Kerala High Court Monthly Digest- September 2024 [Citations: 554-607]
Tellmy Jolly
2 Oct 2024 1:45 PM IST
![Kerala High Court Monthly Digest- September 2024 [Citations: 554-607]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/09/03/750x450_559124-750x450519604-750x450456553-408710-kerala-high-court-monthly-digest.webp "Kerala High Court Monthly Digest- September 2024 [Citations: 554-607]")
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554-607]
Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
Kerala Public Service Commission v Dinesh K M, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
Case Title: P V Samuel v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
Binod B. Kumar and Another v Guruvayur Devaswom and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
Sreejith Mon v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
Egadwa Mercy Adamba v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
V K Prakash v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Jaison and Others v A. G. Korah and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
Sarath G Nair & Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
Noora v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
M/George & Sons v Union of India & Other Case, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
M. J. Sojan v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
Jaleel P v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
M A Vaheed v K K Lathika And Other Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
X v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
Sheela v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
Sajith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
State of Kerala v Adwaitha S & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
Jayasoorya v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Xxx v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
Smt Anitha T v Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
Rajesh Madhavan v Union of India and Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil and Another v Visalakshi and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
S T Sadiq v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
Annamma Mathew v The Managing Committee of Mavelikara Taluk Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
Pramod v The Secretary, The Sultanpet Diocese Society and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
Vinod v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
Akhil Raj Alias Akhil Marar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
Suresh v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
Shanid @ Shani v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
Jyothish P v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 602
Zara Michele Shilansky v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
Sunil Mathew v The Station House Officer and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
August Cinema (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. versus ITO & ors., 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
Praveen Prakash v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
Vaisakh @ Hari v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
Judgments/Orders This Month
Case Title: Biju P Vidya @Monai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner on finding that the prosecution failed to explain the delay of 16 years in filing the rape case.
The de facto complainant alleged that the petitioner subjected her to rape in the year 2001, and First Information Statement was given in 2017 only.The Court noted that the delay of 16 years in filing the case was fatal to the prosecution and found the allegations to be unbelievable.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the fact that the de facto complainant continued the relationship with the petitioner even after having sexual intercourse in 2001 would point out that their relationship was consensual.
Case Title: Chandra Babu @ Babu v State of Kerala & Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fundamental human right for the accused. The Court stated that even if a specific statute provides an exception that presumes the guilt of the accused, it must adhere to the standards of reasonableness and personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
While allowing the appeal and setting aside the conviction of life imprisonment imposed upon the appellants, the Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that an aggrieved person can challenge the decision of a Sessions Court issued under Section 29 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) by way of a Criminal Revision Petition.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Sessions Court which had dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner's wife had moved the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court under Section 12 of the DV Act and had obtained a maintenance order against the petitioner. A challenge against this order was dismissed by the Magistrate.
Case Title: C. K. Kunjumon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court has held that there is almost an an absolute bar on challenging the final order or judgment passed by a Sessions Court in appeal, under Article 227 of the Constitution. Article 227 deals with the superintendence of the High Court over all courts and tribunals in its territory.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to multiple Supreme Court decisions which held that a person cannot approach the High Court under Article 227 when there is an alternate remedy available. The High Court held that a person has the remedy of criminal revision petition to challenge the final order of Sessions Court in an appeal made under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
The Kerala High has closed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Malayalam Movie Director Ranjith. The petition was closed on the report of the Public Prosecutor that the S. 354 of IPC (outraging modesty) which is alleged against the petitioner was bailable in 2009 when the incident allegedly took place.
He submitted that the police are treating the offence as bailable and the director can take bail directly from the police station if he is arrested.
Senior Advocate P. Vijayabhanu appeared for the actor before the Court. The matter was heard before the bench of Justice C. S. Dias.
Case Title: Aqib Sohail P. S. v Raneesh V. R.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court has imposed a sentence of 2 months of simple imprisonment on a police officer for contempt of court for abusing and misbehaving with an advocate. The Court has however suspended the sentence for a period of 1 year. During this period, the police officer is cautioned to not indulge in any untoward activities. After the period of 1 year, the sentence would lapse.
The sentence was delivered by Justice Devan Ramachandran.
Case Title: Spices Board v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Spices Board stands on a different footing than the Central Government and so the properties and buildings of the board cannot claim exemption from building tax by virtue of Article 285(1) of the Constitution.
A single-judge bench of Justice Basant Balaji referred to Section 19 of the Spices Board Act which deals with the Power of the Central Government to supersede the Board.
Case Title: George Vattakulam v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court dismissed the petition seeking an investigation by a central agency into the allegation made by MLA P. V. Anvar against the Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) M. R. Ajith Kumar at the first instance itself. The Division Bench comprised of Acting Chief Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S. Manu noted that the petition was premature.
Case Title: Mani C Kappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court ordered that the trial involving MLA Mani C Kappan be moved to a different courtroom, for one day, to accommodate his counsel, Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai.
