Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 10 - June 16, 2024

Nominal Index

Bindulal V. S. & Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 342

xxx v Director General of Police , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 343

The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344

Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345

Sathyabhama v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346

Limjith K J v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347

xxx v Superintendent of Police, CBI, 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348

Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349

Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350

Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 351

Athul v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 352

N. Ansari v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 353

K K Joshwa v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 354

Elsy Abraham v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 355

Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors, 2024 Live Law Ker 356

XXX v Union Of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 357

Darvin Dominic v State Of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 358

Shilpa v K K Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 359

Joji Joseph v State of Kerala & Connected Matters, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 360

Raju K. J. v Deepak T. V. and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker)361

Judgments/Orders This Week

S.17A Prevention Of Corruption Act | Lack Of Sanction Not Bar When Constitutional Court Orders Enquiry Against Public Servant: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Bindulal V. S. & Others v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 342

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when a Constitutional Court passes an order to conduct enquiry or investigation into an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Section 17A of the Act does not operate as a bar.

The Court observed that prior approval under Section 17A is only required when the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant in discharge of his public duty. It referred to Shankara Bhat and Others v State of Kerala and Others which held that any offence, acts which on the face of it constitutes an offence or demand of illegal consideration cannot be treated as offence related to any recommendation made or decision taken by a public servant. The Court held that it cannot hold that the allegations are related to any recommendations made or decision taken by a public servant.

Right Of Choice: Kerala High Court Refuses To Put "Fetters" On Adult Woman's Decision To Live Separately From Parents

Case Title: xxx v Director General of Police

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 343

The Kerala High Court has held that it has to recognize the right of 'choice' of an adult woman and no fetters can be placed on her decision to live her life in the manner she desires. It stated that the court or family members cannot substitute their opinions and preferences for those of an adult.

The father of the woman in this case had filed a habeas corpus petition for her release from alleged unauthorized custody of the 5th and 6th respondent women.

As such, the Court stated that no restrictions could be imposed upon the daughter regarding her choice or the place where she should stay.

S.77 Customs Act Mandates Declaration Of Contents Of Not Just Baggage, But Also Posts And Couriers: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Assistant Commissioner v Anis Mohammed Hussain

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 344

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 77 of the Customs Act, which obliges every owner of a baggage to make a declaration of its contents to the customs officer for the purpose of clearing it, deals with the declaration of contents of not just baggage but also posts and couriers.

The Court stated that the respondents did not mention in the pass that the article they brought was Dexamethasone. It stated that Dexamethasone is a dutiable item as per the Customs Tariff Act of 1975. Thus, the Court held that respondents would have complied with Section 77 of the Customs Act if they had informed customs officer that they carried Dexamethasone.

Parental Love Or Concern Can't Fluster An Adult's Right To Choose The Person She Wants To Marry: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Althaf J. Muhammed v The District Police Chief and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 345

“Parental love or concern cannot be allowed to fluster the right of choice of an adult in choosing a man to whom she gets married,” the Kerala High Court has observed.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. M. Manoj made the observation while deciding a habeas corpus petition filed by the woman's partner.

The Court referred to Supreme Court judgment, Shafin Jahan v Asokan K. M. and observed that the role of the Court is to see that the detenu is produced before it, find about his/her independent choice and see to it that the person is released from illegal restraint. The choice of an individual should be conferred with the status that the Constitution guarantees, provided that the said choice does not transgress any valid framework, it added

Kerala High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Mohiniyattam Performer Booked For Making Alleged Casteist Remarks Against Fellow Artist

Case Title: Sathyabhama v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 346

The Kerala High Court rejected the anticipatory bail application moved by Mohiniyattam Performer Kalamandalam Sathyabhama for making casteist remarks against fellow artist Dr. RLV Ramakrishnan.

Justice K Babu observed that the prosecution has prima facie established that Sathyabhama intentionally made such remarks to humiliate Ramakrishnan for belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community.

The allegation was that Sathyabhama intentionally made certain comments on the appearance and skin tone of Ramakrishnan, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste community, without explicitly taking his name in an interview given to a 'DNA You Tube' Channel.

