Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: August 2022 [Citations 391- 461]
Athira Prasad
4 Sep 2022 11:56 AM GMT
Nominal Index [ Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 391- 461]Olorumemi Benjamin Baba Femi v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 391P.K Shanmughan v. District Collector & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 392Tresa K.J v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 393Rajesh Chandran v. M.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 394Gouri Dev S.B & Ors. v. University Grants Commission & Ors....
Nominal Index [ Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 391- 461]
Olorumemi Benjamin Baba Femi v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
P.K Shanmughan v. District Collector & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
Tresa K.J v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
Rajesh Chandran v. M.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair & ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Gouri Dev S.B & Ors. v. University Grants Commission & Ors. and connected matters 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
Vasanthan B. v. Sub Inspector of Police & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
M/s Hedge Finance Pvt. Ltd v. Bijish Joseph 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
Adv. Antony Raju v. State Of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
Aboobacker K.A & Ors. v. Joint Regional Transport Officer & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies v. Abhitha Karun & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
Sahara Granites v. District Geologist and others 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 401
G. Vipinan v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Mannam Sugar Mills Corporative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 404
Ajayakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
K.M Mohammed Kutty v. State Transport Commissioner & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
Aboobacker v. Valanchery Municipality and Others 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 407
K.M Mohammed Kutty v. State Transport Commissioner & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Tresa K.J v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Saju v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
Jumaila Beevi v. A. Nissar 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Jose Kuruvinakkunnel @ Kuruvinakkunnel Kuruvachan v Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
Fathima S & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LIiveLaw(Ker) 413
Baby S v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Panayppilly Sree Narayana Guruswami Trust v. Corporation of Kochi & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
Linson Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
Nimal James & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
C.P Ajithkumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 418
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Elna Chinchu 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Jincy K v. Vivek M.P 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
Saritha S. Nair v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
Mahanas Moidu v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
Hindustan Steel and Cement Versus Assistant State Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
Biny Kuriakose v. Joseph Sebastian & connected matters. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
Godson v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
Divyamol R. S. v. The Director General and others 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Gopika Jain & Anr v. Faisal M.A 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
Nirupama Padmakumar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
Ramesh v. Chief Investigation Officer & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Dr K P Hamsakoya vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep [BAIL APPL. NO. 1464 OF 2022] 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
K.J. Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
xxxxxxx v. xxxxxxxxxx 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 433
Basil George v. Shaji Salim & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Gaurav Tewari v. Union of India 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
Abhilash Kumar R. & Ors. v. Kerala Books and Publication Society & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
Salikuttan N. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
XXXXXXXXXX v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Swapna Prabha Suresh v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 440
Mathew Daniel v. Leena Mathew 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 441
Shybu B. v. Sajeev 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
Shibu & Anr v. Sreekumaran & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
M. P. Chothy v. Registrar General & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 444
Flemingo Duty Free Shop Private Ltd. versus Airports Authority of India 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 445
Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman) 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 446
Sri Sivabalan Transports & Ors v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
Mohammed Kasim H.K. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
Sooraj V. Kumar v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 449
Vidya Gopan & Anr v. High Court of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
Anuvarudeen v. Sabina 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 451
Usha Bai & Ors v. Pandikasalya Niyas & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
Madeswari v. K. Manickam 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
Anoop v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 454
Nisha Vellapan Nair v. The Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. and Reka Raj v. Nisha Vellapan Nair & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 455
Sanskruthi Motors v. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 456
Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangham v. The District Collector, Malappuram & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
Rubber Wood India Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Manojkumar P.S. & Ors. and Rubber Board v. Manojkumar P.S. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
James Robert Edward Peirce & Ors. v. Anna Mathew & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 457
Usha Rajan v. Tripunithura Municipality & Ors. and S. Umesh Shenoy v. Tripunithura Municipality & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 458
Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam & Ors. v. K.K. Surendran & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Fathima Thazkiya O v. National Medical Commission and Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw(Ker)460
Dr. C.S. Rajan v. The Registrar, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
Judgments/Orders This Month
Case Title: Olorumemi Benjamin Baba Femi v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State Authorities and Secretary, Social Justice Department, to set up temporary detention centres for foreign citizens who do not possess travel documents within a period of two months. Justice Ziyad Rahman A A further clarified that the setting up of the detention centres must be done in conformity with the stipulations given by the Central Government.
Case Title: P.K Shanmughan v. District Collector & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court on Friday ruled that a residential building which has been rented out for residential purposes cannot be treated as a commercial building under Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
Justice Shaji P. Chaly examined the definition of a residential building under the Act before concluding that giving out a residential building for rent does not change its characteristics to that of a commercial building.
Case Title: Tresa K.J v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court on Monday, considering the reports of flooding in the city amid heavy rainfall this morning, directed the officers of the Disaster Management Authority and the Kochi Municipal Corporation to ensure that every ground level measure is taken and completed on a war-footing so that the severe rains that are expected will not cause deleterious consequences to the citizens in the next few days.
Justice Devan Ramachandran taking into consideration of the heavy rainfall warning for the next couple of days, opined that the situation must be kept under control and the authorities of the Corporation, Disaster Management Authorities must devote sufficient time and attention to the situation as it unfolds on an hour to hour basis.
Case Title: Rajesh Chandran v. M.R. Gopalakrishnan Nair & ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court recently observed that default on the part of the lawyer is a sufficient cause to condone the delay as long as there are no willful latches and negligence on the part of the petitioner.
Justice C.S. Dias added that the parties should not suffer for the inaction, omission or misdemeanour of his counsel while adjudicating on a petition filed for setting aside an order passed by Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunal.
Case Title: Gouri Dev S.B & Ors. v. University Grants Commission & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the suspension orders issued against certain Assistant Professors of the Sree Narayana Guru College finding that they were issued prior to the report of the Internal Complaints Committee against them.
Justice Devan Ramachandran quashed the suspension orders upon learning that their suspension was premeditated while refraining from commenting further on the same.
Case Title: Vasanthan B. v. Sub Inspector of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court on Monday held that the procedure contemplated under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to initiate prosecution against an accused can be used for offences under Section 7 of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A added that CrPC was applicable since the Act did not provide for a specific procedure for the same. The Judge opined that the fact that offences under Section 7 were made cognizable fortified this view.
Case Title: M/s Hedge Finance Pvt. Ltd v. Bijish Joseph
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a sole arbitrator can only be appointed either by a High Court or by an express agreement in writing between the parties in dispute, in the post-2015 amendment era of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
Justice C.S. Dias also ruled that a sole arbitrator appointment through any other mode will be de jure ineligible to act as an arbitrator and that such an appointment will be ex facie bad and in contravention of the Act.
Kerala High Court Stays All Proceedings Against Minister Antony Raju In Evidence Tampering Case
Case Title: Adv. Antony Raju v. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed all the proceedings of the lower court pending against Transport Minister Antony Raju in the evidence tampering case for a period of one month.