MLA Kappan has approached the High Court seeking permission to allow the trial to be held in a courtroom with lift facility for the convenience of his counsel, Senior Advocate Raman Pillai, rather than on the 1st floor which has no lift facility.
Justice B Jayachandran held that shifting of court premises is a matter within the administrative realm of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Case Title: V.M.Abdulkhader @ Kader v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court has convicted and sentenced an accused, the father of the minor daughter, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for repeatedly raping and committing penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victim.
The Court passed the above order in the appeal filed by the accused challenging the order of the Special Judge for the trial of offences under the POCSO Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar And Justice C.Pratheep Kumar ordered that the accused cannot be convicted both under the IPC and the POCSO Act and that he can be convicted for the offence providing a greater degree of punishment.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that protection afforded to an accused of unsound mind or with intellectual disability under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 has wider scope and will thus apply retrospectively, to pending applications.
Chapter XXV of CrPC pertains to provisions for accused persons of unsound mind. It includes persons suffering from unsound mind or mental retardation. Whereas, Chapter XXVII of the BNSS deals with provisions for accused persons with mental illness that protect persons with unsound mind or intellectual disability. This means that CrPC does not grant protection to persons suffering from intellectual disability.
Case Title: V.I. Thankappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has held that a person accused in a criminal case but incapable of making defence due to Alzheimer's Dementia is entitled to protection under the CrPC and The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice K Babu noted that dementia is a form of mental disability which include problems with language, memory loss, etc. and thus an affected person may be prevented from defending his case.
Justice K Babu held that BNSS will apply retrospectively to proceedings prior to July 01, 2024, to ensure fair trial for persons with intellectual disability or mental disability.
Case Title: Varghese Kuruvila v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
The Kerala High Court has held that the accused has a right to access all materials which was gathered during investigation, irrespective of whether the prosecution seeks to rely upon the same.
Justice C. Jayachandran remarked that the very reason that the prosecution is not relying upon the same may imply that the evidence may be in favour of the accused
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission v Dinesh K M
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
The Kerala High Court has held that the Public Service Commission cannot require an applicant to provide a gazette notification to address discrepancies in caste name, to prove that the applicant belongs to a community different from the one listed on their Secondary School Leaving Certificate.
Case Title: P V Samuel v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
he Kerala High Court declined to quash criminal proceedings initiated against a man booked for allegedly publishing a video stating that nuns are the concubines of priests and bishops on YouTube and Facebook.
The prosecution alleged that the video was published on June 01, 2020, with the intent to hurt and insult the religious feelings of nuns. It is alleged that the petitioner indecently represented nuns and intentionally insulted Christian bishops and priests.
Case Title: Binod B. Kumar and Another v Guruvayur Devaswom and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
The Kerala High Court has held that a public authority, while calling for recruitment can only notify vacancies that are existing or anticipated, but not for future vacancies. The Court also added that an authority can resort to recruiting beyond the notified vacancies only in rare and emergent situations.
Duty Of Court To Restore Litigant For Loss Suffered Due To Negligence Of Court: Kerala HC
Case Title: Sreejith Mon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
The Kerala High Court has observed that the concept of restitution of the litigant for the loss suffered due to negligence of the court is a fundamental principle of Indian Judiciary and Jurisprudence.
Case Title: Egadwa Mercy Adamba v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
The Kerala High Court observed that foreign nationals who entered India with valid visas and passports and continued their stay after the expiry of these documents cannot be treated as infiltrators under Section 14A of the Foreigners Act. The Court thus quashed the proceedings initiated against four foreign nationals under Section 14 A of the Foreigners Act.
Case Title: V K Prakash v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
The Kerala High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Film Director VK Prakash in connection with sexual abuse allegations made against him after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.
Case Title: Jaison and Others v A. G. Korah and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the reporter and other employees of Mathrubhumi TV News and Press in connection with a sting operation done by the channel.
The Court held that the case can be quashed as there is no allegation that there was any personal malice or prejudice against the individual concerned.
Case Title: Sarath G Nair & Other Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
The Kerala High Court held that tourist buses operating as contract carriages have a prior contract between the passenger or a group of passengers and the operator and they cannot pick up and drop off passengers enroute their journey when those passengers are not included in its prior contract.
Case Title: Noora v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
The Kerala High Court has permitted a mother to take her minor children to UAE by invoking its parens patriae jurisdiction. The Court stated that constitutional courts can invoke parens patriae jurisdiction to protect the rights of vulnerable adults and minors. A petitioner mother has approached the Court seeking permission to take her children to the UAE to obtain permanent residency, as the children's father did not provide a no-objection certificate for their relocation.
Case Title: M/George & Sons v Union of India & Other Case
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
The Kerala High Court held that motor vehicles cannot be penalised for using Safety Glass or Safety Glazing including glazing with plastics in their windscreens or window glasses if they comply with stipulated standards and specifications.
Case Title: M. J. Sojan v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal case filed against Superintendent of Police M. P. Sojan for making distasteful comments against the child victims in Walayar rape case.
