, but has now agreed to provide details regarding the crime to aid the criminal proceedings in return of being tendered pardon. Section 306(4)(a) provides that an approver shall be examined as a witness by the Magistrate as well as in the subsequent trial.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, held thus:

“Without examining the person accepting the tender of pardon as a witness, the Magistrate could not have committed the case to the Sessions Court, excluding that person from the array of accused. Such a process is without authority and is irregular…If any of the accused was accepted as an approver, then that person should have been examined before committing the case to the Sessions Court treating him as an approver.”

Payment Of Child's Educational Expenses If Reimbursed By Employer Can't Be Treated As Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case title: Abdul Mujeeb v Suja

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 392

The Kerala High Court considered whether educational expenses paid to the children which were later reimbursed by the father's employer shall be reckoned as payment towards maintenance allowance under Section 125 CrPC.

The provision stipulates payment of compensation to wife, children and parents.

Justice VG Arun stated that educational expenses paid to children which were later reimbursed cannot be treated as maintenance allowance and held thus:

“It is not in dispute that the petitioner had not paid any amount to the first respondent/wife and payments to the other respondents (children) were towards tuition fees and other educational expenses. The object of Section 125 being to prevent destitution and vagrancy by ensuring reasonable allowance towards maintenance, payment of educational expense, which was later reimbursed, cannot be treated as the maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125.”

Video Reflects Secular Views, FIR Appears Motivated: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Shajan Skaria In Priest Humiliation Case

Case Title: Shajan Scariya v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 393

The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by Shajan Skaria in the case alleging that he interacted with a priest through his YouTube channel 'Marunadan Malayali' with the intention to insult a religion.

Case Title: Sajith N.K. v. Jishabai Puthukudi & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 398

The Kerala High Court recently considered the question as to whether an aggrieved party can file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate in relation to offence of perjury (enumerated in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.) and answered the same in the negative.

Thus in this case where the aggrieved party approached the Magistrate Court with a private complaint under Section 200 of CrPC, instead of approaching the Family Court where the false evidence had been given, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath, observed,

"A party who is aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the court, where offences enumerated in Clause (b) of Sub Section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was committed, in initiating action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. ('Perjury') can only move to such court with an application under Section 340(1). He cannot directly move the jurisdictional Magistrate Court with a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C".

Rule 198 Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules | Managing Committee Not Exclusive Authority To Issue Memo Of Charge: Kerala HC Full Bench

Case title: Mattanur Co-operative Rural Bank Ltd. v The Co-operative Arbitration Court

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 399

The Kerala High Court overruled the decision of the division bench in Kodanchery Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Joshy Varghese (2020), which dealt with the interpretation of Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies (KCS) Rules.

A Full Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas, Justice C Jayachandran and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen thus revised the interpretation of Rule 198 and held that appointing authority is not the sole and exclusive authority for framing and issuing memo of charges to the delinquent employees.

“...it is to be held that the view taken by the Division Bench in Kodanchery's case supra [2020 (4) KLT 129], as if the appointing authority (Managing Committee) is the sole and exclusive authority for framing and issuing memo of charges to the delinquent employees, covered by Rule 198 of the KCS Rules, does not reflect the correct legal position.”

Merely Because PSC Issued Hall Ticket Unaware Of Defective Application, Candidate Has No Right To Appear For Exam : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Adv. Hasna Mol N.S. v. Secretary, Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 400

The Kerala High Court dismissed the plea by a candidate who sought to be appointed to the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor, and had also been issued a Hall-Ticket by the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) aspirant but was denied the opportunity to take the examination at the examination hall on the ground of her original application being defective.

Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that since the petitioner herself had conceded that her application did not contain her name or the date on which it was taken, it was thus legally defective.

"The said application, therefore, is legally defective and could never have been acted upon by the PSC; and hence merely because the petitioner was issued a Hall Ticket based on the same by the PSC, being unaware of the said defect, it would not obtain to her any right to write the examination," the Court observed.

KSRTC Can't Use Employees' Pension Contributions To Meet Its Financial Obligations: Kerala High Court Upholds Single Bench Decision

Case Title: Managing Director, KSRTC & Anr. v. S.A. Suneesh Kumar & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 401

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the Single Judge decision directing KSRTC to deposit both the employees' and employer's contributions to the National Pension Scheme (NPS), and the contributions to State Life Insurance Policy and Group Insurance Accounts within six months.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran found no infirmity in the decision of the Single Judge and upheld the same.

“The primary aspect which weigh with us, is the fact that the appellant-Corporation had effected deduction from the salary of the employees' towards their contribution to the National Pension Scheme, the non-remittance of which could not be justified on any legal premise. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, once such deductions are effected, the Corporation is statutorily bound to remit the same to the Contributory Pension Scheme. Non-remittance of the said funds, after effecting the deduction, could obviously indicate diversion of the same for some other purposes of the Corporation, which action can hardly be justified. The Corporation inheres no right to meet its financial obligation by utilizing the employees' contribution to the National Pension Scheme,” the Bench observed.

Non-Conduct Of Test Identification Parade Fatal When Witnesses Not Familiar With Accused: Kerala High Court

Case title: Pauly v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 402

The Kerala High Court that reliance on the identification testimony without conducting a test identification parade was fatal if the witnesses were not familiar with the accused at the time of occurrence.

Justice A Badharudeen added that when the witness is not familiar with the accused, a test identification parade corroborates the testimony of the witnesses.

“It is true that if a witness, who doesn't know the accused at the time of occurrence, had an occasion to see the accused, not as a fleeting glance so as to imprint his face and body structures on his mind with certainly and thereafter identifies the accused at the dock, there is no reason to hold that his testimony in the matter of identification could not be relied on for want of corroboration, by way of test identification parade. But the situation is different when the witness identifies the accused, who is not familiar to him, at the dock and he did not give statement before the police regarding the identity of the accused and the manner in which such identification was imprinted in his mind with certainty, in such cases corroboration by test identification parade should have been resorted to and in such cases, non conduct of test identification parade (TIP) is fatal.”

Relief Under Article 226 Discretionary, Subject To Public Interest: High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging 'Encroachment' By Kochi Metro Rail

Case Title: Ciby George v. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 403

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a resident of an apartment developed by the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) challenging land occupation by the Kochi Metro Rail Limited (KMRL) observing that the plea had potential adverse effects on public interest.

Justice Gopinath P acknowledged that while it is not disputed that KMRL's occupation of private land without due acquisition process is unlawful, granting relief under Article 226 is discretionary in writs of certiorari and mandamus.

"That KMRL could not have occupied any land belonging to private parties (here, the AWHO / Apartment Owners) without subjecting the said land to a process of acquisition is not in dispute. However, in the peculiar facts of this case, the said finding does not mean that this Court must grant relief to the petitioner since the grant of relief under Article 226 is discretionary, and even if the applicant for a writ has made out a case for grant of the relief sought it can be withheld."

Overlooking Difference Between Murder And Culpable Homicide Could Lead To Miscarriage Of Justice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Gopi v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 404

The Kerala High Court recently emphasised the objective nature of determining the legal distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, unrelated to the offender's intention.