While admitting the plea, Justice Ziyad Rahman A A observed that the offences alleged against the petitioner could only be prosecuted on the basis of a complaint by the concerned court or an authorised officer, and not by the police. Therefore, the Court found that the Minister made a prima facie case in his favour.
Case Title: Aboobacker K.A & Ors. v. Joint Regional Transport Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Police Commissioner of Kochi to take action against traffic police officers who were found using mobile phones while on duty.
Justice Amt Rawal also added that anyone who finds an officer using mobile phones except for emergency or official calls can report the same to the toll-free numbers which will be notified soon.
Case Title: Centre for Professional and Advanced Studies v. Abhitha Karun & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that female officers appointed on a contract basis are entitled to the benefit of the Maternity Benefit Act. The Court further ruled that the term 'establishment' under the Act can be any establishment within the meaning of any law that is in force in the State in relation to establishments.
Upon examining the relevant provisions and precedents, the Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha also concluded that the Special Rules of a registered society cannot override the provisions of the Act, which is a Central Act.
Case Title: Sahara Granites v. District Geologist and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the Scheme of Mining only ought to be submitted 120 days before the expiry of the first five-year period for which the Mining Plan was approved on the last occasion as per Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that when the language of Rule 66 is clear, there is no necessity to import the definition of the term 'year' from the Mineral Conservation and Development Rules, which has no application to minor minerals.
Case Title: G. Vipinan v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the Public Interest Litigation challenging the steps taken to confer Indian Police Service (IPS), Kerala Cadre to Abdul Rasheed, retired Superintendent of Police, without considering his alleged criminal background.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that the petition did not stand at this stage after UPSC pointed out that the selection process for the cadre was not complete yet.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the Pathanamthitta District Collector to monitor the upcoming Niraputhari festival scheduled to be held tomorrow at Sabarimala in the wake of the orange alert issued in the district amid heavy downpour.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar also ordered that in case of any exigencies, appropriate decisions shall be taken by the District Disaster Management Authority, including restrictions on entry of pilgrims.
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Corporative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday asked the State to explain how and in what manner it planned to deal with the existing permanent flag masts on various roads and public spaces, mostly erected by vested interests.
While seeking suggestions from competent authorities on how to regulate and remove such installations, Justice Devan Ramachandran criticised the political parties and unions for putting up permanent flag masts in public places without permission.
Case Title: Ajayakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that in dowry death cases, Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act casts a reverse burden on the accused to disprove the prosecution case. It added that if he fails to rebut the presumption under Section 113B, the court is bound to act on it.
Justice A. Badharudeen ruled that the standard of proof in cases involving reverse burden was on the basis of `preponderance of probabilities' while for the prosecution it was 'beyond all reasonable doubt'.
Case Title: Ajayakumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that merely because an accused is found guilty under Section 498A of the IPC (cruelty), does not imply that he must also be held guilty of abetting his wife's suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Justice A. Badharudeen emphasised that Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) are independent and constitute different offences.
Case Title: K.M Mohammed Kutty v. State Transport Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court recently held that advocates filing writ petitions should produce the English translation of documents which are filed in a local or vernacular language while prohibiting its Registry from accepting petitions without such translation.
Justice Amit Rawal was adjudicating upon a petition filed with vernacular documents and a note by the advocate saying that the English translation will be produced as and when required by the Court. The Judge pointed out that there is no provision in the High Court Rules empowering an advocate to attach such a note in a petition.
Case Title: Aboobacker v. Valanchery Municipality and Others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Registry to accept a counter affidavit in a case without insisting on an English translation of the same.
This direction assumes significance since less than a month ago, another Bench of the Court had prohibited the Registry from accepting writ petitions with vernacular documents if not accompanied by an English translation.
Judge's Prerogative To Dispense With English Translations: Kerala High Court Clarifies Earlier Order
Case Title: K.M Mohammed Kutty v. State Transport Commissioner & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Clarifying its earlier order mandating the filing of English Translation of all Malayalam documents, a single bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday clarified that it is the prerogative of a judge to dispense with that requirement on a prayer to that effect being made.
Justice Amit Rawal passed the clarification order in an interlocutory application moved by Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) seeking clarification on the Court's earlier order prohibiting the Registry from entertaining petitions without the English translation along with the paper books.
Case Title: Tresa K.J v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
The Kerala High Court on Thursday issued directions to various competent authorities to clear up the drainage system and canals to prevent inundation of the city. The Court further directed the Cochin Corporation and the Police to ensure that waste is not being dumped in the drains while ordering that if any person found violating these orders shall be dealt with under the full warrant of law.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, while enjoining the Cochin Corporation to keep the drainage system clean by periodically cleaning it and not by an annual exercise alone, observed that with proper resolve, the citizens can be spared of the unnecessary inundation every year.
Case Title: Saju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the non-examination of crucial witnesses or the investigating officer by itself is not a sufficient reason to disbelieve the prosecution case in toto and to acquit the accused if the evidence adduced otherwise emphatically established the prosecution case.
Justice A. Badharudeen added that although the prosecution is duty bound to examine all material witnesses to prove its case, if their presence could not be secured due to valid reasons, their non-examination may be exempted.
Order Cancelling Maintenance U/S 127 CrPC Cannot Operate Retrospectively: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jumaila Beevi v. A. Nissar
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court on Monday ruled that an order of cancellation of maintenance under Section 127(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) always operates prospectively and not retrospectively.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas added that such cancellation orders cannot date back to the date of application and will operate only from the date the maintenance was cancelled.
Case Title: Jose Kuruvinakkunnel @ Kuruvinakkunnel Kuruvachan v Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the conditions set by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) for the theatrical release of a movie should be followed when it is broadcasted on OTT platforms as well.
While adjudicating upon a plea seeing to block the OTT release of the Prithviraj-starrer Malayalam movie 'Kaduva', Justice V.G Arun observed that when the CBFC has already issued directions for a movie, they should be followed even if the OTT rights have been sold.
Kerala High Court Grants 10 More Days For NEET-UG Aspirants To Opt For NRI Quota
Case Title: Fathima S & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LIiveLaw(Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the competent authority to keep the online portal for MBBS Admission for the academic year 2022-23 open for a period of 10 more days for those candidates who intend to opt for the NRI quota.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that since the results of the NEET examinations have not yet been published and candidates were still allowed to opt for other or additional subjects, students who desire to opt for the NRI quota should not be withheld from doing so.
Case Title: Baby S v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed a dowry death case to be reopened after the Sub Inspector (SI) of Police in charge of the investigation closed it as a case of suicide.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that as per Section 113 B of the Indian Evidence Act (presumption as to dowry death) if it is seen that a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment for dowry by the accused soon before her death, the mandatory presumption is that such person caused the dowry death.
Case Title: Panayppilly Sree Narayana Guruswami Trust v. Corporation of Kochi & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a building given on rent will not be exempted from property tax under Section 235 of the Kerala Municipality Act merely because the rent received is utilised for charity purposes.