He was booked under Section 23(1) Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) for making comments against the children in '24 News' channel.
The Court said that at the time of making of the comment, he did not know that it will be telecasted. It further observed that the police can consider whether to take case against the journalist, who recorded the statement and others in the channel, for telecasting it.
Case Title: Jaleel P v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to one Shihab P, an alleged member of the Popular Front of India, accused for murder of RSS leader Sreenivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. found no reasonable ground to believe that the accusations made against him are prima facie true. It thus held he is entitled to bail under Section 43 (D) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Case Title: M A Vaheed v K K Lathika And Other Cases
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court has quashed proceedings against former Congress MLAs M A Vaheed, Dominic Presentation, K Sivadasan Nair in the 2015 Kerala Legislative Assembly Ruckus case.
Former LDF legislators K K Lathika and Jameela Prakasham filed complaints against the legislators for obstructing their movement inside the Assembly by using force and touching their bodies. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences under Sections 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint), 354 (assault or criminal force to outrage a woman's modesty), and 34 (acts done with criminal intent) of the IPC.
Case Title: Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The Kerala High Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 228A of the IPC against the Printer and Publisher and Chief editor of Rashtra Deepika Publications, Kottayam for disclosing the details of a victim of a sexual offence.
Case Title: X v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
The Kerala High Court has held that an investigating officer must notify the informant or victim about removing individuals from the list of accused in the final report, if they were initially named as accused in the FIR.
Additionally, the Court emphasized that upon taking cognizance of the offences based on the final report, the Magistrate must also inform the informant or victim of this change.
Allowing the criminal revision case, Justice K Babu stated thus, “The learned Magistrate shall issue notice to the informant / victim regarding the finding of the Investigating Officer that there is no sufficient ground to proceed against some of the accused.”
Case Title: xxx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
The Kerala High Court held that an accused should be given a legible copy of the Section 164 statement before the start of trial as he has the statutory right to use those statements to contradict the maker of the statement during cross-examination.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that the order of the Sessions Court was not justifiable.
“Indubitably, accused has a statutory right to use 164 statement for contradicting the maker, during cross examination of the maker, with a view to shake the version. In order to enable the said purpose, the statement must be readable and legible.”
Case Title: Asanul Banna v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
The Kerala High Court has directed the trial court to postpone the date of a criminal trial noting that the order of the trial court did not show that the prosecution and accused were heard before the trial was scheduled.
Justice K. Babu noted that Rule 77A(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice, Kerala 1982 mandates that both sides should be heard before fixing the date for recording evidence.
Inquiry U/S 116(2) CrPC Must Be Carried Out In A Similar Manner To Summons Trial: Kerala High Court
Case Title: T. G. Anoop v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
The Kerala High Court held that the provision in Section 116(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) which says that the recording of evidence and conduct of trial in an inquiry under Section 116 shall be done 'as nearly as maybe practicable' in the manner of a summons trial would mean that the essentials of summons trial should be followed in such an inquiry.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed: “Section 116(2) provides that, an inquiry contemplated under Section 116 of Cr.P.C shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases. In this context, the text 'as nearly as possible' has to be understood to ensure that the essentials of summons trial should be followed.”
Case Title: Satheeshkumar B R v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
The Kerala High Court has held that defamation through statements or posts on Facebook and other social media platforms comes under cyber defamation, thus justifying invocation of Section 499 of the IPC, which deals with defamation.
In the facts of the case, the Court stated that even excluding the Facebook posts, the petitioner is liable under Section 509 (insulting modesty of woman) of the IPC and Section 120 (o) (penalty for causing nuisance and violation of public order through anonymous call, letter, writing, message, e-mail, messenger ) of the KP Act for sending two defamatory postcards to the father of the de facto complainant.
Observing the lacunae in legislation to deal with defamatory Facebook posts, Justice A Badharudeen observed that Section 499 IPC is a non-cognizable offence and emphasized the need for an exhaustive law that makes such offences cognizable, accompanied by stringent punishments.
Case Title: Sheela v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Kerala High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings under POCSO Act initiated against a woman in-charge of the cottages where allegedly two minors were subjected to rape.
Justice A. Badharudeen however noted that on the alleged day of occurrence of the said crime, the license in the name of her husband had expired. At that time, the cottage was running without a valid license. The Court said that the materials collected during the investigation would prima facie show that the cottage was run by the petitioner at that time.
Case Title: Sajith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court has held that the limit of 60 days provided in Section 250 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) to file a petition of discharge is directory and not mandatory. The Court further held that the period of 60 days will start from the date of supply of copies of documents to the accused.
Justice A. Badharudeen made this pronouncement while dealing with a revision petition challenging the order of the trial court dismissing the discharge petition filed by the petitioner herein.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that donor rooms at Sabarimala registered under individual donors can be used only by the donors themselves or their family members.