A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha added that neglecting the difference between the two can lead to a miscarriage of justice.

"It is trite that if the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder is overlooked, it would result in miscarriage of justice."

Nepotism Allegations: Kerala High Court Dismisses Director Lijeesh's Appeal Against Grant Of State Awards For Malayalam Films In 2022

Accused Avoid Arrest For Years On Strength Of Interim Order In Anticipatory Bail Plea, Courts Must Ensure Disposal Within Six Weeks: Kerala HC

Case Title: M A Mohanan Nair v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

The Kerala High Court stated that time bound disposal of anticipatory bail applications is significant for completion of effective investigation.

Justice A Badharudeen directed the Registrar (Judicial) to ensure posting of anticipatory bail applications where ‘not to arrest’ interim orders were passed before appropriate benches for its timely disposal.

The direction was made after the Court noted hundreds of cases, in which after filing anticipatory bail applications and on getting interim protection ‘not to arrest’ the bail applicants avoided arrest in many cases where very serious offences are alleged to be committed by them. It observed,

"It is disgust to note that in view of the interim order passed by this court ‘not to arrest’, the hands of the Investigating Officer have been chained and therefore, proper investigation of serious crimes, where custodial interrogation, recording of statement of the accused, recovery of weapon-facts, at their instance were curtailed and in such a way the possibility of conviction in serious crimes has been given a go-bye as a result of ineffective investigation."

Classification Of Dr.Reddy’s Senquel-AD As A Mouthwash Or A Medicament: Kerala High Court Remands The Matter Back

Case Title: Dr. Reddys Laboratories Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 407

The Kerala High Court has remitted the issue of the classification of Dr.Reddy’s Senquel-AD as a mouthwash or a medicament for fresh consideration.

The bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. has directed the authority to follow the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise v/s CIENS Laboratories, in which it was held that if a product's primary function is "care" and not "cure," it is not a medicament. Cosmetic products are used to enhance or improve a person's appearance or beauty, whereas medicinal products are used to treat or cure some medical conditions. A product that is used mainly for curing or treating ailments or diseases and contains curative ingredients, even in small quantities, is to be branded as a medicament.

Legal Heirship Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Absence Of Valid Adoption & Supporting Evidence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Prameela L. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 408

The Kerala High Court recently upheld a Single Judge's finding that a Legal Heirship Certificate cannot be issued in favour of a person in the absence of a valid legal adoption and documents evidencing the adoption, so as to enable them to claim compassionate appointment upon the death of the alleged adoptive parent.

A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran added that the lack of any evidence supporting the adoption on record justifies denying the requested relief, upholding the Single Judge's order.

"In the absence of a valid and legal adoption, and in any case, in the absence of documents evidencing the factum of adoption, albeit not in terms of law, we cannot find fault with the respondent authorities in not issuing a Legal Heirship Certificate in favour of the petitioner. More than the absence of a legal document evidencing a legal adoption, what weigh with us to refuse the relief sought for is the complete dearth of evidence suggesting an inference as to the factum of adoption from the materials on record."

Party Pleadings Become Public Documents U/S 74(2) Evidence Act Once Submitted To Court: Kerala High Court

Case title: Usha Kumari v Santha Kumari

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 409

The Kerala High Court has recently held that pleadings of parties filed in a court partake the nature of a public document under Section 74(2) of the Indian Evidence Act.

Justice Sathish Ninan clarified that private party pleadings, upon submission to the Court, transform into public records due to Court custody and association with a public office, falling within the purview of Section 74 (2).

“Though pleadings of a party are private in character, once filed in Court, the Court is to retain custody of the same. Therefore, it becomes a record maintained by the Court which is a public office. Records held by a public office partake the character of public records. Therefore pleadings, which are private documents, once filed in Court, form part of public records kept in the Court, thus attracting clause 2 of Section 74 of the Act.”

Article 227 Can't Be Invoked To Interfere With Lower Court Proceedings Merely On Parties' Requests For Out-Of-Turn Hearings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: B.K. Shyamala Kumari v. Ragi Rajendran & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 410

The Kerala High Court has held that although it possesses the authority to ensure that lower courts and tribunals adhere to their prescribed jurisdiction and functions in accordance with the law, this power granted under Article 227 of the Constitution does not grant the High Court the right to intervene in the proceedings of other courts or tribunals merely based on the request of parties to prioritise their case over previously pending matters.

Justice C.S. Dias relied on Shiju Joy.A v. Nisha (2021) and Prema Joy v. John Britto [2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 235] to add that ‘out-of-turn’ hearings can cause injustice to other litigants and disrupt the order of cases already listed for trial.

"Deviation from the seniority, on the basis of the date of filing, shall be permitted only in exceptional cases and for genuine reasons. Merely because a litigant has the means or resources to approach this Court, with a prayer to expedite his case, he shall not be permitted to jump the queue or steal a march over other litigants, and get an undue advantage," the Bench reiterated.

KeLSA Empowered To Grant Compensation Under Victim Compensation Scheme Without Court Recommendation Except Under POCSO: Kerala High Court

Case Title: X v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 411

The Kerala High Court held that the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) is empowered to grant compensation to victims under the amended Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme without a court recommendation.

Justice Kauser Edappagath added that the amended scheme however did not extend this benefit to minor victims under the POCSO Act, who still require Special Court recommendation to seek compensation.

"Even though till 20/2/2021, DLSA/KeLSA did not have the jurisdiction to grant compensation to the victim suo moto or on application made by or on behalf of the victim except for the claim under sub-section (4) of Section 357A of Cr.P.C., after the introduction of Chapter II in the Scheme, the compensation, interim as well as final, as the case may be, can be awarded by the DLSA/KeLSA either suo moto or on application by the victim or the jurisdictional Station House Officer in respect of the offences covered by the said Chapter...the minor victims under POCSO Act cannot file an application directly to the DLSA/KeLSA seeking compensation. They can claim compensation only on the recommendation or direction from the Special Court."

Decade Passed But Police Unable To Collect Incriminating Material: Kerala HC Grants Relief To Woman Booked For Obtaining Passport On False Docs

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 412

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the proceedings against a woman accused of traveling abroad in violation of the provisions of the Indian Passport Act, 1962.

The petitioner was alleged to have furnished false documents to procure the passport, and crime had thus been registered against her in the year 2014. Thereafter, pursuant to her application, she was granted permission to travel abroad for a period of five years by the Magistrate in 2021.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V., while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, observed that the police had not been able to collect the materials linking the petitioner with the crime, despite the passage of a decade.

"The petitioner's rights to travel abroad are being impeded by the pendency of the crime. She is a mother of two children and her contention is that the pendency of the UN report is impeding her ability to secure better employment as the reference to the crime in the order passed by the learned Magistrate deters her prospective employers from accommodating her in a better job", the Court noted.

Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Advocate Saiby Jose For Allegedly Cheating Client In 2013

Case Title: Saiby Jose Kidangoor v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 413

The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings against Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor, former President of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association, accused of collecting Rs. 5 Lakh from a client's husband for settling the matrimonial dispute between the parties.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. observed that the complainant had filed the complaint in a highly belated manner, and had waited 10 years to file the complaint against the petitioner.