The Court further stated that the SC/ST (POA) Act was enacted to uphold constitutionally guaranteed rights to all individuals, particularly aiming to bridge the disparities faced by those subjected to ostracism and discrimination. It stated that achieving a casteless society would remain elusive unless the provisions of the SC/ST Act were enforced strictly. The Court stated that exclusion based on caste identity should not be allowed to prevail in our democracy and that citizens must strive to achieve fraternity amongst all sections of society.

Consider Objections To Ban On 'Dangerous & Ferocious' Dog Breeds: Kerala High Court To Ministry Of Animal Husbandry

Case Title: Limjith K J v Union of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 347

The Kerala High Court has directed the Ministry of Fisheries and Animal Husbandry to consider the objections submitted by stakeholders while considering a writ petition challenging the circular dated March 12, 2024, issued by the Union Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, which bans the rearing of around 23 breeds of dogs on the ground of them being ferocious and dangerous to human life. The writ petition was filed by certain dog lovers who were also owners of such breeds of dogs.

The Court noted that similar writ petitions were filed in Karnataka and Delhi alleging that the circular was issued without consulting or inviting objections and suggestions from stakeholders. The Delhi High Court quashed the circular and held that all stakeholders would be heard for raising their objections before the issuance of a fresh circular. The Delhi High Court had stated that Central Government shall issue a public notice in a national newspaper as well as on the Ministry's official website inviting written objections to the proposed or draft notification to the rules since it would not be possible to give an oral hearing to every dog owner. A similar view was taken by the Karnataka High Court also.

[Recruiting Indian Citizens In Russian Army] Mother Of Commission Agent Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking Protection From CBI Probe

Case Title: xxx v Superintendent of Police, CBI

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 348

A 65-year-old mother has invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Kerala High Court seeking protection from the probe of the CBI alleging that her son was involved in trafficking Indian nationals to Russia.

Justice Devan Ramachandran stated that the petitioner can be summoned for investigation only by issuing a notice. The Court further stated that if later the petitioner is being arrayed as an accused, the authorities can proceed investigation as per law.

The specific allegation is that the petitioner's son along with the other accused was involved in the trafficking of Indian citizens to Russia on the pretext of getting better and high-paying jobs in the Russian Army. It is alleged that traffickers seize the passports of Indian nationals on reaching Russia and they are given training in combat roles and provided with the uniform of the Russian army. It is further alleged that the traffickers deploy Indian nationals at war front bases in the Russia-Ukraine war zone.

Regulatory Authorities Can't Misinterpret Judgments Erroneously To Deny Registration To Permanent Employees: Kerala High Court

Case Name : Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 349

A single judge bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of Justice Murali Purushothaman, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of Jomon Sebastian & Ors vs. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors, held that regulatory bodies cannot misinterpret judgments to wrongfully deny registration to the permanent employees.

The petitioners are headload workers employed by the traders in shops located at the Agricultural Urban Wholesale Market, Maradu. The Wholesale Market is administered by the Urban Wholesale Market Authority constituted by the Government of Kerala, with the District Collector, Ernakulam, serving as the Chairman. The Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, 1983 (Scheme), was implemented in the Wholesale Market.

The petitioners submitted applications for registration under Rule 26A of the Kerala Headload Workers Rules. However, their applications were rejected by the registering authority, citing various reasons, including the implementation of the 1983 Scheme and the engagement of pool workers for loading and unloading work in the market. The appellate authority also upheld the decision of registering authority, citing a judgment (Ext. P128(a)) concerning police protection for traders against pool workers.

The court further observed that unattached pool workers have no right to object to the grant of registration to attached workers, and their objections can only be raised when an attached worker seeks to join the scheme as a registered but unattached worker

Kerala High Court Declines Minor Girl's Plea Seeking Pilgrimage To Sabarimala Temple Due To Issues Pending Before SC's Larger Bench In Review Petition.

Case Title: Snigdha Sreenath (Minor) v Travancore Devaswom Board

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 350

The Kerala High Court today dismissed the writ petition of a 10-year-old minor girl who invoked its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that she was entitled to have a pilgrimage to Sabarimala Temple during the Mandala Pooja/Makaravilakku season of 1199 ME(2023-24) without insisting on upper age qualification.