Upon going through the provision, Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that property tax exemptions only applied to buildings utilised for the specified proposes while emphasising that what is exempted thereunder was the building and not the rent received to the building, even if it was utilised for charity.
Case Title: Linson Thomas v. State of Kerala and Others.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the retrospective operation of a Government Order cannot be permitted particularly when it is merely an executive order, and not a legislation.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the petitioner joined the University unaware of any conditions as put forth by the subsequent Government order; therefore, the retrospective operation of the order cannot be permitted.
Case Title: Nimal James & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court on Monday temporarily refrained self-financing colleges from taking any form of detrimental action against students belonging to the Below Poverty Line (BPL) category merely for not paying the college fee. The students in the BPL category were recently stripped of the scholarship scheme that was previously available to them.
Justice Devan Ramachandran further clarified that this direction was not confined o the petitioners alone but to every student falling under the BPL category.
Case Title: C.P Ajithkumar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the National Highway Authority of India to take immediate steps to rectify every road under their control without any further delay within one week from today.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that steps should be taken to remove the potholes and craters on the road irrespective of whether that be on the National Highway, PWD Roads, or any other road under the control of the various Local Self Government Institutions.
Case Title: Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. Elna Chinchu
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
The Kerala High Court recently observed that a person who bases his claim on the doctrine of legitimate expectation must first satisfy that there is a foundation for the same and thus has a locus standi to make such a claim.
A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that for a beneficiary to have a legitimate expectation on invoking the privilege granted, it must be proved that the beneficiary has the locus standi to make such a claim.
Case Title: Jincy K v. Vivek M.P
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
The Kerala High Court recently allowed a Transfer Petition observing that it is the convenience of the woman and children that has to be looked into while ordering the transfer of a case from one Court to another in matrimonial cases.
Justice C. S. Dias concluded so after referring to the Apex Court decisions regarding the transfer of matrimonial proceedings.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Saritha Nair's Plea Seeking Copies Of Swapna Suresh's 164 Statement
Case Title: Saritha S. Nair v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
The Kerala High Court on Thursday dismissed the plea moved by Saritha S. Nair, the prime accused in the infamous solar panel scam seeking a direction to provide her with copies of the Section 164 statement given by Swapna Suresh, an accused in the diplomatic gold smuggling case.
Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the petition finding that the apprehensions projected by Nair were not substantiated sufficiently and therefore 'speculative'.
Case Title: Mahanas Moidu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
The Kerala High Court on Thursday denied anticipatory bail to the husband of a young vlogger Rifa Mehnaz, who was found dead in her house in Dubai earlier this year under mysterious circumstances.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the application for pre-arrest bail finding that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was essential to elicit the truth surrounding his wife's death.
Case Title: Saritha S. Nair v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
In a significant decision, the Kerala High Court on Thursday held that a statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is a public document falling under Section 74(1)(iii) of the Indian Evidence Act since it is the record of an act of a public officer done in the discharge of his duty.
However, Justice Kauser Edappagath also clarified that no person is entitled to a copy of the 164 statement until the final report in the case has been filed and cognizance is taken in the matter. The Judge emphasised that in the case of a stranger seeking such copies, they are bound to furnish genuine and tangible interest in the document.
Case Title: Hindustan Steel and Cement Versus Assistant State Tax Officer
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
The Kerala High Court has held that assessees have a statutory right to file an appeal even after the voluntary payment of GST or penalty.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath has observed that the culmination of proceedings in respect of a person who seeks to make payment of tax and penalty under Section 129(1)(a) does not result in the generation of a summary of an order under Form DRC-07 and cannot result in the right of the person to file an appeal under Section 107 being deprived.
Case Title: Biny Kuriakose v. Joseph Sebastian & connected matters.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
The Kerala High Court has ruled that while transferring petitions filed for custody of children, the convenience of the child should be given preference particularly when the wife is abroad and appearing through a power of attorney.
Observing so, Justice C.S Dias transferred all the pending cases between a couple to the court near the permanent residence of their child.
Violation Of Bail Conditions By Itself Not A Ground To Cancel Bail: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Godson v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that non-compliance with bail conditions alone is not a ground to cancel the bail already granted to the accused since such cancellation affects the personal liberty of a person under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A clarified that while considering an application to cancel the bail on the ground of non-compliance with the conditions, the court has to consider the question of whether the alleged violation amounts to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice or as to whether it affects the trial of the case in which the accused is implicated.
Offending Officer Can Be Transferred In Case Of Indiscipline In Forces: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Divyamol R. S. v. The Director General and others
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday ruled that it is permissible to deal with indiscipline in disciplined forces by transferring the deviant officers.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. added that such transfers would ensure that discipline is maintained within the force while simultaneously assuring that no aspersion is cast on the officer's character or conduct.
Case Title: Gopika Jain & Anr v. Faisal M.A
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
An interesting development transpired in the Kerala High Court recently when a Commissioner of Police communicated in his statement to the Court that a Sub Inspector of Police was oblivious of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen condemned the cavalier manner in which the Sub Inspector had responded to the contempt of court proceedings initiated against him for non-compliance with these guidelines.
Case Title: Nirupama Padmakumar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State to expeditiously frame a policy to issue community certificates to persons belonging to the non-religious category such that they can avail the benefits available to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).
Justice V.G Arun also observed that a government which claims to be progressive cannot deny non-religious category persons the benefits merely because they choose not to belong to any community or caste.
Air Pollution A Silent Killer, Multi-Sectoral Challenge In India: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Vodafone Idea Ltd v. Kerala State Pollution Control Board & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday emphasised the gravity of air pollution in the country and how it poses a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sectoral challenge for the Centre and the State alike.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that air pollution is a silent killer that impacts public health as well as the national economy detrimentally.
Kerala High Court Denies Bail To LTTE Sympathizer Who Overstayed 5 Years In India Without Visa
Case Title: Ramesh v. Chief Investigation Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
The Kerala High Court on Thursday denied bail to a suspected LTTE sympathizer for having overstayed in India without a Visa and actively plotting to procure prohibited arms and contraband articles while furthering the activities of LTTE in India and abroad.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran dismissed the appeal finding that the witness statements clearly established that he was an active member of the banned terrorist organization 'Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam' (LTTE).
Case title: Dr K P Hamsakoya vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep [BAIL APPL. NO. 1464 OF 2022]
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to a senior doctor who has been accused of posting defamatory articles against officers of the Administration of Lakshadweep on Facebook.
The bench of Justice Viju Abraham was essentially dealing with the pre-arrest bail plea of Dr. K P Hamsakoya, who is one of the seniormost doctors serving the Lakshadweep Administration and that he is presently under suspension.
Case Title: K.J. Varghese v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
The Kerala High Court recently held that the reservations earmarked for persons with disabilities should be enforced in educational institutions aided by the government during their recruitment process. The Court further held that appointments made post-2018 shall not be implemented unless such reservations were awarded.