"The complainant cannot plead ignorance to the fact that the petitioner was not representing his wife since 2014. If that be the case, nothing stood in the way of the complainant approaching the police or the court to seek a refund of a sum of Rs 5 lakhs, which by no stretch of imagination can be said to be a merger amount. It is difficult to believe that the complainant did not attempt to move even his little finger to try and get back the amount. The 10-year wait and lack of clarity in the complainant's stance clearly reveal that the objective of the complainant is something else," the Court noted.

Best Marks Obtained To Be Considered When Students Appears For Supplementary Exams In Both 11th &12th Grades: Kerala High Court

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 414

Case title: Nandakumar N v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 415

The Kerala High Court recently held that there must be strict implementation of the provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act, as majority of such cases coming before it involve young persons, adversely impacting the potential growth of the country.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A pointed that stringent conditions are stipulated by the legislature for grant of bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It observed that even for Section 302 of the IPC where death penalty is prescribed as the maximum punishment, no conditions as contained in section 37 of the NDPS Act is stipulated for grant of bail. The Court held that bail is not easily given for offences involving NDPS Act for preventing drug consumption and drug trafficking in the society, which is a menace to the society and is now spreading like an infectious disease.

The bench reasoned,

“This is evidently because of the huge impact of drug abuse and drug trafficking on Society as a whole, as the said impact is not confined to any individual or individuals or his/their family. It is something affecting the society as a whole, by corrupting the minds of the young generation. The consumption of drugs, trafficking thereof and their ill effects are like a contagious disease eating up the youth of the country, thereby causing severe adverse impacts on the potential of the country as such. There is a rampant increase in drug trafficking cases nowadays, and not a single day passes without reports of the detection of drug trafficking cases.”

When Statute Enables Withdrawal Of Voluntary Retirement, Employers Shouldn't Act With Undue Haste & Refuse It: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Faziludeen v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 416

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that a request for withdrawal of an application for voluntary retirement that is made within five days of submitting such application, as enabled by Rule 48-A(4) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, cannot be refused on any premise.

Rule 48-A (4) precludes withdrawal of a notice seeking voluntary retirement except with the specific approval of the appointing authority, provided that such request for withdrawal is made before the intended date of his retirement.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that although the petitioner-applicant had sought for waiver of the notice period of three months while submitting his request for voluntary retirement at the first instance, it was axiomatic that the respondent authorities had acted with undue haste, without arriving at a proper satisfaction required as per statute, to waive the notice period.

The Court added that the very purpose behind affording a notice period in the statute itself is to enable the applicant to take a well considered decision about his career and reiterate his decision to take voluntary retirement, so that the same is not actuated by any extraneous feelings or emotions, at the spur of a moment.

"That precisely should be the reason for an enabling provision to withdraw a request for voluntary retirement, before the retirement is to take effect in accord with the statute. In the given facts, we are not in the least hesitant to observe that the purpose of notice period is frustrated. We are of the view that the respondents, being representatives of an entity under the Union Government, ought to have acted with all fairness, as a model employer, guided not merely by the letter of the Rules but by its spirit as well, with a topping of compassion and humane considerations, wherever it deserves," the Court observed in this regard.

Mere Lack Of Motive In Absence Of Proof Of 'Legal Insanity' Will Not Attract Exception Of Unsoundness Of Mind U/S 84 IPC: Kerala High Court

Case title: Rejis Thomas @Vayalar V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 417

The Kerala High Court held that every person who is mentally diseased is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. Court added that mere lack of motive will not bring a case within the ambit of Section 84 of the IPC to take general exception of unsoundness of mind.

A Division bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha held that intent and act must concur for constituting a crime, but in the case of insane persons, no culpability can be fastened on them as they have no free will. Court added that the benefit of unsoundness of mind is available only if it is proved that during the commission of the offence, the accused due to defect of reason and disease of the mind was unable know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or that it was contrary to law.

It observed thus:

“It is only unsoundness of mind which naturally impairs the cognitive faculties of the mind that can form a ground of exemption from criminal responsibility. The law recognises nothing but incapacity to realize the nature of the act and presumes that where a man's mind or his faculties of ratiocination are sufficiently dim to comprehend what he is doing, he must always be presumed to intend the consequence of the action he takes. Mere absence of motive for a crime, howsoever atrocious it may be, cannot, in the absence of a plea and proof of legal insanity, bring the case within this section.”

Case title: Rajesh V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 418

The Kerala High Court held that Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, 1972 (Antiquities Act) does not restrict a person’s right to hold any antiquity such as an idol, irrespective of its age.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held thus:

“….it is evident that the Antiquities Act does not restrict the right of a person to own or possess an art, artifact or an antiquity. If an antiquity is owned or possessed by a person, law restricts that antiquity from being taken out of the country. If there is any antiquity in the possession of a person which has an age of more than 75 years, it is required to be registered with the Director of Archaeological Survey. However, if in case such registration is not done, no consequence is envisaged under the Antiquities Act. Further, if in case the Central Government wants to possess and own an antiquity, they will have to acquire it by paying compensation. In view of the above analysis of the statutory provisions of the Antiquities Act, it is evident that a person is entitled to possess any idol, irrespective of its age.”

Kerala Education Rules | Employees Facing Disciplinary Action For Unauthorised Absence Cannot Rejoin Duty: High Court

Case title: Sreelatha P. T. V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 419

The Kerala High Court recently held that an employee who has been in unauthorized absence from service and against whom disciplinary proceedings have already been formally initiated cannot be allowed to rejoin the duty.

Justice Viju Abraham added that disciplinary proceedings are considered initiated only upon the issuance of the memo of charges and in such cases, it might impact the eligibility of the employee for immediate reinstatement.

“Therefore, I am of the view that the request of the petitioner to permit her to rejoin duty, pending disciplinary proceedings cannot be accepted.”

Employee Leaving Service On Retirement Or Resignation Has No Right To Claim Leave Encashment Unless Enabled By Statute: Kerala High Court

Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. S. Sudeep Kumar

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 420

The Kerala High Court recently held that an employee who leaves his service either on retirement, voluntary or otherwise, or on resignation, would have no vested or inherent right to claim leave encashment, unless it is otherwise enabled by the statute, rules, or norms regulating the conditions of service.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran, made the above observation while considering an appeal preferred by the National Insurance Company seeking to set aside the Single Judge's order directing the Company to disburse leave encashment to the employee on the ground that the same is part of the salary.

Three Agencies Including CBI 'Blotched-Up' Investigation: Kerala High Court Acquits Jyothikumar Sentenced To Life For Patricide

Case Title: B.W. Jyothikumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 421

The Kerala High Court recently set aside the conviction and sentence of B.W. Jyothikumar who had been accused of patricide back in 2007.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha lamented the 'blotched-up' manner in which the investigation was conducted as a result of which the culprit would 'scot-free'.

