Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 19 To June 25

Nominal Index [Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 273-289]

XXX V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 273

Thankam v. Remani & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 274

Shiji v. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 275

Sumayya Sherin v. Director General of Police & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 276

XXX v. XXX, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 277

Navaneeth Mohanan K.P. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 278

Ashraf Ali v State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 279

Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals), 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 280

M/S Jatan Constructions Pvt Ltd V. Station House Officer, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 281

K Cheriya Koya V. U T Administration of Lakshadweep, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 282

The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL & Ors. v. C.R. Valsalakumari & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 283

Priya Varghese V Dr. Joseph Skariah, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 284

Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly V. State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 285

State of Kerala & Ors. v. Seena M., 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 286

Mohanan V.V State Of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 287

XXX. V State of Kerala, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 288

Judgments/Orders This Week

Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Though Barred For Offence U/S 376(3) IPC May Be Considered If Material Does Not Prima Facie Attract Offence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 273

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by a father accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter.

A single bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman observed that as per Section 438 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is a specific bar against entertaining an application for anticipatory bail where offences Section 376(3) or section 376AB or section 376DA or section 376DB of the Indian Penal Code are alleged. However, the Court may entertain an application for anticipatory bail if the materials placed before the Court does not attract the specific offences under Section 376 IPC:

“As per Sub Section 4 of Section 438 of Cr.P.C., the prohibition in entertaining an application in this regard would come into play when there is an accusation against the accused for having been involved in the offences referred to therein. Therefore, what is relevant is the accusation made against the petitioner. In this case, the allegations constituting the offence under Section 376(3) of IPC can be found in the form of various statements made by the victim before the learned Magistrate. The aforesaid accusations would make out a prima facie case. Thus bar contemplated under Sub Section 4 of Section 438 would come into play.”

Objection Filed After Sale Of Attached Property Barred Under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, Family Courts Should Be Careful: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thankam v. Remani & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 274

The Kerala High Court recently held that an objection cannot be filed after the sale of attached property has been confirmed, as per the bar under proviso (a) to Order 21 Rule 58(1). It thereby cautioned Family Court judges to be more careful, vigilant, and sensitive, while dealing with cases before them.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas passed the Order while finding the Family Court had erroneously entertained and passed its decision on a claim petition that was hit by proviso (a) to Order 21 Rule 58(1).

Order 21 Rule 58(1) stipulates that "Where any claims preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained". Proviso (a) goes on to state in this regard that, "no such claim or objection shall be entertained where before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold".

Solatium & Interest As Per Land Acquisition Act Payable For Acquisitions Made Under National Highways Act: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Shiji v. The Project Director, National Highway Authority of India & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 275

The Kerala High Court recently rebuked the National Highway Authority of India for 'unnecessarily burdening the courts' with litigations even in the face of settled principles of law.

The Court made the above observation while reiterating that provisions of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 relating to solatium and interest contained in Sections 23(1-A) and (2) and interest payable in terms of Section 28 proviso will apply to acquisitions made under the National Highways Act 1956.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha, observed that in spite of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Anr v. Tarsem Singh & Ors. (2019) which declared as unconstitutional Section 3J of the National Highways Act to the extent it excludes solatium and interest as per Land Acquisition Act to acquisitions done under the NH Act, the NHAI had been challenging the grant of the benefits under the 1894 Act.

Kerala High Court Closes Woman's Habeas Corpus Plea Seeking Release Of Lesbian Partner From Parental Custody

Case Title: Sumayya Sherin v. Director General of Police & Ors.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 276

The Kerala High Court  closed the habeas corpus petition filed by a 21 year old woman seeking the release of her lesbian partner from the custody of her family.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen closed the petition on taking note of the petitioner's partner's/ the alleged detenu's statement that she wished to go with her parents.

The petitioner had averred in her plea that both herself and her partner, who belong to Muslim families had been friends since early school days, and had fallen in love with each other by Class 12. It was submitted that they had been residing together for a while. She stated that a lower court had permitted the two women to live together, and added that the parents and brother of the detenu had, on May 30, 2023, forcefully taken her away.

A Mother May Be Morally Bad In Societal Sense But She May Be Good For Child's Welfare: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. XXX

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 277

The Kerala High Court recently held that in matters of child custody, the welfare of the child alone is to be considered. A mother may be ‘morally bad in the societal sense’, but that does not mean the mother is bad for the welfare of the child, the Court observed.