While clarifying that approval of appointments already granted shall not be unsettled, Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. added that the right of reservation in employment conferred to the disabled under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995 and the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act 2016 cannot be taken away by placing stumbling blocks.
Case Title: xxxxxxx v. xxxxxxxxxx
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 433
The Kerala High Court recently, while dismissing a Matrimonial Appeal, observed that when a marriage has broken down beyond repair, the law should take notice of the fact as refusing to serve the legal tie of such marriages would be injurious to the interest of the parties as well as the society.
Division Bench, Consisting of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice C S Sudha observed that nothing is gained by trying to keep the parties tied for ever to a marriage that in fact has ceased to exist.
Husband's Repeated Taunts, Comparisons With Other Women Qualify As Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court
Case Title: xxxxxxxx v. xxxxxxxxxx
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 433
The Kerala High Court recently observed that constant and repeated taunts of the husband that his wife did not meet his expectations and comparisons with other women would amount to mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 10(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 for the purpose of dissolution of marriage.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice C. S. Sudha observed that for the conduct of a spouse to fall within the ground of cruelty, it should be 'grave and weighty' to the extent that the petitioner's spouse cannot be reasonably expected to live with the other spouse, and should be serious that "ordinary wear and tear of married life".
Can An Elector Seek To Be Impleaded In An Election Petition? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: Basil George v. Shaji Salim & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
The Kerala High Court last week ruled that an elector has a limited right to get impleaded in an election petition and that such right can only be exercised if all the relevant provisions under the Kerala Municipality Act are complied with.
Upon analysing the provisions of the Municipality Act and the declaration of law by the Supreme Court, Justice C.S. Dias took the view that the ring is closed for a ranked outsider to get himself impleaded in an election petition if his aspiration is beyond the scheme of the Act.
Kerala High Court Urges Authorities to Expedite Action To Mitigate Human-Wildlife Conflicts
Case Title: Gaurav Tewari v. Union of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
The Kerala High Court recently asked the concerned authorities to speed up the process of implementing the guidelines proposed to deal with human-animal conflict in the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that though proposals had already been introduced to deal with the issue, they were yet to be implemented in practice.
Pension Is Deferred Salary, Right To Pension A Constitutional Right: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abhilash Kumar R. & Ors. v. Kerala Books and Publication Society & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
The Kerala High Court recently held that the right to pension is a constitutional right and that pensions cannot be paid to retired employees merely at the whims and fancies of the employers.
Justice V.G Arun observed that pension is deferred salary and the right to the same is akin to the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Salikuttan N. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the Local Level Committee for Renal Transplantation cannot insist on the production of a police verification report to forward an application for unrelated organ transplantation filed under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act to the District Level Authorisation Committee.
Justice V.G. Arun also expressed dissatisfaction over the fact that the Committee was taking insisting on the report even when a life was at stake, despite the matter being already settled in Shoukathali Pullikuzhiyil v. District Level Authorization Committee.
Non-Joining Duty Vacancies Should Be Treated As Fresh Vacancies: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the Non Joining Duty (NJD) vacancies that arose in the post of Preventive Officer at the Public Service Commission (PSC) after the amendment of Part III of Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules) will have to be filled as per the amended Rules and not the erstwhile Rules.
A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P also reiterated that a vacancy that arises due to an advised candidate not reporting for duty pursuant to the advice has to be treated as a fresh vacancy.
Case Title: XXXXXXXXXX v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed a Writ Petition that was filed to terminate the 28 week old pregnancy of a 14 year old rape survivor.
The Single Judge Bench of V.G. Arun, while allowing the Writ, took note of the Medical Board's recommendation for the medical termination of pregnancy on the ground that,
"The continuation of pregnancy may cause grave injury to the mental health of the girl", the Court noted.
Case Title: Swapna Prabha Suresh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 440
The Kerala High Court on Friday dismissed the two petitions filed by Swapna Suresh seeking to quash the FIR registered against her for allegedly spreading false information against MLA K.T Jaleel, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan and the Government.
The bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A, while dismissing her plea to quash the FIR, observed that for the purpose of conducting an investigation for the offence under section 153 IPC, the contents of the FIR are sufficient.
Case Title: Mathew Daniel v. Leena Mathew
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 441
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that the Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) has the power to refer the matter before it to mediation as per Section 89 of Civil Procedure Code (CPC), record the compromise and pass an order in terms of the settlement applying the principles of Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC.
Case Title: Shybu B. v. Sajeev
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The Kerala High Court recently held that when a civil court has referred parties to a civil suit to mediation under Section 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, there is an obligation to await the mediation report before passing further orders in the suit.
Justice C.S. Dias, while adjudicating the matter, and deciding as to whether the court below had erred in dismissing the suit as 'not pressed', further observed that, it is statutory that when a suit is settled under Section 89 of the Code, without adjudication, the plaintiff is entitled for refund of the entire court fee as provided in Section 69 (A) of the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, 1959.
No Remedy Under Article 227 For Orders Revisable U/S 115 CPC: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Shibu & Anr v. Sreekumaran & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
The Kerala High Court recently held that an Original Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is not the remedy in relation to an order which is revisable under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Justice A. Badharudheen while holding so, further observed that where there is an allegation of obstruction of natural right (to get light and air to the property) in a civil suit, it is the civil courts that would have jurisdiction over the same, and the Tribunal for Local Self Government cannot address such violation.
Case Title: M. P. Chothy v. Registrar General & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 444
The Kerala High Court recently, while dismissing a writ petition, held that copies of 'A' diary of civil and criminal postings in the courts could not be obtained under the Right to Information Act.
Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that since copies of 'A' diary of civil and criminal posting of cases can be obtained by filing applications under rules made by the High Court, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be restored.
Case Title: Flemingo Duty Free Shop Private Ltd. versus Airports Authority of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 445
The Kerala High Court has ruled that allegation of bias cannot be raised as a ground to seek substitution of Arbitrator under Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act).
The Single Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan held that there is a stark difference between the substitution of an Arbitrator under Section 15(2) and the substitution of the Arbitrator under Section 29A (6) and hence, the request for substitution of an Arbitrator on the ground of bias will not come within the scope of substitution under Section 29A (6) of the A&C Act.
Case Title: Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman)
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 446
The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the appointment of Priya Varghese, wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as an Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam in Kannur University till August 31st.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has passed the interim order staying the appointment of Priya Varghese as an associate professor in a petition filed by the second rank holder in the list.
Case Title: Mohammed Kasim H.K. v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted anticipatory bail to the BJP State General Secretary of Lakshadweep accused of insulting the national flag by holding it with 'saffron down'. Mohammed Kasim HK had been booked under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honours Act, 1971.
Justice Viju Abraham granted pre-arrest bail on noting that custodial interrogation of the petitioner may not be necessary, considering the nature of allegations.