The Court further stated that donor rooms associated with trusts or organizations can be occupied by its trustees, office bearers and registered members on identity verification. The Court also stated that donors cannot transfer donor passes issued to them to other third parties.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the authorities to conduct regular inspections to ensure that the donors are not misusing donor passes to collect money from pilgrims.
Case Title: Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
The Kerala High Court has directed the Central Government to look into the lacunae in the Food Safety and Standards Act of 2006 and its Regulations. The Court stated that it is the duty of the government to have a fool proof Act and Rules to ensure that citizens are given unadulterated food.
In this case, the Court was considering whether prosecution could be initiated against Pepsico India Holdings Private Limited for allegedly selling unsafe and misbranded Mint & Lemon Flavoured Green Ice Tea when the reports from the Food Analyst and Food Laboratory were divergent.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan stated that due to the lacunae in the Act, prosecution can be initiated only when the Food Laboratory report confirms the Food Analyst's report and not when the reports are divergent.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Adwaitha S & Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that the "effect" of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD) 2016 which defines a person with physical disability and their certification cannot be taken away by certain conditions imposed in the prospectus of an educational institute.
The court however said the State is not disempowered in adopting a uniform process for admissions to professional institutes, which can be done by stating that the State Medical Board will be the certifying authority constituted as per the prospectus. A proper notification would be required under Section 57, RPwD Act, the court said.
Offences Bailable, Kerala High Court Closes Anticipatory Bail Applications Moved By Actor Jayasoorya Accused Of Sexual Harassment
Case Title: Jayasoorya v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
The Kerala High Court has closed the anticipatory bail applications moved by film actor Jayasoorya in connection with sexual abuse allegations made against him after publication of Justice Hema Committee Report.
Justice C S Dias noted that the offences alleged against the actor are bailable offences and closed the bail applications.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Asha Lawrence, daughter of veteran CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence has approached the Kerala High Court aggrieved by the decision of her siblings and the CPI(M) to hand over her father's body to the Ernakulam Government Medical College hospital.
Justice V G Arun directed the Principal of Government Medical College, Kalamaserry, Ernakulam to consider the objections submitted by the petitioner before taking a decision.
Breaking | Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Actor Siddique In Rape Case
Case Title: Xxx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
Kerala High Court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by actor Siddique, booked for rape following release of Justice K. Hema Committee Report. The order was pronounced by Justice C. S. Dias.
Govt Maintained Silence On Hema Committee Report For 5 Yrs, Allegations Came To Light Only After Court's Intervention: Kerala High Court
Case Title: xx v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
The Kerala High Court today expressed regret over the Government maintaining silence on the Hema Committee Report, which disclosed allegations of widespread sexual harassment and other issues faced by women in Malayalam film industry, for five long years.
Case Title: Smt Anitha T v Kerala State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
The Kerala High Court recently granted terminal and pension benefits to three children born from a man's invalid second marriage, which he entered into without dissolution of the first marriage.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon relying upon the Apex Court decision in Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun (2023) and amended Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act (legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages) observed that children born out of a void marriage will also have right to the property of parents.
Case Title: Rajesh Madhavan v Union of India and Connected Matters
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court has acquitted five persons (A1- Rajesh Madhavan, A2-Gopal, A3-Devarajan, A4-Bahuleyan, A5-Ajayakumar @ Ajayan @ Mannoor Ajayan) who were convicted by the Special Court for NIA Cases, Ernakulam as accused in the Mavelikara Maoist case.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G Girish held that the prosecution has failed to establish that RDF is a frontal organization of CPI (Maoist). The Court also stated that RDF is not declared as an unlawful organization or as a terrorist organization under the UAPA.
Case Title: Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil and Another v Visalakshi and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
Justice A. Badharudeen of Kerala High Court held that a managing director has no role in selecting the news item. The Court said these while quashing the further proceedings against the Managing Director of Rashtradeepika in a defamation case. The complainant filed this case saying that a news item published in the newspaper was defamatory against her. The Court, however, declined to quash further proceedings against the Chief Editor.
Case Title: S T Sadiq v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court has struck down Section 3A of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 amended by the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 6A which was inserted by the 2015 Amendment as unconstitutional and arbitrary.
Justice Gopinath P passed the order by relying upon the Apex Court decision in S.T. Sadiq v. State of Kerala and others (2015) which had struck down Section 6 of the Act as unconstitutional.
Case Title: Annamma Mathew v The Managing Committee of Mavelikara Taluk Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court directed the bank to pay gratuity and provident funds to the employee against whom surcharge proceedings under Section 68 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act).
Case Title: Pramod v The Secretary, The Sultanpet Diocese Society and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
The Kerala High Court has held that a tenant, who has failed to pay rent, cannot seek protection from the Court against eviction proceedings.
Calling it a "disquieting litigative trend", Single bench of Justice C. Jayachandran held that a Landlord is the paramount title holder of the tenanted premises and the tenant's right to occupy the same is wholly dependent on his obligation to pay the rent.