The writ petition was filed through her father and legal guardian seeking a writ of mandamus to the Travancore Devaswom Board to permit the girl to have her pilgrimage since she has not attained puberty.

The Court stated that the petitioner would have to wait until the issues have been finally decided by the Larger Bench of the Apex Court in the Sabarimala Review Petition. It stated that one of the issues to be considered by the Larger Bench in Kantararu Rajeevaru (Right to Religion, In re-9 J.) v. Indian Young Lawyers Association (2020) was regarding the interplay between freedom of religion under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution and other provisions in Part III, particularly Article 14.

[S.216 CrPC] Alteration Of Charge Is A Vested Right Of Court, Within Its Domain And Not That Of The Parties: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aswathy K. P. @ Aswathy v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 351

The Kerala High Court reiterated that the power of alteration of charges under Section 216 of the CrPC is the vested power of the Court, and could be exercised at any time before judgment is pronounced.

In the facts of the case, the revision petitioner is challenging the order of the Assistant Sessions Judge that allowed an application for alteration of the charge moved by the Public Prosecutor. The Assistant Sessions Judge altered the charge against the revision petitioner from Section 304 of the IPC (punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder) to an offence punishable under Section 302 (punishment for murder) of the IPC.

Accused 'Exploited Vulnerability': Kerala High Court Sentences Four To 30 Yrs Rigorous Imprisonment For Gang Rape Of Migrant Woman

Case Title: Athul v State of Kerala & Connected Cases

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 352

The Kerala High Court has convicted four accused to rigorous imprisonment of 30 years under Section 376D of the IPC for committing the offence of gang rape on a migrant woman worker in 2015.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. relying upon the Apex Court decision in Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), considered the intersectional identity and vulnerability of the victim who was a migrant worker on whom sexual assault was committed.

Husband Acquitted From Offence Of Dowry Death U/S 304B IPC Can Be Held Guilty Of Marital Cruelty U/S 498A Depending On Facts: Kerala HC

Case Title: N. Ansari v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 353

The Kerala High Court has held that just because a person was charged and acquitted under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code for dowry death does not mean that he cannot be convicted under Section 498-A of the Act for marital cruelty.

The judgment was made by Justice Johnson John while deciding a Criminal Appeal against the decision of Sessions Judge where he found the appellant guilty of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court found the accused not guilty under Section 304B and abetment of suicide under Section 306.

Kerala High Court Directs Probe Against Former DGP For Allegedly Disclosing Identity Of Sooryanelli Rape Victim In His Book 'Nirbhayam'

Case Title: K K Joshwa v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 354

The Kerala High Court has directed the Station House Officer, Mannanthala Police Station to review the complaint lodged by the petitioner against former DGP and author Siby Mathews alleging the commission of an offence under Section 228 A of IPC. The Court directed the SHO to conduct a preliminary investigation to determine whether Siby Mathews has disclosed the details of the identity of the rape victim in the Sooryanelli case in his book 'Nirbhayam', potentially committing a cognizable offence warranting registration of FIR.

Nirbhayam is a book written by former DGP of Kerala, Siby Mathews which entails details of his service as a police officer in Kerala. It was alleged that he disclosed the details of the identity of the minor rape victim who was raped by several accused persons during 1996 without specifically taking her name. It was alleged that the book contains a chapter captioning 'Sooryanelli case' and has used terms like 'peedippikkapetta penkutti' meaning sexual assault victim.

State Bound To Ensure That When Public Properties Are Used For Any Purpose, It Is Done In A Manner Which Is Least Inconvenient To Its Subjects: Kerala HC

Case Title: Elsy Abraham v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 355

The Kerala High Court in a writ petition has decided on the balance of rights of travellers in the public pathway and that of private persons in adjoining property in relation to the construction of structures near public roads.

Justice M. A. Abdul Hakim held that constructions which are necessary for the maintenance of the users of the pathway can be made on public land, but, care should be taken to ensure that only minimum injury or inconvenience is caused to the affected private party.