Case Title: Sooraj V. Kumar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the Criminal Appeal filed by a YouTuber, who allegedly insulted a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe through an interview published on social media, and enlarged him on bail. Earlier this month, a Sessions Court in Kerala had dismissed his bail plea on the ground that he had intentionally telecasted the video to humiliate the woman and enlarging him on bail would send a wrong message to society.
Justice Mary Joseph, while granting bail, observed that the Lower Court was more concerned with the impact on society rather than on the purpose served by prolonging the custody.
Kerala High Court Directs Regularization Of Its Court Managers As One-Time Measure
Case Title: Vidya Gopan & Anr v. High Court of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court on Monday held that there can be no discrimination between the appointment of Court Managers in the High Court and the District Court, particularly when the same selection procedure is being followed for both.
A Division Bench comprising Justices SV Bhatti and Basant Balaji, while holding so, observed that merely because notifications were different for the two and the selection to the High Court was under Article 229 of the Constitution, it could not be said that selection process is different. The appellants were held to be entitled to regularization of their posts as Court Managers in the High Court as a one-time measure, accordingly.
Case Title: Anuvarudeen v. Sabina
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court recently, while setting aside two orders restraining a Muslim man from invoking irrevocable Talaq and from conducting a second marriage, held that the Courts have no role in restraining the parties from invoking their personal law remedies as otherwise, it would be violative of their rights protected under Article 25 of the Constitution of India.
Division Bench consisting of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the Court have no role in restraining the parties from invoking their personal law remedies as otherwise, it would be an encroachment of their constitutionally protected right.
Case Title: Madeswari v. K. Manickam
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court recently held that conducting DNA test and proving child's paternity would not be enough to prove the existence of a marriage or domestic relationship in a proceeding under Domestic Violence Act, 2005, when paternity or legitimacy in itself was not a fact in issue.
Justice Kauser Edappagath while holding so, observed that under the DV Act, what is required to be proved in order to maintain an application is that of the petitioner being an aggrieved person, and there being a domestic relationship between the parties.
Case Title: Usha Bai & Ors v. Pandikasalya Niyas & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court recently, while disposing of a Rent Control Revision Petition, held that making available parking space for building visitors is a valid reason for tenant's eviction under Section 11(3) Kerala Buildings Act, 1965.
Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar, relying heavily on the High Court's decision in similar matters, clarified that in order to satisfy the requirement of Section 11(3) of the Act, a bona fide need must be an outcome of a sincere and honest desire of the landlord.
Case Title: Noorul Islam Samskarika Sangham v. The District Collector, Malappuram & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
The Kerala High Court recently, while disallowing a petition to convert a commercial building to a Muslim place of worship, issued a direction to the State Government to close down religious places and prayer halls that were functioning illegally and without permission.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed the Chief Secretary of State of Kerala and the State Police Chief to issue necessary orders / circulars directing all the officers concerned to see that there were no illegal functioning of any religious places and prayer halls without obtaining permission from the competent authorities as per the Manual of Guidelines and if any such religious place or prayer hall is functioning without necessary permission, to close down the same immediately. The Chief Secretary of the State of Kerala was further directed to issue necessary orders/circulars directing the competent authority as per the Manual of Guidelines to consider each application to start religious places and prayer halls strictly and the approval can be granted only in appropriate cases. In such orders, it also ought to be mentioned that that the distance to the nearest similar religious place/prayer hall is the one of the criteria while considering the application for religious places and prayer halls.
Case Title: Anoop v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State Government and the CBSE to issue necessary orders making it mandatory for every school in the state under their control to include a "Prevention-Oriented Program on Sexual Abuse" in the curriculum.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressing his anguish at the alarming rise in the number of sexual offences committed on school children and noticing that, in many instances, the perpetrators themselves were students, observed that the voice of the victims of sexual abuse should not be suppressed, and it is only through education that the victim can be empowered to speak out.
Case Title: Nisha Vellapan Nair v. The Mahatma Gandhi University & Anr. and Reka Raj v. Nisha Vellapan Nair & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday, while setting aside the impugned judgment of the Single Judge Bench, cancelled the selection of an Assistant Professor at M G University.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha, while setting aside the impugned decision of the Single Judge, quashed the selection of the second respondent and directed the University to appoint the petitioner in the place of the second respondent. It observed that the University is not empowered to make relaxations for one candidate as it would be violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the remaining applicants.
Case Title: Sanskruthi Motors v. The Joint Commissioner (Appeals) II
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
The Kerala High Court has held that the officer is duty bound to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner for the expiry of the e-way bill.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P has observed that the officer rejected the explanation offered by the petitioner by stating that no evidence of repair being carried out has been produced. The officer imposed a penalty/tax on the grounds that the petitioner had ample time to revalidate the E-way bill.
James Robert Edward Peirce & Ors. v. Anna Mathew & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court recently held that an application with respect to the guardianship of a minor has to be made to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where the "minor ordinarily resides".
A Division Bench consisting of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that citizenship or domicile of the father of a child, or the fact that rightly or wrongly the child had acquired a foreign passport, will have no bearing in determining the jurisdiction.
Case Title: Usha Rajan v. Tripunithura Municipality & Ors. and S. Umesh Shenoy v. Tripunithura Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court recently, while disposing of two Writ Petitions, held that an Occupancy Certificate cannot be denied on the ground that the land where the building is constructed is a paddy land or wetland in respect of a building which was constructed as per a valid building permit issued prior to the coming into force of the amended provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland 2008 Act (30.12.2017).
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that when an application for an Occupancy Certificate in respect of a building which was constructed as per a valid building permit issued prior to 30.12.2017 is made, the Authorities cannot take umbrage under Section 14 to deny an Occupancy Certificate to the building on the ground that the land where the construction was made is a paddy land or wetland.
Case Title: Pathanapuram Taluk Samajam & Ors. v. K.K. Surendran & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Recently, the Kerala High Court expressed its doubt as to the validity of an earlier Single Judge decision in Sree Gurudeva Charitable and Educational Trust, Kayamkulam & Others v. K. Gopalakrishnan & Others, which had held that it was only the Principal District Judge which had the jurisdiction to grant leave for institution of a suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
On noting that the above decision does not lay down the correct position of law, Justice C.S. Dias was of the considered view that the question regarding whether the Court of the Subordinate Judge is competent to grant leave to institute a suit and, thereafter, to try and dispose of the suit under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, was to be decided by a Bench of two or more Judges, and thus, directed the Registry to place the same before the Chief Justice who may take the appropriate decision in this regard if deemed necessary.
Case Title: Fathima Thazkiya O v. National Medical Commission and Connected Cases
Citation:2022 LiveLaw(Ker)460
The Kerala High Court recently held that the direction issued by the National Medical Commission(NMC) that the fee in 50% of seats in Private Medical Colleges and Deemed Universities should be at par with the fees in Government medical colleges will not apply in the State of Kerala.