Case Title: Vinod v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
The Kerala High Court has directed Trial Courts and Tribunals to not adjourn cases based solely on the oral submission of advocates or parties that the matter has been stayed by the High Court.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan noted that advocates/parties often claim that there is a stay order from the High Court to adjourn proceedings, when in fact, there is no stay order.
Case Title: Akhil Raj Alias Akhil Marar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
The Kerala High Court has closed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Malayalam film director Akhil Marar on the report of the Public Prosecutor that the offences alleged against him are bailable.
Case Title: Suresh v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
The Kerala High Court has cautioned parents against the rising "trend" of taking small, tender age children to protests and agitations, merely to grab the attention of authorities.
The bench of Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan said such actions often expose the young lives to extreme temperatures, loud noises, crowds and conflicts- causing them emotional trauma, and therefore held that Police can take action against such parents in case of 'wilful neglect'.
Case Title: Shanid @ Shani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
The Kerala High Court recently refused to interfere with a Special Court's decision to refuse a 32-year-old man accused of committing human and drug trafficking, permission to travel abroad, adding that the order stands the "test of constitutionality".
A single judge bench of Justice K Babu in its order observed, "The genuine apprehension that the presence of a citizen of India in a foreign country is not in the public interest and is likely to prejudice the friendly relations of India with any foreign country is a ground to refuse passport and related travel documents to him. Such a restriction is just and reasonable and not arbitrary or oppressive".
Kerala High Court Directs State To Complete Revalidation Of ₹20 Stamp Papers Within Three Weeks
Case Title: Jyothish P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 602
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to complete the revalidation process of stamp papers of rupees 20 denomination which are remaining unused in the Treasury within a period of three weeks.
Case Title: Zara Michele Shilansky v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an FIR registered against an Australian woman of Jewish descent booked for provoking rioting under Section 153 IPC for allegedly tearing two posters in Fort Kochi, which had "apparently" created an impression in her mind about the ongoing Palestine-Israel war.
Case Title: Sunil Mathew v The Station House Officer and Another
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
The Kerala High Court lifted the bail condition imposed by the Sessions Judge on the Managing Editor of YouTube News Channel 'i21 News' to not air any news related to the death of Sri K. P. Yohannan, the former Supreme Head of Believers Eastern Church. He had filed a complaint before the State Police Chief saying that there was foul play behind the death of the Bishop. The Sessions Court has barred the media from airing any news on his death till the complaint before the State Police Chief is disposed off.
Case Title: August Cinema (India) Pvt. Ltd. & ors. versus ITO & ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
The Kerala High Court held that taxpayer cannot be prosecuted u/s 276B of Income tax Act simply because of failure to deduct and pay TDS to the government, once the non-compliance was sorted out and the tax along with penalty was sufficiently deposited to the government, after being informed of the delinquency.
Case Title: Praveen Prakash v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings instituted against a 24-year-old man, accused of sending messages and making calls to a 17-year-old girl, causing her disturbance.
The crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 354D (stalking) of the IPC, Section 11(iv) (sexual harassment) and Section 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that there is no evidence against the petitioner to prove that he constantly sent messages or chats to the minor with 'sexual intent' to attract an offence of sexual harassment under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Vaisakh @ Hari v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
While hearing a plea seeking legible copies of witness depositions in the trial court, Kerala High Court suggested to its Registry to explore the possibility of equipping trial courts in the State with advanced technologies changing archaic practices, adding that the practice of trial court judges "writing down" depositions is stressful.
A single judge bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in its order observed:
"In this context, this Court is compelled to observe that with the advent of modern technology, including artificial intelligence, it is high time that the trial courts are equipped with sufficient infrastructure to take down the deposition of witnesses by resorting to the latest technology. Though writing depositions in own handwriting may enable the court in its analytical process, the benefits of using modern technology will far outweigh such limited advantages. The laborious and time-consuming process of Judges writing down witness depositions is indeed archaic and even stressful. The plight of the judicial officers indulging in writing down long depositions, cannot be ignored, especially when advanced technologies are available".
Other Developments This Month
Actor Siddique Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail Over Allegations Of Rape
Case Name: xxxx v State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl: 7331/2024
Malayali Actor Siddique has moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail as an FIR has been registered against him for rape and criminal intimidation.
The complainant had said that the actor called her to Muscot Hotel in Trivandrum on the pretext of discussing a film and he raped and assaulted her there. The complainant gave her complaint to the Special Investigation Team constituted to investigate the incidents of sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry.
Case Name: Jannath & Another v State of Kerala
A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court seeking to place the entire Justice Hema Committee before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for inquiry. The petition also seeks to formulate a special law to protect women in the film industry.
The Justice Hema Committee was constituted by the Government in 2017 and was tasked to study issues faced by women in the Malayalam film industry. The report was published on August 19, 2024. The Committee's study revealed that women in the film industry face numerous issues, including, sexual demands, sexual harassment, gender discrimination, lack of safety in workplace, insufficient basic facilities, wage disparities etc.