"Inspite of three agencies conducting the investigation they have been unable to give an answer to the question, ‘whodunit’. Even the CBI seems to have been groping in the dark with no definite leads or clue leading them to the culprit. The CBI has established some points to suspect the accused. Suspicion, however grave, is not sufficient to find the accused guilty of the offences alleged against him. The links in the chain of circumstances leading to the hypothesis that it is the accused and no one else who has committed the crime, has not been established. The chain of evidence is not complete as to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and accused alone. Hence in these circumstances we are afraid we will have to give the accused the benefit of doubt. The trial court, in our opinion, went wrong in relying on the aforesaid unsatisfactory evidence to conclude that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond reasonable doubt," the Court observed, while allowing the appeal.

Court Where Cheque Is Presented For Collection Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Dishonour Complain U/S 138 NI Act: Kerala High Court

Case title: Alfa One Global Builders Pvt. Ltd v. Nirmala Padmanabhan

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 422

The Kerala High Court has held that the word ‘delivered’ used in Section 142(2)(a) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ("NI Act") has no significance for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. Rather, significance must be given to the text ‘for collection through an account’. That is to say, delivery of the cheque takes place where the cheque was issued and presentation of the cheque will be through the account of the payee or holder in due course, and the latter place is decisive to determine the question of jurisdiction.

The Bench comprising Justice A. Badharudeen while dismissing the writ petition has observed that when an issue of jurisdiction arises, the challenge upon jurisdiction has to be raised before the same court and it cannot be a subject matter of writ petition.

Mere Retention Of Blank Signed Cheques Without Misappropriation Does Not Attract Criminal Breach Of Trust: Kerala High Court

Case name: K.O. Antony V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 423

The Kerala High Court recently held that mere retention of blank signed cheques by the entrusted person without any misappropriation cannot fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 of the IPC.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V held added that for attracting the offence of criminal breach of trust, the entrusted person must misappropriate or dishonestly use the property entrusted to him for his own use. The Court held thus:

“There is no case for the prosecution that the petitioner has dishonestly misappropriated property entrusted to him contrary to the terms of an obligation imposed. Admittedly, except for retaining blank cheques in his possession, the petitioner has neither dishonestly used nor disposed of the same.”

"Frivolous Litigation": Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Of Criminal Complaint Against 48 High Ranking Bureaucrats, Police Officials

Case title: Asif Azad V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 424

The Kerala High Court upheld the order of a Magistrate dismissing a vexatious compliant filed against 48 high ranking bureaucrats and police officials of the State.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while dismissing the revision petition, noted that the petitioner had filed the complaint by extracting various statutory provisions with vacuous allegations without any material to substantiate them. The Court held thus:

“As pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor, the complaint filed by the revision petitioner is undoubtedly an abuse of the process of the court. On an appreciation of the circumstances arising in the case, this Court is of the view that the learned Magistrate was justified in dismissing the complaint, nipping off, at the threshold itself, a frivolous litigation.”

Temple & Its Affairs Can Only Be Administered By Trustee: Kerala High Court Affirms Devaswom Board's Authority In Temple Land Dispute

Case Title: Kshetra Upadeshaka Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 425

The Kerala High Court, in a dispute pertaining to the encroachment of 65 cents of land of Kootholikavu Sree Bhagavathy Temple, laid down that the Travancore Devaswom Board would not be barred from taking action for repossession of the property, although the said parcel of land had not been handed over to the Board, pursuant to the change of trustee of the Temple.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar reasoned that a temple and its affairs can only be administered by a human agency, which is the trustee of the Deity.

"A Temple and its affairs can be administered only by a human agency, be it private or public; incorporated or unincorporated. Such agency is the trustee of the Deity. When the Travancore Devaswom Board assumed the Kootholikavu Temple, its legal effect is that in place of the earlier trustee of the Deity the Travancore Devaswom Board came in as the new trustee. In law, what all properties, both tangible and intangible, the Deity had would continue to be with the Deity. The Travancore Devaswom Board as the new trustee of the Deity becomes the authority in the management of all such properties of the Deity," the Bench observed.

Govt Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Delay Or Inaction: Kerala High Court

Case title: State of Kerala V Varghese MA

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 426

The Kerala High Court recently held that the Government cannot exploit its delay to take action to its advantage and to the detriment of the employee.

A division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C Jayachandran came to the conclusion while considering the proposal for sanctioning and regularising the post of a part-time sweeper, to which he was otherwise entitled.

“A subsequent change of the Krishi Bhavan to another premises, the sweeping area of which is allegedly less than 100 sq.m., would not disentitle the sanctioning of the post and the consequent regularisation of the applicant, to which he was otherwise entitled to, as on the date of Annexure-A2 G.O., as evident from Annexure-A3. Inasmuch as the Government chose to sat over the proposal and delayed the same, the Government cannot be permitted to take advantage of its own inaction.”

Husband's Girlfriend Or Woman Who Has Sexual Relations With Him Outside Marriage Cannot Be Prosecuted U/S 498A IPC: Kerala High Court

Case title: Chandhini T.K. V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 427

The Kerala High Court recently held that the term 'relative' appearing in Section 498A of IPC would not include husband's girlfriend, or a woman with whom a man has sexual relationship outside of marriage.

Section 498A, IPC defines and provides punishment for cruelty committed by the husband or relative of the husband of a woman.

Justice K. Babu added that Section 498-A being a penal provision, has to be construed strictly. The Court held thus:

"The specific language of the Section and the Explanation thereof lead to the conclusion that the word 'relative' would not include a woman with whom a man has had sexual relations outside of the marriage. By no stretch of imagination, a girlfriend or even a woman who maintains sexual relations with a man outside of marriage in an etymological sense would be a 'relative'. The word 'relative' brings within its purview a status. Such status must be conferred either by blood or marriage, or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise. S.498A, IPC being a penal provision, would deserve strict construction, and unless a contextual meaning is required to be given to the statute, the said statute has to be construed strictly.”

Flawed Investigation, Lack Of Evidence: Kerala High Court Acquits 7 RSS Workers Booked For Murder Of CPI(M) Activist

Case title: Naveen v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 428

The Kerala High Court acquitted seven members of the RSS who were allegedly involved in the murder of CPI(M) activist, Shihab.

A division bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha stated that they were constrained to acquit the accused not because they are were not the real culprits, but because of flawed investigation and lack of evidence. It held thus:

“…we are constrained to acquit the accused not because we find that they are not the real culprits in the case, but because of the flawed investigation and lack of evidence. We do not find fault with the investigating officer in proceeding with the investigation in the case on the premise that on the facts of this case, the activists of the rganization, RSS must have committed the crime. Our anguish on the other hand, is with regard to the manner in which he jumped into the conclusion without collecting sufficient materials that it is the accused who committed the crime.”

In A First, Kerala High Court Orders Appointment Of Independent Counsel To Represent Child In Custody Case

Case Title: X v. Y

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 429

In an unprecedented move, the Kerala High Court directed the appointment of an independent counsel for rendering pro bono legal services to represent a child in a custody battle between its parents.

While passing the order, the Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that often, the best interests of children are not properly represented in the 'wrangle' between the mother and father.