A division bench comprising Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed,

“In a matter related to the child's custody, the welfare aspect alone has to be considered first. A man or woman may be bad for someone in a contextual relationship, that does not necessarily mean that the person is bad for his/her child. A mother may be morally bad in the societal sense, but that mother may be good for the child as far as the welfare of the child is concerned. The so called morality is created by society based on their own ethos and norms and should not necessarily reflect in a contextual relationship between a parent and child.”

Whether Higher Qualification Would Subsume Lesser Qualification To Be Decided By Employer Based On Its Assessment & Requirements: Kerala High Court

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 278

The Kerala High Court held that whether a higher qualification would subsume a lesser qualification or whether one qualification is equivalent to another are matters to be decided by the employer, based on their assessment and requirements.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed:

"Whether one qualification is equivalent to another or whether one qualification would subsume another lesser qualification are factors within the realm of academics and in the matter of recruitment to services, it is for the employers to, based on their assessment and requirements, decide such matters. In the absence of patent illegality, perversity or proven legal mala fide, courts will not enter in that arena which is best left to the employer".

[Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act] Externment Order Vitiated If Reasons For Imposing Maximum Period Not Disclosed: High Court

Case Title: Ashraf Ali v State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 279

The Kerala High Court recently observed that when issuing an externment order with the maximum period of punishment for one year under Section 15(1)(a) of Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, the reasons for passing such an order must be stated.

A division bench of Justice P B Suresh Kumar and Justice C S Sudha observed:

“As Section 15(1)(a) of the Act makes a serious inroad on the personal liberty of citizens guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution, it is an extraordinary power, to be exercised under extra ordinary circumstances. An externment order would certainly deprive a citizen concerned of his fundamental right of free movement throughout the territory of India. At times, it would also prevent a citizen from residing in his house with his family during the subsistence of the order.”

GST Act Has An Inbuilt Mechanism And Impliedly Excludes The Application Of The Limitation Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Penuel Nexus Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Additional Commissioner Headquarters (Appeals)

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 280

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 107 of the CGST Act is an inbuilt mechanism and has impliedly excluded the application of the Limitation Act.

The bench of Justice C.S. Dias has observed that the Limitation Act will apply only if it is extended to the special statute. It is also rudimentary that the provisions of a fiscal statute have to be strictly construed and interpreted.

[Kerala Headload Workers Act] Employer Is Free To Engage Skilled Persons Under Section 9A If Special Assistance Is Required: High Court

Case Title: M/S Jatan Constructions Pvt Ltd V. Station House Officer

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 281

The Kerala High Court recently held that if the work of loading and unloading requires assistance of skilled persons, an employer can engage persons with the requisite skill or machinery and this right of the employer is protected under the proviso to Section 9A of the Kerala Headload Workers Act, 1978.

A single bench Justice N Nagaresh observed,

“The proviso to Section 9A would make it clear that in respect of works which require assistance of skilled persons and which are to be done with due diligence or require the aid of machinery, such works can be done by an employer by engaging persons having such skill or by the machinery as the case may be. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the Transformer in question is being unloaded using a machinery. The transportation of machinery requires due diligence and it has to be done by the skilled workers. In view of the proviso to Section 9A, the petitioner has a right to get the work done by using machinery and skilled workers.”

Kerala High Court Says It Has Power To Initiate Disciplinary Proceedings Against District & Subordinate Court Judges In Lakshadweep

Case Title: K Cheriya Koya V. U T Administration of Lakshadweep

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 282

The Kerala High Court held that the control over district court and subordinate courts of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep including the power of disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of such courts vests with the High Court of Kerala by virtue of Article 235 of the Constitution.

A single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan held,

“In the light of Article 235 of the Constitution of India, it is declared that the control over the district court and courts subordinate thereto mentioned in Article 235 of the Constitution of India includes the power of disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of district court and courts subordinate thereto. Since the district court and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under the supervision of the High Court of Kerala, it is declared that the High Court of Kerala has got the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of the district court and courts subordinate thereto in the Lakshadweep Islands. I also clarify that the 1st respondent is free to frame Rules in tune with Article 235 of the Constitution of India, if necessary.”