Case Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala
Film director Ranjith has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Kerala High Court over sexual abuse allegations made against him after the publication of Justice Hema Committee Report, which deals with issues (including sexual demands) faced by women in the Malayalam film industry.
The bail application has been moved based on allegations filed by a Bengali actress alleging the commission of an offence under Section 354 of the IPC. The crime was registered at the Ernakulam Town Police based on an email complaint made by the actress.
The Kerala High Court has orally asked the State to obtain instructions in a plea for anticipatory bail moved by actor Siddique over alleged charges of rape.
Justice C S Dias has posted the matter for hearing on September 10, 2024 (Tuesday).
Actor Siddique in his anticipatory bail application alleged that the complaint was filed to retaliate against him for expressing his view in the press meeting on August 23, after the publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The Kerala High Court Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque completed 50,000 case disposals in his judicial career.
Justice Mustaque was elevated as a judge of the Kerala High Court on January 23, 2014. He was appointed as the Acting Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from July 05, 2024.
Case Title: K. Asokakumar v Dr K. Vasuki
Case No: Con.Case(C) 1772/ 2024
The Kerala High Court when apprised of the news about the suicide of a KSRTC retiree, urged the pensioners not to take steps which are irrational and unnecessary. The Court reassured them that it is now handling the matter and will make sure that pensions are paid within the time frames fixed by the Court.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said that he would decide whether to initiate suo motu contempt proceedings against the Government on the 4th of September after seeing how the government is planning to pay the pensioners.
Case Title: George Vattakulam v The State of Kerala
A PIL has been filed in the Kerala High Court seeking an investigation by a national agency in the allegations made by MLA P. V. Anwar against Additional Director General of Police (Law & Order) M.R. Ajith Kumar.
The Chief Minister had declared on September 2 that an investigation would be conducted to look into these allegations. Unsatisfied by the progress of the investigation, the petition was filed before the High Court.
The Kerala High Court stated that it will consider constituting a special bench with lady judge as member to hear cases relating to the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu mentioned the constitution of the special bench in open court when the writ appeal filed by Producer Sajimon Parayil was taken up before it today.
The Kerala High Court has constituted a special bench consisting of Justice AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C S Sudha to hear cases relating to the Justice Hema Committee Report.
The Special Bench was constituted following the order of Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque on August 29, 2024. The order constituting the Special Bench was issued today by the Registrar.
Case Title: Dr E Sreedharan v State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: WPC 31375/2024
E Sreedharan, an Engineer, renownedly known as Metro Man has moved a public interest litigation at the Kerala High Court. He is challenging the failure of the state government and authorities to consider alternative and feasible options for realigning the Thiruvanaya-Thavanur Bridge across the Bharathapuzha River without affecting the Holy Trinity Temples to preserve religious sanctity.
The Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu has directed the government to file a statement.
Church Feud: Kerala High Court Directs Ernakulam And Palakkad District Collectors To Take Over Possession Of 6 Churches
Case Title: St. Thomas Orthodox Syrian Church, Cherukunnam v Dr. Venu I.A.S and other Connected Cases
Case No: Con.Case (C) 299/ 20124
The Kerala High Court has directed the Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad districts to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction feud.
Justice V. G. Arun asked the Collectors to take possession as the police was unable to follow its earlier order to provide adequate protection so that the vicars and parishioners of the Orthodox faction can perform religious rites in these churches. The bench was dealing with a civil contempt petition.
Case Title: IN RE: PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL DISASTERS IN KERALA v STATE OF KERALA
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
Continuing hearing in the suo moto case initiated in the aftermath of devastating Wayanad landslides, the Kerala High Court today asked the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority whether it is willing to write off personal loans, motor vehicle loans and housing loans availed by members of the affected families.
Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. granted six weeks time to Additional Solicitor General ARL Sundaresan for submitting a report in this regard. The bench has also directed the government to submit a "carrying capacity assessment" of various hill stations in the State.
Case Title: Riju Joseph v National Medical Commission Represented By Its Secretary
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31560 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the Trivandrum Medical College to conduct a "functionality assessment" test to determine whether 17-year-old medical aspirant with a 50 per cent locomotor disability is eligible for the MBBS course, after noting that the disability certificate issued to her was silent on this aspect.
A single judge bench of Justice P M Manoj in its order observed that the board had conducted only a "quantitative analysis" to fix the range of disability as 50 per cent without assessing the functionality of both hands, and that the certificate was silent on an assessment regarding the "functionality" of the girl's hands.
Case Title: Vimal Vijay v Union of India and Another
Case No: WP(C) No: 31598/ 2024
A lawyer has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Kerala High Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 69 of Bhaaratiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which criminalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, like false promise to marry.
Case Title: Walking Eye Foundation For Animal Advocacy 263/A v Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 27607 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has passed an interim order restraining the State Government and Chief Wildlife Warden from permitting the transfer of elephants from other states to Kerala.