'Cannot Rule Out Possibility Of Genuine Fatherly Affection': Kerala HC Grants Bail To 77-Year-Old Accused Of Inappropriately Touching, Kissing Girl Child

Case Title: Rajayyan v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 430

The Kerala High Court granted bail to a 77-year-old man alleged to have inappropriately touched a 10 year old girl, and kissed her cheeks.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. expressed doubt as to whether the alleged acts had been committed by the petitioner with sexual intention.

"...on going through the contents of the statement, there is some doubt as to whether the said acts were committed by the petitioner with any sexual intention or not. While considering this question, the fact that, the petitioner is a person aged 77 years, is very much relevant, as a possibility of a genuine fatherly affection cannot be ruled out. Anyhow, it is a matter to be investigated and proved, I am not intend to adjudicate on the said question. However, since there is some shadow doubt as to the intention of the petitioner, I am of the view that, a lenient view is required to be taken in this matter," the Court observed.

Police Officer Who Registered Suo Moto Case Can't Be Asked To Compensate Accused U/S 250 CrPC Upon Acquittal: Kerala High Court

Case title: S Sukumaran Chettiyar V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 431

The Kerala High Court recently held that a police officer who registered a a suo moto case cannot be asked to compensate the accused after acquittal under Section 250 of CrPC.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that under Section 250 CrPC, compensation can only be ordered when a case was instituted upon a complaint or upon information given to a police officer. It held thus:

“The said provision contemplates specific instances when such compensation can be ordered. The provision commences with the words “instituted upon complaint or upon information given to a police officer or to a Magistrate”. The intention of the legislature is very clear from the words used, since the code has defined the terms ‘complaint’ in Section 2(d) Cr.P.C., as excluding a police report.”

Consider If Further Conditions Warranted For Permitting Use Of Forest Land For Non-Forest Purposes Like Film Shoot: Kerala HC To Govt

Case title: Angels Nair V The Principal Secretary

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 432

The Kerala High Court directed the State government to consider if further conditions have to be issued while granting permission to use forest land for non-forest purposes like shooting movies, so as to ensure that no damage is caused to the forest and wildlife.

Justice Viju Abraham, held thus,

“The respondents are also directed to consider whether any further additional conditions need be imposed in the matter while granting permission to use the forest for non-forest activities like the one done in the present case, so that no damage is caused to the forest and wild life. With the above said direction WP(C) No.7107 of 2020 is disposed of.”

Speedy Trials Spirit Of Article 21: Kerala High Court Quashes 12 Yrs Old Cruelty Case Against Husband

Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24828 OF 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the State authorities to provide basic facilities such as food, drinking water and medical treatment to the tribal families in Pothugal, Vazhikadavu, and Karulai villages in Nilambur Taluk.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun passed the order in a plea filed by the former Chairperson of Nilambur Municipality, Aryadan Shouketh, and a social worker residing in Vaniyampuzha colony in Pothugal Grama Panchayat.

Can POCSO Victim's Right To Compensation Be Forfeited To Protect Right To Privacy? Kerala High Court To Consider

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl.MC 5136/ 2023

'Migrant Worker's 5-Yr-Old Raped & Killed In Broad Daylight': Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks Enforcement Of Labour Laws, Welfare Measures

Case Title: Satheesh V.T. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: W.P.(C) 25306 of 2023

In wake of the brutal rape and murder of a girl child from a migrant labourer family hailing from Bihar, a plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the State authorities to take effective steps to enforce Labour Laws and welfare measures.

The child went missing on July 28, 2023. She was strangulated and dumped into a waste yard in Aluva market. The police arrested accused Asafaq Alam, also a migrant labourer, in a highly inebriated condition on the same day.

The plea moved by a lawyer seeks the State to ensure safe, hygienic and healthy working conditions for for the migrant workers, and also for ensuring that their employment is preceded by proper registration.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun on Wednesday issued notice and sought the response of the State authorities in the matter.

Kollam Doctor Murder: Accused Sandeep Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail, Says He Was Under Influence Of Sedatives

Case Title: Sandeep v. State of Kerala

Case Number: BAIL APPL. 6522/ 2023

Sandeep, the sole accused in the brutal murder of the 23 year old house surgeon Vandana Das, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail.

The matter is before the Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A.

In May 2023, the house surgeon on duty at Kottarakkara Taluk Hospital, Dr. Vandana Das, was allegedly stabbed multiple times by Sandeep, who is a school teacher. The alleged attacker was brought to the hospital by the police for treatment of his injuries. The prosecution case is that while the petitioner was being treated, he turned violent and stabbed Dr. Das with dressing room scissors. It was alleged that despite the victim-doctor attempting to flee from the attack, the petitioner-accused followed her and proceeded to attack her.

State To Provide Necessary Facilities To Ensure Timely Examination Of Contraband Articles In NDPS Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anuraj v. State of Kerala

Case Number: BAIL APPL. NO. 5549 OF 2023

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to provide necessary facilities for ensuring the timely examination of contraband articles in NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances) cases.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. issued the interim order taking note of the inordinate delay in most cases in getting the scientific examination report to identify the alleged contraband article.

"On account of such delay on the part of the authorities concerned to get the contraband article identified, through a proper scientific examination, the accused persons are being faced with prosecution, for more severe offences and consequential incarceration. This is causing difficulties to the court as well as the persons involved in the same," the Court observed.

Kerala State Mediation & Conciliation Centre Set To Launch 'NIRNAYA Scheme' On August 5

The 'NIRNAYA Scheme' for extending mediation services to all disputes within the State, with the exception of those pending before Courts, is set to be launched under the aegis of the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre (KSMCC).

It is on noting that formal adversarial litigation might not be suitable for complex multi-party civil litigations, and that mediation would be an effective platform to resolve disputes and differences involving large number of individuals and groups who have invested money in huge infrastructure projects, that NIRNAYA was introduced by the KSMCC.

Whether Family Court Has Jurisdiction To Entertain Plea Seeking Reliefs Under Domestic Violence Act? Kerala High Court Appoints Amicus Curiae

Case Title: George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors.

Case Number: OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2022

The Kerala High Court is set to decide whether Family Court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition seeking reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas appointed Advocate M. Ashok Kini as the amicus and posted the matter for consideration on August 10.

Kerala High Court Suggests Govt To Undertake Study For Use Of "7 Lakh Tons" Legacy Waste Lying At Brahmapuram In Road Construction

Case Title: Suo moto v. State of Kerala

Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 7844/ 2023

The Kerala High Court orally suggested the State government that an expert study can be conducted to see if legacy waste at Brahmapuram can be used for the construction of roads.

As per the Ernakulam District Collector, N S K Umesh, 7 lakh tons of legacy waste is lying at Brahmapuram. The site recently garnered a lot of media attention after a massive fire broke out at the waste management plant, shadowing nearby areas with smoke.