Mother Can Avail Child Care Leave For Third Child If It Wasn't Availed For Elder Children: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Chairman and Managing Director, BSNL & Ors. v. C.R. Valsalakumari & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 283

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the Administrative Tribunal order which stated that Child Care Leave (CCL) facility cannot be said to be restricted to the two 'eldest' surviving children alone, particularly when such facility had not been availed in respect of the first two children.

Interpreting Section 43-C of the Central Civil Service (Leave) Rules 1972, the Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran said,

"CCL benefit is available for 'two children', no matter whether they are 'eldest' or not. The only stipulation is that the Rule is available 'upto two children'."

'Period Spent By Teacher To Pursue PhD Can Be Counted As Teaching Experience' : Kerala High Court Allows Priya Varghese's Appeal

Case Title: Priya Varghese V Dr. Joseph Skariah

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 284

The Kerala High Court set aside the order of the Single Judge that directed the Kannur University to re-examine the credentials of Priya Varghese to be appointed as Associate Professor at Kannur University. Priya Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

In November 2022, a Single Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran had held that Priya Varghese did not possess the requisite teaching experience, to be appointed as Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam at Kannur University and directed the competent authority of the University to reconsider her credentials and decide whether she should continue on the Rank List. Dr.Joseph Skariah, who was ranked after Varghese in the Rank List, had filed the writ petition challenging the inclusion of Varghese in the List stating that she was not qualified for the post of Associate Professor as she did not have the prescribed 8 years of teaching experience prescribed.

In an appeal by Priya Varghese, a division bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P set aside the order of the single bench and held that the period spent by Priya Varghese on pursuing her Ph.D. degree under the Faculty Development Programme could not be excluded while considering the period of teaching experience. Regulation 3.11 of the UGC Regulations, 2018 was the relevant provision here, which reads as :

"The time taken by candidates to acquire M.Phil. and/or Ph.D. Degree shall not be considered as teaching/research experience to be claimed for appointment to the teaching positions. Further the period of active service spent on pursuing Research Degree simultaneously with teaching assignment without taking any kind of leave, shall be counted as teaching experience for the purpose of direct recruitment/promotion. Regular faculty members upto twenty percent of the total faculty strength (excluding faculty on medical/maternity leave) shall be allowed by their respective institutions to take study leave for pursuing Ph.D. degree. (emphasis supplied)”.

Interpreting this provision, the division bench held that the Ph.D period of candidates who are not at faculty members will be excluded from teaching experience. However, if the research degree is pursued by regular faculty members simultaneous with the teaching assignment, then the period will be counted as teaching experience.

The Court observed that:

“The prohibition against inclusion of the time taken for acquiring a Ph.D. degree in the computation of teaching/research experience is one that applies to ‘candidates’ by which term is intended a person who is not working as a teacher in any institution at the time of applying for the teaching post in question. ‘Faculty members’, on the other hand, refers to persons who are already working as teachers in an institution at the time of applying for the teaching post in question, and for them, the period spent on pursuing a research degree simultaneously with teaching assignment and without taking any kind of leave, will count towards teaching experience.

In other words, merely on account of their having pursued a research degree simultaneous with their teaching assignment, their research period will not be excluded. Similarly, even those regular faculty members, upto 20% of the total faculty strength, who have availed study leave to pursue the Ph.D. programme under the Faculty Development Programme, will get the benefit of including the period spent on pursuing a research degree in the teaching/research experience stipulated for the teaching post that is notified for appointment.

[Koodathayi Murder] Kerala High Court Refuses Interference With Order Allowing Examination Of Notary Who Attested Will Forged By Jolly Joseph

Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly V. State Of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 285

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition filed by Jolly Joseph, prime accused in the Koodathyi Murder case, challenging an order of the Sessions Court that allowed the notary who had attested the Will forged by her, to be examined as a witness.

Jolly had filed the petition contending that the notary was earlier arrayed as the 5th accused in the case and hence could not be examined as a witness, even though the proceedings against him were later quashed by the High Court.