Case Number: WP(C) 29846/ 2024 and other matters
Case Name: Navas A @ Paichira Navas v State of Kerala and other matters
The Kerala High Court today directed the State government to hand over the unredacted version of Justice Hema Committee Report, which disclosed large scale sexual harassment in the Malayalam film industry, to the Special Investigating Team (SIT) to probe offences disclosed in the Report.
Case Name: Navas A @ Paichira Navas v State of Kerala and other matters
Case Number: WP(C) 29846/ 2024 and other matters
The Kerala High Court today orally pointed lacunae in the PoSH Act 2013, stating that the legislation doesn't take within its purview sexual harassment faced by women seeking employment.
The law only applies to sexual harassment of women at the workplace, thus excluding informal situations where there is no clear employer-employee relationship.
Case Title: Nimmi Alphonsa Joseph v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 30174 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has granted interim relief to a visually disabled student belonging to the OBC category by ordering the Government Homeopathic Medical College to return her original certificates.
Case Title: R. P. Remesan v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 32634/ 2024
A writ petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging the formation of Justice K. Hema Committee by the government. The petitioner sought a declaration from the Court that the formation is unconstitutional and prevents any further action on that report. The petitioner further sought the Court to direct the State to form a committee on the terms n accordance with the Supreme Court decision in Vishaka and Others v State of Rajasthan (1997).
Actor Jayasoorya Moves Kerala High Court For Anticipatory Bail Amid Sexual Harassment Allegations
Case Title: Jayasoorya v State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 7683/2024
Prominent Malayalam film actor Jayasroorya has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with sexual abuse allegations made against him after publication of the Justice Hema Committee Report.
Malayalam Cine Actor Baburaj Approaches High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case
Case Title: Baburaj Jacob v State of Kerala and Another
Case No: BA 7594/ 2024
Malayalam movie actor Baburaj has moved an anticipatory bail application before the Kerala High Court in connection with a rape and sexual harassment case lodged against him at the Adimali police station in Idukki.
Case Title: TG Vinay Kumar @ Vinayan v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 32801/ 24
A plea has been moved by prominent South Indian Film Director Vinayan challenging the government order dated July 15, 2023, that appointed Director B Unnikrishnan, the secretary of the Film Employees Federation of Kerala (FEFKA) as a member of the committee for the formulation of policy related to cinema based on the Justice Hema Committee Report.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC 32952/2024
The Kerala High Court has initiated a suo case to deal with instances of violence against members of the legal fraternity by the police.
The suo moto case was initiated based on a letter submitted by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) to the Acting Chief Justice A Muhamed Mustaque seeking action against the police officers who attacked a lawyer within the premises of Ramankary Magistrate Court, Alappuzha (or Alleppey).
Case Title: V D Satheesan M L A v State of Kerala & Ors
Case number: WPC No. 1479/2024
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the plea filed by Leader of the Opposition of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and MLA V D Satheeshan seeking a probe by the Central Investigating Agency (CBI) into the conception and execution of the Kerala Fibre Optic Network Project Ltd. (K-FON).
Case Title: IN RE: PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL DISASTERS IN KERALA v STATE OF KERALA
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court directed the Kerala State Disaster Management Authority (KSDMA) and Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) to bring before the court, the unredressed grievances of survivors in the Wayanad landslides.
Case Title: Suo Motu v Union of India Represented by the Secretary (Road, Transport and Highways)
Case No: WP(C) 25158/ 2024
Kerala High Court had directed the state to take custody of all vehicles which were used dangerously in the Onam show at Naher College in Kannur and Farook College in Kozhikode.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 32427/ 2024
The Kerala High Court directed the Kozhikode District Legal Service Authority (DLSA) to render all necessary assistance to the family of the minor child Drishana to help them submit claims to get victim compensation for being a road accident victim.
Case Title: Baiju v State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 16359/2024
An affidavit has been filed before the Kerala High Court stating that despite the issuance of notices to RSS members and the filing of complaints with the police, the sakha activities continue to take place at the Rakthakanda Swamy Temple in Omallur, Pathanamthitta district. The Secretary of the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted the counter affidavit on behalf of both the Devaswom Commissioner and the Sub Group Officer.
The affidavit was filed in a plea moved by devotees and nearby residents of Sree Rakthakanda Swamy Temple, Omallur in Pathanamthitta district alleging illegal encroachment and unauthorized use of temple and temple premises for conducting conduct mass drills, Sakha activities by the members of the Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) (Respondents 7 to 10).
Case Title: Abdul Rahiman and Others v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC No. 29173/2024
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the action of authorities at the check posts for collecting entry fees/tax for bringing eggs from other States.
The plea further stated that imposing entry fees/tax on agricultural produce like eggs which are nil-rated goods is an indirect and illegal way to collect tax contrary to the provisions of the GST Act. The plea stated that essential items like egg, fruits, vegetables are categorized as GST exemption goods to make them affordable for customers.
When the matter was taken up before Justice Gopinath P, the government pleader submitted that a statement has been filed.
Case Title: P P Venugopal v State of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31313 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court has directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee and its Administrator to prohibit videography by vloggers in the Nadapanthal (outer courtyard) of the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple located in Guruvayur.
