- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up:...
Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: February 7 To February 12, 2022
Hannah M Varghese
13 Feb 2022 10:33 AM IST
Judgments This Week:1. Delay Fatal Only If Parties Attempt To Obtain Any Unfair Advantage : Kerala High CourtCase Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63The Court ruled that a delay in filing an application only becomes fatal if by allowing such application, the applicant obtains an unfair benefit or if any prejudice will be caused to...
Judgments This Week:
1. Delay Fatal Only If Parties Attempt To Obtain Any Unfair Advantage : Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Court ruled that a delay in filing an application only becomes fatal if by allowing such application, the applicant obtains an unfair benefit or if any prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath while partly allowing a petition seeking to re-examine 7 witnesses and summon 9 additional witnesses observed that the delay in filing the application could be discounted since the prayer herein was only to produce the original documents which were already marked.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. pronounced the highly-anticipated verdict after two weeks of elaborate hearing. "Your apprehensions regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by conditions", the Court informed the Prosecution while dictating the order. It was also clarified that if these conditions were violated, the prosecution was entitled to apply for arrest.
3. For Abetment By Conspiracy, Mere Agreement Not Enough; Something Must Be Done: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
The Court while granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor Dileep and other accused reiterated the clear distinction between the offences of abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. Upon referring to several decisions on this issue, Justice Gopinath P. decided that while an illegal omission or act is necessary to constitute an offence of abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is sufficient to amount to criminal conspiracy.
4. Excommunication Illegal Under Wakf Act, Infringes Fundamental Rights: Kerala High Court
Case Title : PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
In a notable judgment, the Court has held that ex-communication or externment, whether declared or undeclared, is illegal and impermissible under the Wakf Act. The Court further declared that any bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of the Wakf Property authorising ex-communication is also illegal as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice SV Bhatti and Justice A Badharudeen were deciding a civil revision petition challenging the orders of the Wakf Tribunal and the State Wakf Tribunal.
Case Title: V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Court held that the Secretary of a Municipality is empowered to issue notice and initiate suitable action if a building construction is found to be proceeding illegally within their jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while dealing with a set of appeals filed under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the license granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne for broadcast. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel) challenging the Union's decision. Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu case. The incident came to light after a Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi published a report on February 4 citing that such a practice was being followed at the temples as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'.
Case Title: Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Court has ruled that when an Indian citizen intends to solemnise their marriage with an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Cardholder, any declaration evidencing their single status would be sufficient to register their marriage in India if the concerned foreign embassy does not issue certificates to that effect due to prevailing laws. Justice N. Nagaresh also opined that this was deemed necessary since no one can be compelled to perform an unattainable task that hinders the registration of their marriage.
Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Court held that even if a statute does not provide for granting an opportunity of hearing to parties, principles of natural justice have to be read into the statute. While allowing a plea moved by a woman who was terminated from service without personal hearing, Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such a termination order was violative of the principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Court while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,
Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Court while dismissing a petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments on mainstream or social media about a judgment before reading it. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that the lawyers should act as the mouthpiece of the judiciary and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.
Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
The Court ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.
Case Title: Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
In a noteworthy judgment, the Court made several important observations on matrimonial cruelty and the scope of revival of condoned matrimonial offences. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking to reverse the order of a Family Court which rejected her plea for divorce finding that she had failed to prove any form of matrimonial cruelty allegedly meted out on her.
Case Title: Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Court ruled that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies are not permissible in law since it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that the impugned advertisement was only for one post and that the candidate who secured the first rank had already joined the post. Under such circumstances, the bank could not have appointed any further person by preparing a rank list.
15. Teacher Who Administers Moderate Force On Pupil To Enforce Discipline Without Malicious Intention Can't Be Fastened With Penal Liability: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Court held that a teacher who administers a reasonable force on a pupil without any malicious intention to enforce discipline in a classroom should not be fastened with criminal liability. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath discharged a teacher against whom the trial court had framed charges, finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against her.
Other Significant Developments:
16. Monson Mavunkal Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Infamous fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal has approached the Court seeking bail in the case where a woman has accused him of sexually abusing her. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions in the matter and posted it on February 15. According to Mavunkal, the woman was anxious of being implicated as a co-accused in various financial crimes and this prompted her to turn against him.
17. [MediaOne Ban] Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Appeal
Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India
The Court reserved its orders in the appeal moved by Malayalam news channel MediaOne against the single judge order upholding the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the matter at length. The Court prima facie opined that from a bare reading of the provisions it seemed that revocation was a penalty.
18. Plea Against Lokayukta Ordinance: Kerala High Court Seeks State Response
Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala
The Court admitted a plea assailing the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act for allegedly diluting the judicial powers of the Lokayukta introduced by way of an ordinance and sought a response from the State government. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also passed an interim order declaring that any decision taken by the authority constituted by way of the impugned ordinance during the proceedings will be subject to the outcome of the petition.
Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. State of Kerala
The Court asked the State to produce on record the letter penned by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan addressed to the Prime Minister apparently seeking permission to disburse amounts from the State Disaster Funds to families of those Indians, who died abroad of Covid-19. Justice N Nagaresh also directed the petitioner to implead the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority in their plea seeking a declaration that the family members of a non-resident of the State, who died abroad due to COVID-19, are entitled to ex-gratia relief of Rs. 50,000.