Arbitration Clause Valid But Unilateral Appointment Part Is Invalid: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Travancore Rural Development Producer Company Ltd. Vs Divya Lakshmi Sanal And Ors

Citation : 2024 Live Law Ker 356

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice G. Girish has held that arbitration clauses with provisions for the unilateral appointment of an arbitrator cannot be entirely rejected due to this defect. It held that the clauses are to be considered valid arbitration clauses except for those portions which confer the authority upon one party to unilaterally appoint arbitrators.

The High Court held that the arbitration clauses in the agreements did not align with the legal provisions prohibiting unilateral appointments of arbitrators. Nevertheless, it held that these arbitration clauses should not be completely discarded due to this defect. The High Court held that these clauses remained valid as arbitration agreements, with the exception of the portions granting the applicant unilateral appointment authority.

[Walayar Rape-Death Case] Govt Should Consider Request Of Victim Or Victim's Representatives While Appointing Public Prosecutor: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v Union Of India

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 357

The Kerala High Court has held that the Government should consider the request of the victim or representatives of the victim while appointing a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the absolute power to appoint a Public Prosecutor or Special Public Prosecutor is with the Government but that do not mean that it should completely negate the request of the victim or representatives of the victim while making such appointments.

[S.498A IPC] Offence Committed Abroad Can't Be Tried In India Without Centre's Sanction U/S 188 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Darvin Dominic v State Of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 358

The Kerala High Court has held the Trial Court should not proceed with criminal prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC without previous sanction from the Central Government when an offence of marital cruelty was entirely committed outside India by an Indian National.

Justice A. Badharudeen thus quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the husband under Section 498A IPC for want of previous sanction from the Central Government under Section 188 CrPC.

While Ordering Maintenance Under Domestic Violence Act, Magistrate Must Specify Whether It Is Being Provided Under CrPC Or HAMA: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shilpa v K K Rajeevan

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 359

The Kerala High Court held that the Magistrate whilst ordering maintenance to the daughter under Section 20 (1) (d) of the Domestic Violence Act should specify if the maintenance order is made under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA).

The Court stated that the Magistrate could order monthly maintenance to the daughter under Section 20 (1) (d) of the DV Act. It stated that the maintenance order under the DV Act could be ordered either under Section 125 of CrPC or Section 20 (3) of the Maintenance Act.

Further, the Court held that if a maintenance order was made under Section 125 CrPC, then the maintenance payment would cease when the daughter attained the age of majority. As per Section 125 CrPC, a major unmarried daughter is not entitled to maintenance unless she is suffering from physical or mental abnormality due to which she cannot maintain herself. It stated that Section 125 CrPC is secular and applicable to all so it cannot be assumed that maintenance would not be ordered under Section 125 CrPC

[S. 197 CrPC] Police Officials Can't Be Prosecuted Without Govt's Sanction Even If They Exceed Scope Of Power While On Official Duty: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Joji Joseph v State of Kerala & Connected Matters 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 360

The Kerala High Court has held that police officials cannot be prosecuted for an act done during the discharge of their official duty without taking sanction from the government under Section 197 CrPC.

Justice P.G. Ajithkumar ordered that sanction would be necessary under Section 197 of CrPC if the alleged act was directly concerned with official duty or has reasonable nexus with the discharge of official duty, even if such alleged act involves manhandling or detaining persons illegally.

The Court further stated sanction would not be required if an offence was committed by the police officer entirely outside the scope of his duty as a police officer.

Road Accident | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Inferred From Scene Mahazar Alone: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Raju K. J. v Deepak T. V. and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 361

The Kerala High Court, in an appeal against an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, held that contributory negligence cannot be fixed based on the scene mahazar alone. It can be relied on if there is a police charge alleging contributory negligence or evidence to support the mahazar.

The court however referred to Jiju Kuruvila & Others v Kunjunjumma Mohan to hold that no inference of contributory negligence can be drawn from scene mahazar.

Other Developments This Week

What Action Taken Against Vloggers Promoted Illegally Modified Vehicles? Kerala High Court Asks Ministry Of Transport

Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Case number: SSCR Nos.29, 30 and 36 of 2023

The Kerala High Court has sought instructions from the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways about the action against vloggers who promote the use of modified and altered motor vehicles in public places that violate safety standards.