Leaving India And Unable To Receive Notice Is Not The Commission’s Responsibility, Kerala State Commission Refuses To Condone 2,279-Day Delay In Filing Appeal

Case: Jayagopal K v. Pradeep Cholayil

Case No.: First Appeal No. A/597/2022

Recently, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Thiruvananthapuram bench, comprising of Ajith Kumar (Judicial Member), Beena Kumary (Member), and Radhakrishnan K.R. (Member), refused to condone a delay of 2,279 days in filing of an appeal and held that condonation of delay could not be claimed as a matter of right. Further, the Commission held that once the District Commission delivered the notice and order on the assigned address of the party, it would be considered deemed service. If there is a change in the address or if the party has left the country, it is the party’s responsibility to give instructions to the postal authorities to deal with the communications received at his address.

The Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre (KSMCC) officially launched NIRNAYA Scheme, a private mediation process for the resolution of disputes outside the convoluted court procedure. The Scheme was officially launched at the Kerala High Court Auditorium.

The NIRNAYA Scheme aspires to create a harmonious and co-operative dispute resolution mechanism in different fields such as commerce and film production industry, particularly, the disputes pertaining to construction of apartments.

Diagnostic Centre Not Liable For Unforeseen Circumstances Due To Genuine Test Results; Kerala State Commission Dismisses Complaint

Case Title: Shaji David vs Shafa Diagnostic Centre

Recently, the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram bench, presided over by Jith Kumar (Presiding Member), with Beena Kumari (Member) and Radhakrishnan (Member), dismissed a complaint regarding wrong diagnosis by a diagnostic centre. The Complainant failed to prove that the TPHA (ELISA) test reports granted by the diagnostic centre were faulty. The Commission further rejected the Complainant’s contention that due to wrong reports, his visa for Kuwait was rejected and that the diagnostic centre must compensate him.

Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges State Awards For Malayalam Films 2022 Alleging Nepotism, Bias

Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) 25915 of 2023

Malayalam Movie Director, Lijeesh M.J., has moved the Kerala High Court seeking the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022 to be set aside.

The Director of the Malayalam Movie, 'Aakaashathinu Thaazhe' has alleged that the declaration of the Awards was vitiated on account of bias and nepotism exercised by Ranjith, the Chairman of the Kerala State Chalachitra Academy.

Lord Ganesha Myth Remark: NSS Vice President Sangeeth Kumar Moves Kerala High Court For Quashing FIR Over Prayer Rally

Case Title: Sangeeth Kumar v State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl MC 6332/2023

Vice President of the Nair Service Society (NSS) Sangeeth Kumar has moved the Kerala High Court seeking quashing of the FIR registered against him and about a persons for holding a prayer rally to demonstrate against Kerala Assembly Speaker AN Shamseer's remarks about Lord Ganesha, allegedly without permission.

Speaking at an inaugural event in a school in Ernakulam, Shamseer reportedly said that Lord Ganesha is a 'myth'. The Hindu organisation said it will take legal recourse if the government fails to take appropriate steps in the matter.

Kerala Court Acquits MP Hibi Eden, LoP VD Satheeshan, 6 Other Congress Leaders In 2020 Case For Participating In Protest During COVID-19

Case Title: State v. Hibi Eden & Ors.

A Kerala Court recently acquitted eight Congress leaders in the case alleging that they had organized themselves into an unlawful assembly in the year 2020, so as to spread COVID-19, thereby flouting then in force government orders and guidelines of the health department in this regard.

The case was registered in June 2020 against Member of Parliament Hibi Eden, Leader of Opposition VD Satheeshan, the Members of Legislative Assembly TJ Vinod, Anwar Sadath, and Roji M. John, and Congress Leaders V.P. Sajeendran, M.P. John and Tony Chammani.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Ernakulam, Naina K.V., passed the Order noting that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence to prove the allegations.

Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar Of Kerala High Court Awarded Doctorate In Law

Judge of the Kerala High Court, Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, was awarded a Doctorate in Law by the O.P. Jindal Global University at a convocation ceremony held in New Delhi on Monday.

Kerala High Court Refuses For Now Stay On Grant Of Malayalam Film Awards 2022, Seeks State's Response On Director's Plea

Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. @ Lijeesh Mullezhath v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) 25915 of 2023

The Kerala High Court sought the response of the State government on the plea filed by Malayalam Movie Director, Lijeesh M.J., seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Basant Balaji declined to grant a stay for now on the distribution of the Awards scheduled on August 17, 2023. However, it listed the matter on August 11, i.e. before the Award distribution ceremony seeking State's response.

Kerala Court Convicts Man For Making More Than 300 Phone Calls To Police Station To Harass Woman Police Officer

Case Title: State v. Jose R.

A Kerala Court recently convicted a man for making more than 300 phone calls to the official phone of Vanitha police station, Kochi city, in order to harass a woman Civil Police Officer.

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam, Sajini B.S. sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and imposed with a fine of Rs. 15,000.

Kerala Court Orders Conditional Attachment Of Police Sub-Inspector's Property For Prima Facie Custodial Torture Of Kollam Lawyer

Case title: C Jayakumar v G Gopakumar & Ors

Case number: IA 1/2022 in OS 55/2022

A Kerala Court has ordered conditional attachment of a Police Sub-Inspector's property for prima facie custodial torture of a Kollam based lawyer.

Sub Judge Santhosh Das at Karunagapally has also asked the officer to either furnish security of ₹25,00,000 or show cause why he shall not furnish the security, by October 19.

Female Students Of Mar Athanasius College At Kothamangalam Approach Kerala High Court Against 'Discriminatory' Hostel Entry Timings

Case Title: Rachel Mathew & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) 25929 of 2023

A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by 33 female engineering students of Mar Athanasius College, Kothamangalam, against the imposition of hostel entry deadline as 6:30 PM for the female students.

Single Judge Bench of Justice Basant Balaji has listed the case on Friday along with other connected cases.

Kerala High Court Directs WCD Secretary To Propose Steps To Ensure Children Are Not Compelled To Perform 'Theyyam' Ritual Dance

Case Title: Dhisha v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (C) 15800/ 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the Secretary, Department of Woman and Child Development to file an affidavit detailing the concrete steps that would be taken to ensure that children would not be compelled to perform the ritualistic dance performance of 'Thee Chamundi Theyyam'.

Take Steps To Ensure Education For Tribal Children, Medical Facilities For Their Families In Nilambur Taluk: Kerala High Court To State

Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24828 OF 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the State to come out with steps to ensure that education of tribal children and medical facilities for tribal families in Pothugal, Vazhikadavu, and Karulai villages in Nilambur Taluk are not hindered.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun was considering the plea filed by the former Chairperson of Nilambur Municipality, Aryadan Shouketh, and a social worker residing in Vaniyampuzha colony in Pothugal Grama Panchayat, alleging "grave human rights violation and injustice" faced by the tribal communities in the aforementioned villages.

The Court orally remarked:

"Our immediate priority at present is regarding the reconstruction of the bridge, ensuring that the education of children is not suffered, provision of medical facilities, and toilet facilities. For medical facilities, they have to cross the river...pregnant ladies find it impossible to do so for hospitalization, and so on".

Lord Ganesha Myth Remark: Kerala High Court Stays Proceedings Against NSS Members For Four Weeks

Case Title: Sangeeth Kumar v State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl MC 6332/2023

The Kerala High Court stayed for four weeks all proceedings in connection with a crime registered against Nair Service Society Vice President Sangeeth Kumar and 1,000 identifiable persons purported to be NSS office bearers and activists, for holding a prayer rally to demonstrate against Kerala Assembly Speaker AN Shamseer's remarks about Lord Ganesha, allegedly without permission.