A Single Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V held that since the notary is no longer an accused, there is no embargo in the prosecution summoning and examining him. The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Varsha Garg v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 986] to observe,

“the scope and ambit of the powers under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. has held that the criminal court has ample power to summon any person as a witness or recall and re-examine any such person, even if the evidence on both sides is closed and the jurisdiction of the court must obviously be dictated by the exigency of the situation. Fair play and good sense appear to be the only safe guides, and only the requirements of justice command the examination of any person, which would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

Excess Payment Negligently Granted Cannot Be Recovered When Employee Has No Knowledge That Payment Is More Than What Is Entitled: Kerala High Court

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 286

The Kerala High Court recently held that excess payment that was carelessly or negligently granted to an employee by an employer cannot be recovered, particularly when the employee had no knowledge that the amount that was paid was more than what (s)he was entitled to.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C. Jayachandran, on considering the case of an applicant teacher who was paid excess increment based on a Government Order, ascertained that the situation was covered within the ambit of clause (v) of the situations summarized in paragraph 18 of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer Case) (2015). The said clause states that recoveries of excess payment by employers, would be impermissible in law where the recovery if made from the employee, would be iniquitous or harsh or arbitrary to such an extent, as would far outweigh the equitable balance of the employer's right to recover.

Use Of AI Cameras For Detecting Road Violations Cannot Be Discouraged Due To Corruption Allegations: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mohanan V.V State Of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 287

The Kerala High Court recently held that the ‘innovative venture’ of using AI (Artificial Intelligence) cameras for detecting road violations cannot be discouraged merely because of allegations of corruption in implementation of the project.

A single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed there may be objections regarding transparency of the project and even corruption allegations. However, those are to be dealt with separately.

“An innovative system is introduced in the State to detect the violation of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules by installing AI surveillance Cameras on the roads. We have to appreciate the government and its Motor Vehicle department for introducing the same. There is no criticism from any part against the installation of AI Cameras, even from opposition parties in the state. They also wholeheartedly accept the new venture. “

'Privacy Is The Core Of Human Dignity': Kerala High Court Orders Online Images Of Woman Facing Humiliation And Cyber Attacks Be Removed

Case Title: XXX. V State of Kerala

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 288

The Kerala High Court recently directed the Director General of Police to take steps to remove online images and details of a woman who is a victim of offences under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

The Petitioner had approached the High Court for removal of online content having her name and images circulating on social media, which had resulted in humiliation and cyber attacks on her.

Taking note of the submission of the Petitioner that circulation of such content on social media is violating her right to privacy, a single bench of Justice K Babu observed that:

“Privacy is the ultimate expression of the sanctity of the individual. There cannot be dignity to an individual without privacy. It is a constitutional value founded on fundamental rights. Privacy with its attended values assures dignity to the individual. Dignity is the core which unites fundamental rights. Privacy is the constitutional core of human dignity.”

'Safe Sex' Education Need Of The Hour: Kerala High Court Suggests Govt To Constitute Committee To Address Issue

Case Title: XXX v Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 289

Stressing on the need for proper ‘safe sex education’ among the youth, the Kerala High Court on Friday suggested the Government to consider constituting a committee and introducing ‘safe sex education’ in school and college curriculums. The Court asked the Chief Secretary to take appropriate action in this regard.

The Court made this observation while considering a plea by a father to medically terminate the pregnancy of his minor daughter impregnated by his minor son. A single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan observed that such incidents take place due to lack of knowledge about safe sex:

“It is the duty of our society to keep these parents close to get over from this trauma. Nobody can blame the parents. But, we the society is responsible for this. Sibling incest may take place in the context of a family system that does not provide a safe environment for its members. But it may also happen because of the lack of knowledge about safe sex. I am of the considered opinion that the Government should seriously think about the necessity of proper ‘sex education’ in schools and colleges.”

Other Significant Developments This Week

Plea In Kerala High Court Alleges RSS Members Illegally Using Temple Premises To Impart Weapon Training

Case Title: G. Vyasan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court alleging illegal encroachment of Sree Sarkara Devi Temple in Thiruvananthapuram by alleged members of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for conducting mass drills and weaponry training.

The plea filed by two devotees and nearby residents of the temple avers that such action of the alleged RSS members is causing much agony and difficulty to the devotees and pilgrims visiting the temple, particularly, the women and children.

Congress Leaders Approach Kerala High Court Seeking Probe Into Safe Kerala Project; Allege Corruption, Privacy Violation Through AI Cameras

Case Title: V.D. Satheeshan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Leader of the Opposition of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and MLA V.D Satheeshan and MLA Ramesh Chennithala have approached the Kerala High Court seeking a Court monitored enquiry into the project for Automated Traffic Enforcement System for Safe Kerala.