The Government Pleader informed the Court that the Transport Commissioner could appear before the Court on the next posting date, if necessary, to explain the actions taken to prevent the usage of modified vehicles in public places.

The Court noted that despite directions issued by the Court, motor vehicles were being altered and modified violating road safety standards and causing air and noise pollution. It stated that retroreflectors fitted on the rear bumper of motor cars were being replaced by after- market red lights which interferes with the vision of oncoming vehicles and pedestrians. It further stated that vehicles with unauthorized name boards like 'Government of Kerala', 'Kerala State', 'Government of India' were used in public places with unauthorized flashlights and strobe lights to carry Sabarimala pilgrims causing a threat to their safety.

Whatever Be The Provocation, Policemen Cannot Behave Except In A Civil Manner: Kerala High Court

Case title: Mahesh v Anilkant & Connected Matters

Case number: Contempt Case(C) No. 869 OF 2023(S) In WP(C) 11880/2021 & Connected Matters

The Kerala High Court has stated that policemen should behave in a civilized manner, regardless of any provocation they may face. The Court stated that any abhorrent conduct from the policemen against the citizens would not be permitted and will be dealt with by deterrent measures.

Justice Devan Ramachandran directed the Police Chief to appear online for an interaction with the Court on June 26, 2024, at 1.45 PM regarding the steps taken to ensure that the police behave civilly to all citizens.

The Court observed that police should be under watch and there should be no secrecy to ensure that they behave civilly at all times. It stated police should be firm but polite and strong but civil.

The Court thus directed the State Police Chief to look into the matter and decide what kind of action must be taken to regard the police force as a civil one. The Court went on to state that it is very proud of the police force and deemed it as one of the best. However, the Court added that police misbehaviour even from a single officer cannot be permitted since that would tarnish the reputation of the entire force.

Safety Of Pedestrians Paramount: Kerala High Court Directs Ernakulam District Collector To Submit Report On 'Operation Footpath

Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v Corporation of Cochin and Others

Case Number: WP(C ) 34310/ 2019

The Kerala High Court has directed the Ernakulam District Collector to submit a report on steps taken for footpath safety. This comes after the court took suo moto notice of the incident where a woman's leg got stuck between the slabs of footpath in Kochi. She did not sustain any injury.

Single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that taking steps for footpath safety was important now especially due to the heavy rains. The citizens would not be able to differentiate between road and footpath area due to the flooding. The Court observed that when it talk about roads, attention should also go to pedestrian areas.

The Court observed that urban planning and development requires to consider the safety of pedestrians also. The Court declared that now the State should consider pedestrian safety to be of paramount importance and treat it as a priority.

Kerala High Court Temporarily Stays Collector's Order Reducing Area Allotted To Trivandrum Government Law College

Case Title: G. Muralidharan v The Principal Secretary and Others

Case No.: WP(C) 20620/2024

The Kerala High Court has temporarily stayed an order by the Trivandrum Collector directing the reconstruction of the outer wall of Trivandrum Government Law College after leaving 2 meters of space for road widening.

A petition challenging the same was filed by Advocate G. Muralidharan who is the Vice President of the Parent Teachers' Association of the College and also a former student and Dr. Sandhya K. Nair who is an Executive Committee Member of the college and also a former student.

The petition noted that the collector did not follow the principles of natural justice while passing this order. The College authorities did not get a chance to raise objections before the collector passed this order, it is argued.

Kerala High Court Forms Expert Committee To Curb Pollution In Periyar River

Case Title: Association of Green Action Force v Union of India & Connected Cases

Case Number: W. P. (C) Nos. 9534 of 2020, 996 of 2012 & 31236 of 2023

The Kerala High Court has formed an Expert Committee to submit a report containing suggestions and actions to be taken to curb pollution in the Periyar River. The committee shall consist of the Secretary, Directorate of Environment and Climate Change, Government of Kerala, the Regional Director, Central Pollution Control Board, Regional Directorate, Bangalore and the Chairman, Kerala State Pollution Control Board.

The Court passed the above order in petitions filed by activist KSR Menon, Periyar Malineekarana Virudha Samidhi, Association of Green Action Force to curb the pollution of the Periyar River. It was alleged that the river is polluted due to the discharge of toxic effluents from industries and Aluva market.