The interim relief was granted by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V while his plea for quashing the FIR dated August 3.

Original Petition Seeking Reliefs U/S 18-22 Domestic Violence Act Maintainable Before Family Court: Amicus Curiae To Kerala High Court

Case Title: George Varghese v. Treesa Sebastian & Ors.

Case Number: OP (FC) NO. 539 OF 2022

The Amicus Curiae appointed by the Kerala High Court in a case seeking reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter, 'DV Act, 2005'), Advocate Ashok Kini M., has submitted that an original petition seeking reliefs under Sections18-22 of the Domestic Violence Act is maintainable before the Family Court.

The previous week, a Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas had appointed the amicus to aid the Court in ascertaining whether the Family Court would have jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.

Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Bail Appl. 3273 of 2022

The Kerala High Court appreciated the efforts taken by Kerala State Legal Services Authority, State Government and the SCERT in taking various steps to create awareness about sexual offences amongst school going children.

Nepotism Allegations Against 2022 Kerala State Awards: Director Lijeesh Files Appeal Against Single Judge's Order Dismissing His Plea

Case Title: Lijeesh M.J. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: W.A. 1446/ 2023

Malayalam Cine Director Lijeesh M.J. has moved an appeal in the Kerala High Court against the Single Judge's dismissal of his plea seeking to set aside the declaration of Kerala State Awards For Malayalam Films & Writings On Cinema 2022.

Lack Of Valid Building Permit: Ernakulam Consumer Forum Orders Refund Of Sale Consideration And Compensation To Flat Buyer

Case Title: Jeko Antony v Galaxy Homes Private Limited

Case Number: CC/21/419

Recently, the Ernakulam District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, comprising of D B Binu (President), Ramachandran V (Member) and Sreevidhia T N (Member) ordered a compensation of rupees fifty thousand along with a refund of rupees two lakhs twenty five thousand at an interest rate of 9.5 per cent to a flat buyer aggrieved by lack of a valid building permit.

The Commission held that the flat construction company were liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices. It held thus:

“The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.”

Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Grant Of Anticipatory Bail To 57 Yrs Old Man Accused Of Sexually Assaulting 7-Yr-Old

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

Case Number: Crl.MC 6578 of 2023

A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court against the grant of anticipatory bail to a 57 years old man accused of sexually assaulting a minor aged 7 years. The plea has been moved by the mother of the minor victim.

The accused was alleged to have committed the offence in May, 2022. The petitioner averred that in spite of informing the police on the very next day of the incident, the FIR was not registered. The petitioner claims that it was only pursuant to the repeated enquiry from the side of the victim's family that the FIR was registered on July 21, 2023.

Kerala High Court Seeks Centre's Response On Santiago Martin's Appeal Against ED Attachments

Case Title: Santiago Martin & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WA 1450/2023

Supreme Court Collegium Recommends Appointment Of Justice CS Sudha As Permanent Judge Of Kerala High Court

The Supreme Court Collegium, headed by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, has recommended the appointment of Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court, Justice C.S. Sudha, as a permanent judge.

The Collegium has consulted with Judges of the Supreme Court who were conversant with the functioning of the High Court of Kerala. Based on evaluation, the Collegium noted:

“With a view to assess the merit and suitability of Smt Justice C S Sudha for appointment as permanent Judge, we have scrutinized and evaluated the material placed on record. Having taken into consideration all aspects of the matter, the Collegium is of the view that Smt Justice C S Sudha, Additional Judge, is fit and suitable for being appointed as permanent Judge.”

'Bank Liable If Customer Suffers Loss Due To Unauthorized Transactions': Kerala Consumer Forum Orders Compensation

Case Title: Salim P.M. v. State Bank of India

Case Number: C.C. No. 413/ 2019

The Ernakulam Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission recently directed the State Bank of India (SBI) to return an amount of Rs. 85,000/- to a customer from whose account certain money was fraudulently withdrawn.

The Bench comprising the President D.B. Binu and the two Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. observed that banks owe a duty of care to protect the interests of its customers.

"It is impossible to define exhaustively the duties of care owed by a bank to its customer. It depends on the nature of service extended by the bank to its customers. But one thing is oetain that where a bank is providing service to its customer, it owes a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the interests of the customer. Needless to say that a bank owes a duty to its customers to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorised withdrawals from their accounts. As a corollary, there is no difficulty in holding that if a customer suffers loss on account of the transactions not authorized by him, the bank is liable to the customer for the said loss," the Bench said.

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala

Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 445/ 2022

The Kerala High Court has reserved for orders the plea filed by the survivor in the 2017 actor assault case seeking a court-monitored investigation into the leakage of visuals from the Memory Card, and the change in hash value of the memory card thereof, that was kept in court custody.

Justice K. Babu, while reserving the matter for pronouncement of verdict, also appointed Advocate Renjith B. Marar as an Amicus Curiae in the case.

Kerala Bar Council Seeks Response From Advocate Mathew Kuzhalnadan For Allegedly Running Business In Violation Of BCI Rules

The Bar Council of Kerala has sought an explanation from Advocate Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan in the complaint alleging violation of the Bar Council of India Rules for running a business while carrying on his professional practice.

The complaint filed by the Secretary of All India Lawyers Union, Advocate Sajeev C.K., alleges that Kuzhalnadan has been running a resort, namely, 'Captain's Bungalow' in Chinnakanal Panchayat and that the Panchayat has also issued a license for the same.

Ivory Possession Case: Kerala Court Dismisses State's Plea To Withdraw Case Against Actor Mohanlal

Case Title: State of Kerala v Mohanlal & Ors.

A Kerala Court dismissed a plea moved by the State seeking consent to withdraw the proceedings pending against Malayalam actor Mohanlal and others in the ivory possession case.

Judicial First Class Magistrate Judge Anju Cletus dismissed the plea noting that the Wild Life Protection Act was implemented to preserve the broader national interests and not individual rights.

"Considering the legislative intention behind the strict provisions of law, the offences allegedly committed by the accused cannot be viewed lightly. Evidently, it is the larger interest of the country that is affected by the commission of an offence under the Wild Life (Protection) Act and not individual rights of any person."

Vehicles With Extensive Modifications Endanger Road Safety: Kerala High Court To Pass Detailed Order

Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Case number: SSCR 20/2021

The Kerala High Court orally remarked that the use of extensive modifications on vehicles could endanger public lives and significantly undermine road safety.

The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar suggested that appropriate action could be taken by the police officials to address this issue, including potentially taking custody of these vehicles.

Halt Construction Of CPI(M) Offices In Idukki If Found Violative Of Orders Of Revenue Authorities: Kerala High Court To Collector

Case Title: One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala

Case Number: W.P. (C) 1801/ 2010

The Kerala High Court directed the construction of the CPI(M) Offices in Udumbanchola taluk, Idukki, to be immediately stopped, if found to be in violation of the orders of the revenue authorities.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas was considering a 2020 petition pertaining to matters of Munnar. The order was passed on being apprised of the construction of party offices at Bison Valley and Shantanpara, in alleged violation of the Revenue Department's orders.