Automated Traffic Enforcement System for Safe Kerala Project was envisioned by the Transport Department to install AI cameras across the State for capturing traffic violations and issuing notice to the violators.

The plea was filed challenging the orders issued by the Government, action taken by the delegate KELTRON which is a State Government Company, and the alleged illegalities and corruption attached to the installation of AI Cameras that have resulted in nepotism, favouritism and corruption including violation of privacy of persons.

Life Mission Case: Sivasankar Approaches Kerala High Court Again Seeking Interim Bail To Avail Treatment At Private Hospital

Case Title: M. Sivasankar v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

The former Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister of Kerala, M. Sivasankar, once again approached the Kerala High Court seeking interim bail for a period of 3 months, on grounds of ill-health and to avail treatment at a private hospital of his choice. The plea has been moved after Special Court declined him bail.

Sivasankar is in custody in connection with the Life Mission money laundering case, since his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate on February 14. On February 24, 2023, Sivasankar was remanded to judicial custody until March 8, 2023. Subsequently, the remand was extended and Sivasankar has been continuing under judicial custody.

AI Camera Installation : Kerala High Court To Examine Impact On Exchequer Due To Change Of BOOT Model; Restrains Govt From Making Financial Payments

Case Title: V.D. Satheeshan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Kerala High Court directed the State Government not to make any financial payments to the contractors connected with the installation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) cameras for road traffic regulation, until further orders. The Court also sought the response of the State Government, state undertaking KELTRON and the private players associated with the project.

The Court was considering a plea filed by Leader of the Opposition of the Kerala Legislative Assembly and MLA V.D. Satheeshan and MLA Ramesh Chennithala seeking a Court monitored enquiry into the "Automated Traffic Enforcement System for Safe Kerala Project", which was envisioned by the Transport Department to install AI cameras across the State for capturing traffic violations. The petitioners have alleged corruption illegalities and corruption in the installation of AI Cameras that have "resulted in nepotism, favouritism and corruption including violation of privacy of persons".

Kerala High Court Grants Interim Pre-Arrest Bail To Congress MP K Sudhakaran In Cheating Case, Asks Him To Appear Before IO

Case Title: K. Sudhakaran v. State of Kerala & Anr.

The Kerala High Court granted interim anticipatory bail to MP and President of Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), K. Sudhakaran, in the cheating case involving the controversial antique dealer Monson Mavunkal.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. further directed the Congress leader to appear before the Investigation Officer in compliance with the 41A notice issued to him.

"After considering the arguments placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and the DGP, I am inclined to grant an interim order, particularly taking note of the fact that the petitioner has been issued with a notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C. directing him to appear before the Investigating Officer on June 23, 2023. Accordingly it is directed that petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance with the notice under Section 41A Cr.P.C., and in the event of arrest, he shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/- with two solvent sureties..," it was observed.

Litigant Vandalizes Car Of Family Court Judge In Kerala

The car of the Thiruvalla Family Court Judge was vandalized by a 53 year old man today in court premises.

The accused, EP Jayaprakash, who has divorce, maintenance, and return of dowry cases that are currently pending, had reportedly become agitated during his examination by the Judge, and created a ruckus in Court. Thereafter, he allegedly bought an earthenware from a shop, and smashed the windows of the Family Court Judge GR Bilkul's car, and vandalized the same.

Jayaprakash was subsequently taken into custody by Inspector BK Sunilkrishnan, and is currently being interrogated.

Ernakulam Consumer Forum Directs Printing Press To Compensate Author For Failure To Print Book In Time

Case Title: Thomas George v. Peter Job

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Ernakulam recently directed a printing press to compensate the author of a book for its failure to print the author's book in time.

The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. awarded a sum of Rs. 31,460 as compensation to the author.

As per the facts of the case, Theressa Offset Printers & New Indian Press had submitted a quotation offering the complainant to print 500 copies of his book, 'History & Science of Numbers', the English version of 'Akkangalude Charithram', for Rs. 31,690. The complainant accepted the offer for printed books in 'word format', to be delivered by the end of July 2016.

Kerala High Court Quashes PMLA Proceedings Against Ex-MLA KM Shaji In Plus Two Bribery Case

Case Title: K.M. Shaji Vs Union Of India

The Kerala High Court quashed the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) leader and former MLA K M Shaji under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) in connection with the plus two bribery case.