Kerala High Court Directs Govt To Build E-Toilets For Flood-Affected Tribal Families In Nilambur

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

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

The Kerala High Court has directed the state authorities to build an appropriate number of e-toilets for around 300 families living in the area. A report in this regard shall also be filed before the Court.

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

Consider Substantial Increase In Entry Fee To Eco-Tourism Centres To Reduce Number Of Visitors: Kerala High Court To Govt

Case Title: In Re: Bruno v Union of India and Others

Case Number: WP (C ) 13204/ 2021

The Kerala High Court has asked the State government to consider making a "substantial increase" in the entry fee to eco-tourism areas.

The development comes after the Additional Advocate General for the State informed the High Court that its earlier order of closing down eco-tourism centers in Wayand is causing great prejudice.

The High Court had ordered temporary closure of the eco-tourism centre in the district after an elephant killed Vellachallil Paul, an eco-tourism employee in Kuruvadweep.

The Court has now asked the State government to submit a proposal detailing the restrictions/ conditions it intends to impose.

'Govt Not Expected To Intervene In Administration Of Co-op Societies': Plea In Kerala HC Challenges Provisions Of Kerala Co-operative Society Amendment Act 2023

Case Title: Babu K Korah & Another v State of Kerala & Others

Case Number: WPC 21368/2024

A writ petition is moved before the Kerala High Court challenging various provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Society Amendment Act, 2023. The Amendment Act was notified and published in the Kerala Gazette on June 07, 2024.

The plea has been filed challenging sections 14AA, 28(2A), 32 (4), 33, 34A, 56, 57E and 64 alleging that the amendments would cause governmental interference in the day-to-day working of the co-operative societies. It is alleged that there is no rational nexus to be achieved through the amendments and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

It is stated that governmental interference in day to day working of co-operative institutions would affect their autonomy and internal democracy. The plea stated that the Constitutional (Ninety-Seventh) Amendment Act, 2011 by inserting 'Part IX B- The Co-operative Societies' was introduced in the Constitution to strengthen their autonomy and contribution to the State. The plea provides that Article 43 B of the Constitution guarantees that the State shall promote the functioning and autonomy of cooperative societies.

Whether Income Tax Department Can Seek Custody Of Seized Currency From Magistrate: Kerala High Court Refers To Division Bench

Case Titile: Ankush and Another v Income Tax Department and Another

Case Number: Crl.M.C. 1742/ 2024, Crl. M.C. 2495/2024, Crl.M.C. No. 2516/2024 & Crl.M.C. 7060

Considering the divergent views of two Single Judge Benches of the Kerala High Court on whether the Income Tax Department has a right to seek interim custody of seized currency notes from the Magistrate, a Single Bench presided by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred the matter to be considered by a Division Bench.

The Court will also have to decide whether a requisition issued under Section 132 A of the Income Tax Act enables the officer to seek interim custody of the currency notes from the court.

The Court directed the Registry to place the case before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders for constituting the Division Bench.

Kerala High Court Directs State To Constitute Special Team And Inquire Revenue Officials For Allegedly Forging Title Deeds

Case Title: One Earth One Life v State of Kerala

Case Number: WP(C) NO. 1801 OF 2010 & Connected Cases

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State Government to constitute a Special Team to inquire into forging of title deeds, including taking bribes by revenue officials in Munnar and Idukki districts.

Last month, the Court sought instructions on whether any inquiry was conducted and action was taken against Devikulam Former Deputy Tahsildar M I Raveendran for issuing bogus title deeds.

The Court found that 42 cases of forging patta were pending in different Courts in the Idukki district, out of which in 18 cases allegations were regarding forging patta to obtain government lands. It stated that bogus title deeds were made for this purpose and public officials were involved.

'Judgments Of Retired Judges Not To Be Uploaded 3 Days After Their Retirement' : Kerala High Court Chief Justice Issues Guidelines

Chief Justice A J Desai of the Kerala High Court has issued guidelines to be followed by judges regarding the signing and uploading of orders/judgments and the use of Chambers and Staff on their Retirement/Transfer/Elevation.

The guidelines contain issue related to use of chambers, uploading of judgment and retaining personal staff.