The Court held so taking note of the fact that there is no concept of "Government Quota" or "Management Quota" in private medical colleges in Kerala and that the fees of private medical colleges are fixed by a statutory body, Admission and Fee Regulatory Committee(AFRC).
Experience Cannot Substitute Duration Of Service Required By UGC Norms: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dr. C.S. Rajan v. The Registrar, Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that when the UGC norms mandate 8 years of continuous service in the post of 'Reader' in order to be eligible for promotion as 'Professor', then the experience gained by a person in a post which had been gained by him pursuant to an appointment which had hitherto been declared as 'illegal' by the Court would not be sufficient to act as substitute in order to make the person eligible.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Mary Joseph, in the review petition before it, observed that when there are norms stipulating the qualifications which have been laid down by the UGC and which are unambiguous, the Court could not substitute the same with its own interpretation to benefit a person.
Other Significant Developments
Five Paperless Benches To Start Functioning Today: Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines
As five benches gear up to go paperless starting today, the Kerala High Court has issued certain guidelines to be followed by the lawyers. Paperless courts have been introduced in the single benches with Bail jurisdiction and Tax matters, as well as the division bench that considers appeals from these single benches.
The Kerala High Court on Monday extended its stay on the Thiruvanathapuram vigilance court order, which had directed the State to produce the files related to the brewery allotment corruption case.
Justice K. Babu extended the stay while considering a plea filed by the State Government challenging the vigilance court order.
Kerala Court Sentences Three Accused After They Plead Guilty In Kalamassery Bus Burning Case
Case Title: Union of India v Nazeer Thadiyantavidatha @ Ummer Haji & Ors.
A court in Kerala on Monday sentenced Thadiyantavida Nazeer, a suspected Lashkar-e-Taiba operative, and his accomplice to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment in the 2005 Kalamassery bus burning case while sentencing another accused in the case to 6 years imprisonment.
NIA Special Court Judge K Kamanees had convicted them last week after the trio admitted their guilt in the case. The sentence was imposed considering their guilty plea and their young age at the time of committing the crimes.
Case Title: Biju P. Cheruman v. Election Commission of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict in the plea seeking a direction to declare that CPI(M) legislator and former minister Saji Cherian is not entitled to hold the office of MLA after his remarks allegedly insulting the Constitution sparked a controversy across the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the parties before reserving its orders in the matter today.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday, while hearing the plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they were not being paid salary promptly, pulled up on the Employees Unions for continuing the strikes despite assuring the Court that the strikes would be called off.
Justice Devan Ramachandran opined that unless KSRTC, Government and the employees act in unison, it would be impossible to find resources to pay off the recurring liabilities of the Corporation.
Case Title: Adv. Antony Raju v. State of Kerala and Others
Transport Minister Antony Raju has approached the Kerala High Court alleging patent illegality in the procedure adopted by the Kerala High Court and by the Session Court, Thiruvanthapuram, and the Police in the evidence tampering case in which he is an accused and thereby, the continuation of the proceedings before the Court below would be a clear abuse of the process of Court.
NEET-UG | Female Candidates Forced To Remove Innerwear: Kerala High Court Seeks Response From NTA
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Union of India & Ors
The Kerala High Court has directed the National Testing Agency (NTA) to file a detailed statement explaining the manner in which the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) was conducted at its Kollam centre where female aspirants were asked to remove their innerwear before attempting the exam after metallic hooks were detected during screening.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly issued the order on Wednesday in a PIL seeking compensation to the affected candidates and asked the NTA to produce all relevant documents to explain the inquiry conducted into the same.
Case Title: Sam Joseph v. State of Kerala and Others
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday sought answers from the State Government in a Public Interest Litigation filed challenging the arrest and detention of persons who protested against the Chief Minister by waving black flags.
A Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly has issued notice to the Kerala Government and the District Police Complaint Authority and has directed them to file counter affidavit.
Case Title: M.R. Dhanil v. District Collector and Others.
A Public Interest Litigation was filed before the Kerala High Court against the delayed decision of the District Collector, Ernakulam, to declare holiday for the Schools and Colleges in the District due to heavy rainfall. It also sought a directive to frame proper guidelines on declaring holidays to the Schools and Colleges.
The PIL has been filed by Advocate MR Danil, a lawyer practising at the High Court. The petitioner submitted that the District Collector declared holiday to all the schools and colleges in the district due to heavy rainfall at 8:45 AM on the concerned day through a social media post. Later, the District Collector clarified that the Schools that have already started functioning need not be closed.
Case Title: Arsho P.M v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday reserved its verdict on the bail application moved by Arsho P.M, the State Secretary of the Students' Federation of India (SFI), who was taken into custody for the second time after he violated the bail conditions imposed on him.
Justice Viju Abraham heard both the counsels extensively before reserving orders in the bail application. The Judge orally remarked that the decision will be pronounced next week.
Case Title: Adv. M. Swaraj v. K. Babu
Justice Sophy Thomas of the Kerala High Court on Friday recused from hearing the plea moved by CPI(M) leader and former MLA M. Swaraj challenging the election of Congress candidate K. Babu from the Tripunithura constituency.
When the case was taken up, Justice Thomas recused from the case citing that she was a voter of the same constituency.
Case Title: Nandu Krishnan R & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed its Registry to accept two petitions challenging the Centre's Agnipath recruitment scheme for armed forces, that were flagged as "defective" on point of maintainability.
This comes after the Kochi bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal refused to hear the challenge.
Justice Anu Sivaraman, after hearing the arguments raised by Advocates Siji Antony, John Varghese and P.M Joseph, directed the Registry to number the cases and place them for admission before the bench on the next day.
Case Title: Nandu Krishnan R & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Registry to transfer three petitions relating to the Agnipath scheme to the Delhi High Court so that the matter can be renumbered and be heard along with the other pending similar matters.
Justice Anu Sivaraman transferred the cases relied on the Apex Court Order directing the transfer of all Agnipath-related matters to the Delhi High Court. This comes after the Kochi bench of the Armed Forces Tribunal refused to hear the challenge.
Case Title: Foundation for Restoration of National Values v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court has initiated a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) directing the State Government to take proper and prompt action during monsoons considering that persistent rainfall has caused severe loss to the lives and properties of people in the State.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly launched the PIL to monitor the governmental action in providing appropriate mechanisms to manage emergency situations arising during the monsoon season and otherwise under the Disaster Management Act.
Case Title: Parents Association of Foreign Medical Graduates v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court has sought the response of the National Medical Commission in a plea filed on behalf of 92 medical students studying in different universities in China seeking practical training and internship facilities in India till the travel restrictions to China are lifted.
Justice V.G Arun directed the NMC to file an affidavit communicating the Commission's stand on the issue.
Dr Thomas Issac, former Finance Minister of Kerala and a member of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the summons issued by the Enforcement Directorate seeking his appearance in connection with the financial transactions of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB).