A single bench of Justice P V Kunhikrishnan passed the order quashing the proceedings. In April 2023, another single bench had quashed the FIR registered against Shaji by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau stating that there was no allegation of any demand made by the Petitioner.

The Court passed the order quashing the PMLA proceedings finding force in the submission of the Counsel for the Petitioner that according to the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary and Others V. Union of India, if criminal proceedings are quashed the proceedings under the PMLA will not stand.\

Kerala High Court Issues Notice To RSS Members Allegedly Imparting Weapon Training At Temple; Seeks Response From State, Devaswom Board

Case Title: G. Vyasan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Kerala High Court issued notice to alleged RSS members said to be illegally encroaching premises of Sree Sarkara Devi Temple in Thiruvananthapuram for conducting mass drills and weaponry training.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar also sought response of the State government and the Travancore Devaswom Board, and posted the matter for further consideration on 26th June.

The plea has been filed by two devotees and nearby residents of the temple stating that the action of the alleged RSS members is causing agony and difficulty to the devotees and pilgrims visiting the temple, particularly, the women and children.

Kerala High Court Refers Federal Bank And Officers’ Association To Mediation In View Of Larger Public Interest

Case Title: Federal Bank Officers Association Vs Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)

The Kerala High Court referred Federal Bank and Federal Bank Officers’ Association to mediation for resolution of their dispute. The Court constituted a mediation tribunal consisting of Justice A.M.Shaffique (former Judge of Kerala High Court), Adv Sreelal N Warrier and Adv George Merlo Pallath trained Mediators of the Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court of Kerala.

A single bench of Justice C S Dias stated that

“Taking into account the goodwill and reputation that the second respondent – Bank has earned over the last several decades, and also the larger public interest that is involved, particularly the interest, anxiety and fear of the customers of the second respondent, I am of the view that interest of the 1.40 crore customers of the Bank would over-ride and outweigh the petitioner's demands and the second respondent's alleged obstinacy.”

Kerala High Court Raps Media; Says Litigant's Dignity & Privacy Can't Be Harmed; Calls For 'Responsible Journalistic Conduct' In Court Coverage

Case Title: Priya Varghese V Dr. Joseph Skariah

While allowing Priya Varghese's appeal, the Kerala High Court made some critical observations against the media coverage of the case. Priya Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Taking note of the media attention received by the case, a division bench of Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P reminded the press to respect the right to privacy of the litigant and to follow responsible journalistic conduct. The Court stated that the an individual's Right to Privacy is not only against the State but also against private parties such as the media.

“On account of its nature as a right that is personal to an individual, we are of the view that the newly recognised fundamental right to privacy, which takes within its fold the right to protection of one’s reputation as well, would merit classification as a fundamental right that protects an individual, not only against arbitrary State action, but also against the actions of other private citizens, such as the press or media. We trust, therefore, that the media will take note of these observations and adopt a code of responsible journalistic conduct that will inform news reporting in the days to come.” the Court stated.

Firm Says It Couldn't File Online Forms Due To Errors In MCA Website; Kerala High Court Grants Interim Relief From Late Fee

Case Title: M/S Safa Jewels Areacode LLP v. Union of India & Ors.

The Kerala High Court directed the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) to accept Forms 3 and 4 filed by M/S Safa Jewels Areacode LLP, without insisting on the additional fee of Rs.37,500/-, for the delay in filing the same.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the interim order in a plea filed by Safa Jewels LLP. The plea averred that the latter was unable to file the said forms due to the errors on the website of the MCA, which had not been resolved despite the petitioner submitting several complaints regarding the same.

CRPF Personnel Moves Kerala High Court Against 'Time Barred' E-Challans For Overspeeding

Case Title: Anil Kumar R. v. Regional Transport Officer (Enforcement) & Ors.

A plea has been filed before the Kerala High Court by a CRPF personnel against speeding challans issued to him allegedly beyond the statutory time limit.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias on Friday admitted the matter and directed the Government Pleader to get instructions.

The petitioner in this case was issued two e-challans on March 5, 2023, for violation of permissible speed limit by his motor vehicle on two instances on September 28, 2022, identified by an AI Camera. Upon verification, it was discovered that it was the petitioner's son who had driven the vehicle on the said date.