Actor Assault Case: Kerala High Court Relieves Advocate Renjith Marar As Amicus Curiae

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala

Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 445/ 2022

The Kerala High Court has relieved Advocate Renjith B. Marar, who was appointed as the Amicus Curia in the 2017 Actor Assault case to assist in the formulation guidelines to be issued to trial courts for preservation of digital evidence submitted to the courts, pursuant to his application seeking the same.

The single bench of Justice K. Babu had, on Monday, appointed Marar as the Amicus while reserving the plea filed by the survivor seeking a court-monitored investigation into the leakage of assault visuals from the Memory Card that was kept in court custody.

Kerala High Court Voices Displeasure Over Continued Construction Of CPI(M) Offices In Idukki Despite Interim Order

Case Title: One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala

Case Number: W.P. (C) 1801/ 2010

The Kerala High Court expressed its displeasure with the ongoing construction of the CPI(M) Party Office in Santhanpara, despite an interim order issued the previous day directing such constructions to be suspended.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas had issued a directive on Tuesday to immediately cease the construction of CPI(M) Offices in Udumbanchola taluk, Idukki if it was found to be violating the orders of revenue authorities. The Court had also mandated the District Police Chief to provide necessary assistance to the District Collector in order to halt the construction.

Plea In Vigilance Court Seeks Probe Into Kerala CM, Daughter And Others For Alleged Bribery In Connection With Mining Interests Of CMRL

Case Title: Gireesh Babu v. Veena Thaikandiyil & Ors.

A plea has been filed before the Court of the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) in Kerala's Muvattupuzha, seeking investigation into the alleged bribery carried out by high ranking public officials of the State in connection with the mining and other business interests of the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).

The Vigilance Court had, earlier, returned the plea on the ground that the affidavit by the petitioner Gireesh Babu did not contain the necessary documents regarding the incident.

Violinist Balabhaskar’s Death: Kerala High Court Expresses Dissatisfaction With CBI's Probe, Trial Deferred

Case title: K.C. Unni v Central Bureau Of Investigation, Soby George v Central Bureau Of Investigation,

Case number: Crl.Rev.Pet 608/ 2022, Crl.Rev.Pet 268/ 2023

The Kerala High Court deferred trial in a criminal case over death of violinist Bhalabhaskar in a car accident. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order in two revision petitions filed by the musician's father and another witness, alleging that the accident was a planned attack and seeking further investigation by the CBI.

During the hearing, the Court remarked that the CBI has not properly enquired Prakash Thampi, a suspect in the case who acted as a manager to the deceased. The Court noted that it was the duty of the CBI to probe into the matter with a suspicious mind before coming to the conclusion that it was only a road accident.

Kerala High Court Seeks Response From Centre, State On KeLSA's Plea Seeking Compulsory Registration Of Migrant Workers

Case Title: Kerala State Legal Services Authority v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: W.P. (C) 28063/ 2023

The Kerala High Court has sought the response of the Central and State Governments on a plea seeking compulsory registration of migrant workers employed in the State.

The matter is before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun.

The present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) avers that such compulsory registration is essential for the purpose of regulation and grant of benefits to migrants under various welfare schemes and measures of the Government and allied agencies, as well as to prevent recurrence of events such as the recent gruesome rape and murder of a girl child in Aluva.

Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Contempt Proceedings Against CPI(M) Idukki Secretary For Continuing Office Construction Despite Orders

Case Title: One Earth One Life v. State of Kerala

Case Number: W.P. (C) 1801/ 2010

The Kerala High Court initiated contempt of court proceedings against the Idukki District Secretary of CPI(M), C.V. Varghese, for proceeding with the construction of the political party's office at Santhanpara, in violation of the Court's order to halt the same.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas further restrained the party office from being used until further orders.

Will Recall Anticipatory Bail If He Fails To Appear Before Investigating Officer: Kerala High Court Warns Shajan Skaria

Case Title: Shajan Scariya v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Case Number: CRL.M.APPL.NO.3/2023 IN BAIL APPL. NO. 5829 OF 2023

The Kerala High Court warned of recalling the anticipatory bail granted to Marunadan Malayali Editor Shajan Skaria, in case of any failure on his part to appear before the Investigating Officer tomorrow.

Earlier this month, the Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu had allowed Skaria's plea for anticipatory bail, in the case alleging that he interacted with a priest through his YouTube channel 'Marunadan Malayali' with the intention to insult a religion.

Tanur Custodial Death: Kerala High Court Asks Crime Branch For Case Diary To Ascertain If CBI Probe Necessary

Case title: Haris P.M. V State of Kerala

Case number: WP (Crl.) No. 860 Of 2023

The Kerala High Court directed the production of case diary along with the investigation report to ascertain the progress of investigation into the death of Tamir Jifri in custody at Tanur Police station at Malappuram. The Court will ascertain the progress of Crime Branch and decide if the probe has to be handed over to the CBI.

Justice A. Badharudeen held thus:

“In order to hear the matter in detail, the learned Public Prosecutor is directed to produce the case diary along with the report of the Investigating Officer to ascertain the progress of investigation, and to consider whether CBI investigation is necessary, within a period of 14 days.”

NEET-UG 2023: Kerala High Court Permits Provisional Admission Of Candidates With Locomotor Disability

Case Title: Neha Nizar v. Union of India & Ors. and Nidha T. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case Number: WA 1507 of 2023 and WA 1508 of 2023

The Kerala High Court ordered the application for Counselling (Allotment process) for NEET-UG – 2023 of two candidates suffering from locomotor disability to be accepted.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A.J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun passed the interim order stating,

"Prima facie we are of the opinion that when the appellants were permitted to take examination on the basis of the same disability and have cleared the same, the authority may proceed further with the admission and grant such admission if they are found otherwise eligible as per the object and the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016. The admission would be subject to the outcome of the writ appeals."

Kerala Court Grants Bail To Shajan Skaria In Forgery Case, Criticises Police For Effecting Arrest Despite Surrender On High Court's Direction

Case Title: Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala

Case Number: Crl. M.C. No. 2298/ 2023

A Kerala Court granted bail to Marunadan Malayali Editor, Shajan Skaria, in connection with a forgery case.

Skaria had appeared before the Nilambur SHO in compliance with the High Court's order in another case. However, upon his surrender, he was arrested by the Investigating Officer of Thrikkakkara police probing the forgery case.

Criticising such a move, Additional Sessions Judge (Vacation Court), Ernakulam, P.K. Mohandas observed,

"When accused persons appear before the investigating officer as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court in an application for pre-arrest bail, he will be under the expectation that in the case of his arrest, he will be released on bail. He appears before the investigating officer in good faith that he has got protection of the Order of the Hon'ble High Court. Arresting a person while he is proceeding to the police station or on his surrender before the police on the basis of a Court order, in connection with another case, is nothing but making the Court procedures a mockery. It is really a clear abuse of the process of the law."