In the writ petition, Issac stated that the ED, without disclosing the real nature of the investigation, has asked him to appear on August 11 to explain his role in the KIIFB. Though the summons mentions provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act and the Income Tax Act, it does not reveal what are the violations to which the petitioner is required to respond. It is argued that the attempt of the ED is to initiate a "fishing and roving enquiry" by keeping the petitioner in dark about the real nature of the allegations. Thomas had submitted in his writ petition that the central agency had asked him to produce the details of his properties, both moveable and immoveable, as well as those of his family members.
Case Title: Blessen Baby v. Union of India & Ors
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Kerala High Court seeking assistance for all differently-abled students in examinations, regardless of the percentage of their disability.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recently issued notice to the Centre, State and the relevant State Education Departments in the plea.
Case Title: Dr T.M. Thomas Isaac v. The Deputy Director
The Kerala High Court on Thursday asked the Enforcement Directorate to explain why former Finance Minister of Kerala Dr Thomas Issac was asked to produce private information regarding his assets at this preliminary stage of the case, particularly when he was not even an accused or suspect yet.
Justice V G Arun raised the question while hearing the plea filed by Issac against the proceedings initiated by the ED seeking his appearance in connection with the financial transactions of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB). Thomas had submitted in his writ petition that the central agency had asked him to produce the details of his properties, both moveable and immoveable, as well as those of his family members.
Case Title: KK Shailaja & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on a PIL moved by five MLAs against the ongoing Enforcement Directorate probe into the financial transactions of the Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB).
A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly doubted the maintainability of the plea on the grounds that it may not qualify as a public interest litigation and that the investigation of the case was still at its preliminary stage.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
The Kerala State Transport Employee Association (KSRTC) has sought ten more days from the Kerala High Court to disburse salary yet to be paid to its employees.
This comes after the Court directed KSRTC to disburse salary to its employees for the months of June and July before August 10 while adjudicating on a plea alleging that the employees were not being paid promptly.
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin
The Kerala High Court on Friday ordered that every future road accident caused by potholes would have to be explained by the District Collectors. It further directed that the officers under the various District Collectors - in their capacity as Chairman or Chairperson of the Disaster Manager Authority - ought to be instructed to visit and watch every road and ensure that all of them are kept free of disaster lest another accident happens.
"Why Multiple Summons Were Issued On Same Information?": Kerala High Court Asks ED In KIIFB's Plea
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board(KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday while adjourning the plea filed by KIIFB challenging the summons issued by the Directorate of Enforcement observed that the repeated issuance of summons by the ED to the KIIFB, for producing the same documents, indicates a lack of application of mind on the part of the Investigating Agency.
Justice V. G. Arun taking note of the fact that the ED had issued repeated summons for obtaining the same documents relating to the usage of the funds collected through the Masala Bonds, orally remarked that it indicates a lack of application of mind.
Case Title: Sooraj V. Sukumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Sessions Court in Kerala recently denied bail to a YouTuber who allegedly insulted a woman belonging to a Scheduled Tribe through an interview published on social media on the ground that he had intentionally telecasted the video to humiliate the woman.
Ernakulam Sessions Judge Honey M. Varghese dismissed the bail application observing that enlarging him on bail at this stage would send a wrong message to the society, particularly since he had reiterated his stand against the woman despite having been denied bail by the High Court.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday voiced its disappointment at the delay in disbursing the pending salary of the KSRTC employees and thereby asked the authorities to utilise the assets of the KSRTC to pay the salaries of the employees.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his discontent at the delay even after repeated orders have been passed by the Court.
Case Title: Civic Chandran@ C. V. Kuttan v. State of Kerala
While granting anticipatory bail to author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, a Kerala Court observed that the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing 'sexually provocative dresses'.
The 74-year-old accused had produced the photographs of the woman along with the bail application.
"The photographs produced along with the bail application by the accused would reveal that the defacto complainant herself is exposing to dresses which are having some sexual provocative one. So Section 354A will not prima facie stand against the accused", the Kozhikode Sessions Court noted in the order.
State Moves Kerala High Court Against Bail Granted To Civic Chandran In Sexual Harassment Case
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran & Anr.
The Kerala Government has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case filed by a Dalit Writer.
The Kerala State Government has approached the Kerala High Court through Additional Public Prosecutor challenging the anticipatory bail granted to Writer-Activist Civic Chandran, citing that the order is against the spirit of the Special Law enacted for Prevention of Atrocities against the people belonging to SC/ST community.
Case Title: Lakshmi Sajeev v. State of Kerala & Ors.
A Student has moved the Kerala High Court challenging the policy of the State policy to award bonus marks for Plus One Admissions on the ground that it is unduly favouring students from the State Board.
The petition has been moved through Advocates Aji V. Dev and Alan Priyadarshi Dev, challenging the policy of the State to award bonus marks for Plus One Admission on the grounds that it is arbitrary and therefore violative of Articles 14 and 15(1) of the Constitution of India.
Madhu Lynching Case| Kerala Court Cancels Bail Of 12 Accused For Influencing Witnesses
Case Title: State v. Hussain & Ors.
The Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad, on Saturday, cancelled the bail granted to 12 of the 16 accused in the lynching case the tribal youth, Madhu in Attappady in Kerala in February 2018.
The Special Court Judge K.M. Retheesh Kumar, while cancelling the bail, importantly observed that granting of bail is not an unfettered freedom granted to the accused, and if it is found that there is likelihood of accused fleeing from justice, then bail granted to the accused can be cancelled and his personal liberty can be curtailed invoking authority under section 437(5) and 439(2) Cr.PC.
Transportation Of LPG Cylinders A Public Utility Service: Kerala High Court Restrains Strike
Case Title: Sri Sivabalan Transports & Ors v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday, while declaring the transportation of LPG Cylinders to be a 'public utility service' as defined in Section 2(n) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, restrained a proposed strike by members of Kannur District Fuel Employees Union. It held that no person employed in such public utility service can go on strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer and seven days after the conclusion of such proceedings.
Justice Murali Purushothaman, while observing that since conciliation proceedings were pending in the instant case, and since Section 22 prohibits strikes and lockouts during the pendency of any such conciliation proceedings, issued an interim order restraining the proposed strike on 22nd and 23rd of August, 2022, or any subsequent day during the pendency of the aforementioned proceedings.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran
The Kerala Government moved the Kerala High Court challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case. The Kozhikode Sessions Court's order passed on August 12 had created a massive social outrage as it had observations to the effect that sexual harassment complaint will not stand if the woman was wearing a "sexually provocative dress".
In the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed under Sections 482 read with 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the State has challenged the findings and reasoning given by the Sessions Court as suffering from "illegality, lack of sensitivity, sobriety and perversity".