Asianet Journalist Moves Kerala High Court Against FIR For Alleged Conspiracy To Defame SFI Leader

Case Title: Akhila Nandakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Chief Reporter of Asianet News Channel Akhila Nandakumar has moved the Kerala High Court for quashing the FIR registered against her for allegedly conspiring to defame CPI(M)'s student wing leader PM Arsho in connection with the Maharaja’s College examination controversy.

Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu was informed by the Prosecution that no coercive steps shall be taken against Nandakumar in the matter until the next date of posting.

PM Arsho is a postgraduate Archaeology student at Maharajas College and the State General Secretary of Students Federation of India. He alleged that even though he did not appear for the 3rd semester exam, the college authorities wrongly passed him and the journalist, allegedly acting in conspiracy with the college principal and department co-ordinator, spread this news to defame him.

Kerala High Court Restores PIL Seeking Enactment Of Law Against Superstition & Human Sacrifice

Case Title: Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham v. Union of India & Ors.

The Kerala High Court restored the PIL seeking a direction to be issued to the State government to consider and take a decision regarding enactment and implementation of 'The Kerala Prevention of Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill, 2019'.

The Court had earlier dismissed the petition for default as no counsel for the petitioner, Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham, had appeared before the Court.

Advocate P.V. Jeevesh appearing for the petitioner before the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Basant Balaji explained the reason for not having been able to appear on the two previous instances, pursuant to which the petition was restored by the Court.

Kerala High Court Grants Interim Anticipatory Bail To KSU Leader Ansil Jaleel In Case Alleging Forgery Of Degree Certificate

Case Title: Ansil v. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has granted interim anticipatory bail to Kerala Students Union (KSU) State Convenor Ansil Jaleel, in the case against him alleging forgery of degree certificate.

The Single Judge Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. directed Jaleel to appear before the Investigation Officer within a week. The Court stated that Jaleel shall be released on bail on execution of a bond for Rs. 50,000/-, in the event of his arrest.

The case surfaced when a Malayalam newspaper published an article alleging Jaleel to have forged a degree certificate from Kerala University to secure employment at Muthoot Finance, a private financial institution.

'Foreign Object' Left Inside Patient In Surgery: Kerala High Court Directs Police To Forward Complaint To Medical Negligence Panel

Case Title: Annamma Sebastian V. State of Kerala

The Kerala High Court directed the Station House Officer of Edathala gram panchayat to forward to Expert Panel for Medical Negligence, the complaint filed by a patient’s wife regarding a foreign object allegedly being left inside her husband’s body after being operated on for removal of his kidney at Rajagiri Hospital.

A Single Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath directed,

“The 2nd respondent [Station House Officer] shall forward Ext.P1 complaint to the 3rd respondent [Expert Panel (Medical Negligence)] for his opinion, if not already forwarded.”

The Petitioner’s husband had undergone a surgery at Rajagiri Hospital, wherein one of his kidneys was removed as it was affected with cancer. After the surgery his health started deteriorating and he got admitted at Believer’s Church Medical College Hospital Thiruvalla. A CT Scan at Believer’s Hospital revealed that a foreign body was left inside the body of the patient during the surgery at Rajagiri Hospital which was causing infection of his internal organs. Thereafter, the patient was shifted to Rajagiri Hospital. However, it is alleged that the hospital did not take any steps to remove the foreign body from the patient’s body and he was eventually discharged.

Illness No Ground To Seek Exemption From Wearing Helmet While Riding Two Wheelers : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mohanan V.V State Of Kerala

The Kerala High Court has held that illness is no ground to seek exemption from wearing helmets while reading two wheelers.

Petitioners contended that as they were undergoing medical treatment, they could not place heavy objects on their heads including helmets. The Petitioners had approached the Court in light of the recent installation of AI surveillance cameras on the roads in the State. The Court however, refused to entertain the prayer of the petitioners and held that no one can be exempted from wearing a helmet while riding a two wheeler.

The bench of Justice PV Kunhikrishnan held :

“I am of the considered opinion that, there cannot be any exemption to a citizen from wearing helmet while driving or riding a two wheeler. If the petitioners are suffering from any illness which disable them from wearing helmets, they have to abandon their two wheeler ride. They cannot avoid helmet in such situation while driving or riding. Wearing of helmet while riding a two wheeler is to protect the life of the citizen.”