In doing so the high court clarified that videography is only allowed in connection with marriage functions and other religious ceremonies, and is otherwise not permitted in the Nadapanthal.
The division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P G Ajithkumar observed that videography by vloggers in the nadapanthal and other interior places of the Temple cannot be permitted, adding that the temple is a special security zone.
Case Title: Kasinath Rangoda Kanade v State of Kerala
Case No: Crl.M.C. No 1742 of 2024
The Kerala High Court held that income tax authorities have the power to seek interim custody of currency notes seized and produced before the jurisdictional magistrate by any other officer or authority if there is any reason to believe that the seized currency is part of any asset that has not been disclosed for the purpose of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was answering a question referred to it by the Single Bench. The Single Bench had noted that there is contradiction in the High Court decisions in Union of India v State of Kerala (2022) and R. Ravirajan v State of Kerala (2023).
Case Title: Akhil Raj Alias Akhil Marar v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 6587/ 2024
The Kerala High Court has sought State's stand in the anticipatory bail plea filed by Malayalam film director Akhil Marar, booked for discouraging contributions to the Chief Minister's Disaster Relief Fund (CMDRF), through his statements following the Wayanad landslides in July.
Malayalam actress who named several actors alleging that they abused her has approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail. She mentioned that there are news and allegations in mainstream media saying that she gave fake complaints against these actors. She submitted in her petition that she has not received any information of any crime being registered against her in any police station even after filing RTI application before the police authorities. She approached the court seeking anticipatory bail in case she is arrested in any unknown case.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Case Number: W.P. (Crl.) 445/ 2022
The Kerala High Court has reserved for order the application filed by the survivor in the 2017 actress sexual assault, involving Malayalam actor Dileep.
Justice C S Dias reserved for order the application filed by the survivor to set aside or quash the fact-finding inquiry report dated January 08, 2024, submitted by the Ernakulam Sessions and District Judge.
The writ petition filed by the survivor was disposed of by the High Court with a direction to conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the allegations that the memory card containing videos of the sexual assault had been accessed, copied and transferred unauthorizedly while it was in the custody of the Court.
Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar Sworn In As The Chief Justice Of Kerala High Court
Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar was sworn in as the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court today (September 26, 2024) at 10 am at Raj Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Case Number: WPC 33035/2024
The Kerala High Court has reserved its orders in a plea moved by a woman alleging failure to register FIR against four higher police officials in the Malappuram district in Kerala who raped and sexually assaulted her.
Justice A. Badharudeen condemned the act of not registering an FIR when there are allegations of cognizable offences like rape. It orally stated that the government and police officials are duty-bound to conduct a fair investigation against the accused persons based on the complaint of the woman.
While speaking at the Full Court reference held to welcome him, the newly appointed Kerala High Court Chief Justice Nitin Madhukar Jamdar drew attention to difficulties faced by State's district judiciary, advocates and the Registry.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 7844/ 2023
The Kerala High Court today asked the government about the possibility of conducting a campaign across the State for the collection of electronic waste.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas and Justice Gopinath P orally stated that citizens must be at least given one opportunity to dispose of their electronic waste. The Court thus directed the Special Secretary of the Local Self Government Department, T V Anupama to consider this and to submit a report before the Court.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala & Others
Case Number: WP(C) 34174/2024
Asha Lawrence, daughter of veteran CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence has approached the Kerala High Court again aggrieved by the order of the Principal of the Ernakulam Government Medical College hospital for rejecting her objections to conduct the funeral as per Christian rites and rituals.
Case Title: M. K. Gopalan v The Secretary and Others
Case No: WA No. 1276/ 2024 (Filing No.)
The Kerala High Court last week issued directions regarding filing of Writ Appeals, stating that in case of a writ petition filed online–the order of which is challenged in the appeal–its pleadings as well as documents filed therein shall be "tagged" from the e-file portal.
The other directions issued by a division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar include:
1. If the concerned writ petition is filed offline, the Registry shall digitize the pleadings of the writ petition including the documents submitted by both sides within six working days from the date of registration, which will then be tagged with the e-filing database to create a consolidated writ petition case bundle, to form part of writ appeal case bundle.
2. In case the appellant requires such a writ appeal to be moved before the Division Bench immediately or before six working days as aforesaid, a scanned copy of the pleadings in the writ petition, including the documents submitted by both sides, shall be tagged by the appellant to the writ appeal to create a consolidated writ petition case bundle, to form part of writ appeal case bundle.
3. If the physical order sheet of the writ petition also needs to be tagged to the writ appeal then the concerned Section Assistant shall "manually scan and upload it".
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the District Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction "feud" within a week. A single judge bench of Justice V G Arun orally cautioned that it may have to summon the Collectors and the State's Chief Secretary if the order is not complied without delay.
The high court orally said, "The takeover of the church must happen in a week. If not, the Chief Secretary and District Collectors might have to spend time in court”.