Case Title: Hotel Port Palace v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday stayed the operation of an order issued by the Thiruvananthapuram district collector on August 20, directing closure of liquor shops in Vizhinjam for two days, taking into account the possibility of conflict in the context of the protests in the area. The stay is to operate till August 24, the next date of hearing.
The impugned order under Section 54 of the Abkari Act, 1977 was issued on the basis of a report by the Inspector, in light of the indefinite strike conducted under the leadership of Archdiocese of Latin Catholics, Thiruvananthapuram against the construction of International Port at Vizhinjam.
Justice Amit Rawal while staying the aforementioned order, noted that although the protests had been continuing since long, it was not at a violent stage.
Judge Who Passed 'Provocative Dress' Order In Civic Chandran's Case Transferred
The Kerala Judge who granted anticipatory bail to the writer-activist Civic Chandran and made the controversial observation that "sexual harassment case will not prima facie stand if the woman was wearing a sexually provocative dress" has been transferred.
Pursuant to the administrative Order issued by Kerala High Court on Tuesday, the erstwhile District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, S. Krishnakumar, has now been transferred to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam. Three other judges were also transferred by the same order.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Civic Chandran
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, in the plea moved by the State Government challenging the anticipatory bail granted to the author and social activist Civic Chandran in a sexual harassment case, has stayed the order of the Sessions Court granting bail.
Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the observation of the lower under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is not prima facie attracted when the woman was wearing 'sexually provocative dresses' cannot be justified.
Case Title: R. Baji & Ors. v. KSRTC & Ors.
The Kerala High Court, on Wednesday, in the plea moved by the KSRTC employees alleging that they were not being paid salary promptly has directed the competent authority to release the requisite amount required to the KSRTC to pay the salaries for the months of July and August along with the bonus eligible to all the employees below the managerial cadre on or before the 1st September.
Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his discontent at the delay even after repeated orders have been passed by the Court.
Madhu Lynching Case: Kerala High Court Stays Special Court Order Canceling Bail Of 12 Accused
Case Title: Marakkar & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed an order of the Special Court for SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Mannarkkad, cancelling the bail granted to 12 of the 16 accused in the lynching case of tribal youth, Madhu, accused of stealing food in Attappady in February 2018.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stayed the lower court's order till 29th August, 2022 (Monday) on an appeal filed by two accused, Marakkar and Radhakrishnan.
Case Title: Abdurahiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The brother of journalist K M Basheer, who died in a road rage involving IAS Officer Sreeram Venkitaraman, has moved the Kerala High Court seeking a CBI probe into the incident which took place in August 2019.
In the petition moved through Advocate P.T. Sheejish, the Petitioner, who is the brother of the deceased Journalist, alleges that the accused, who is a very influential IAS Officer, had sought the help of higher Police Authorities to save him from the crime by simplifying the incident as a car accident.
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd & 2 Ors v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors. and Howe Engineering Projects (I) Pvt. Ltd. & 3 Ors. v. State of Kerala & 27 Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State Police to ensure that the law and order situation is maintained at the Vizhinjam International Seaport construction site. The direction was made while adjourning till Monday the petitions filed by M/S Adani Vizhinjam Port Pvt Ltd and its contracting company Howe Engineering Projects, seeking protection for their employees and property from those protesting against the project.
Justice Anu Sivaraman issued notices to the Respondents and observed that no private person should take the legal machinery into their hands. Thereby, the bench ordered that the concerned Station House Officer as well as the Commissioner of Police to see that law and order is maintained.
Authorities "Afraid" To Act Against Illegal Flag-Masts Erected By Political Parties
Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Corporative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendent of Police
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reiterated its previous observation regarding permanent flag-masts being illegal as per the provisions of the Land Conservancy Act, and expressed its hope that the Government would come out with a policy of removing old masts and inhibiting the erection of new ones in its place.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that, "solely because they are put up by powerful interests, including political parties, Trade Unions and such other entities, the competent Authorities are either non-willing or afraid to act".
The Court had earlier issued a direction to the competent authority to issue circulars within the ambit of the Land Conservancy Act, suggesting the manner and mode under which the existing illegal permanent flag masts would be regulated and removed. The matter has been adjourned to September 22, 2022.
Case Title: V. Mohanlal v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Actor Mohanlal moved the Kerala High Court, challenging the order passed by JFCM, Perumbavoor, which dismissed the State Government's plea to withdraw prosecution proceedings against him in the alleged illegal possession of ivory case against him.
In the Criminal Revision Petition, the revision petitioner seeks to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Magistrate, citing that the only ground relied upon by the Magistrate is that the validity of the certificate of ownership issued by the Government as per declaration made under Section 40(4) of the Act is still pending before the Kerala High Court in a Public Interest Litigation.
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala
Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, S. Krishnakumar, who was recently transferred to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam, subsequently after passing the 'Provocative Dress' remark in the Civic Chandran's Case, has approached the Kerala High Court challenging his transfer order.
In the petition moved through Advocates Dinesh Mathew J. Muricken, Ahammad Sachin K, Nayana Varghese and Vinod S. Pillai, the Petitioner challenges the transfer from the post over a controversial remark about the dressing of a sexual assault survivor in a judicial order alleging that the transfer is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the Government to look into the criminal cases registered against the citizens who opposed laying of survey stones for the K-Rail Project.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that even the Government has realised that a project of this nature cannot be executed without the support and help of the citizenry as a whole which is evident from their subsequent orders directing the SIA to be complete only electronically or via geotagging.
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reserved order in the plea moved by the Principle District and Sessions Judge, Kozhikode, challenging his transfer order to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam, subsequently after passing the 'Provocative Dress' remark in the Civic Chandran's Case.
Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that the transfer is not a deputation as it is well within the cadre of the Principle District Judge.
Kerala Govt Has No Obligation To Pay KSRTC Salaries: State's Appeal In High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala v. R. Baji
The Kerala Government has approached the High Court challenging the order directing it to release requisite funds to KSRTC to clear salary dues of its employees for the months of July and August, along with the bonus eligible to those below the managerial cadre on or before the 1st September.
In the Writ Appeal moved through Special Government Pleader Advocate P. Santhosh Kumar, the State challenged the order passed by the Court on 24th August 2022, contending that the State Government has no obligation to pay salary and other allowance to the employees of the KSRTC.
Case Title: Indian Professional Nurses Association v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court has sought a reply from the State regarding the salary and working conditions of nurses working in private hospitals. This comes in the plea moved by the Indian Professional Nurses Association seeking implementation of Prof. Jagadish Prasad Committee Report.
Justice P. V. Kuhnikrishnan admitted the PIL and sought reply from the Kerala Government.
The plea moved through Advocates Jose Abraham, N Ragesg, Adithyan Ezhapilly and R. Muraleedharan submits that subsequent to the Supreme Court decision, the Central Government had constituted an Expert Committee to make recommendations for the improvement of the working conditions and salaries of nurses working in private hospitals and nursing homes.