Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: November 2022 [Citations 560-624]
Navya Benny
2 Dec 2022 9:16 AM IST
![Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: November 2022 [Citations 560-624]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2022/12/01/750x450_447156-408710-kerala-high-court-monthly-digest.jpg "Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: November 2022 [Citations 560-624]")
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 560-624] Das @ Anu v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 560Kallar Harikumar v. Amritha Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 561Mathew P. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 562S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 563Rousha P Ali v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 564Mangalam...
Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 560-624]
Das @ Anu v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Kallar Harikumar v. Amritha Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 561
Mathew P. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 563
Rousha P Ali v. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 564
Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
Muhammed Yasin v. Station House Officer & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
V.K. Bhasi v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
Mount Zion College of Engineering v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
Devanandan M.C. & Ors. v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Anr. v. Divyata Nedungadi alias Divya Balakrishnan and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 571
S. Rajeev Kumar v. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
State of Kerala & Ors v. M.V. Dines & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
NG v. AKG & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 574
Ramsiyamol R S v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 575
Sebastian Joseph & Anr v. The University of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
Dr Ferosh M Basheer v. The University of Kerala and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 577
Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
Abu Thahir v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 579
Nazeem S.R. & Ors. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. and Kuriakose K.B. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. Joshi Varghese & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
Vishnu M v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
Dr. Prathibha K. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
Jose and Ors. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
Gisha Marin Jose v. State of Kerala and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 586
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
Dr. K.K. Vijayan v. The Chancellor and Dr G. Sadasivan Nair v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 588
Milan Dorich v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 589
Rishada Haris K.P. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Bennat Tom V. v. Calicut University & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
K.P. Ramachandran Nair & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice-Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman) 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 593
Omassery Labour Contract Co-Operative Society & Ors v. Mukkam Municipality & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Ravi Parameswara Raja 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 596
Akshay@Ajeesh@Ananthu v. State of Kerala & Anr and Akhila A.P. @ Lalu & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
K C Antony Versus Principal Commissioner 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 598
Santhosh Kumar Nair v. Suresh P. Sreedharan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
Khaledur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
Special Tahsildar V. Union Of India 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 601
K. Surendran v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 602
Mani C Kappen v. Sunny Joseph & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 603
Kuriachan Chacko & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Joy John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
Suo Motu v. Baiju Kottarakkara 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
Suhadath K.K. v. Shihab K.B. & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
Aswin Krishna Prasad v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
Devika K.D. v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
M.K. Surendrababu v. Kodungalloor Town Co-Op Bank Ltd. & Ors. and other connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
Prasoon Sunny v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
Union of India & Anr v. Pavithran K. & Anr and other connected cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
Hombale Films LLP v. The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
Sujith A. V. v. State of Kerala and Anr. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 613
XXXXX v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 614
Tino Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
M.A. Hakkim v. M/S Patanjali Agro India Pvt. Ltd. and connected cases 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 616
Praicy Joseph v. Regional Transport Officer (Registration Authority), Ernakulam & Anr. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
Muhammed Shanavas v. Radhakrishnan & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
Hussain v. State of Kerala and another 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
Memana Baby v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
State of Kerala rep. by the Addl. Secretary to the Government v. The Chancellor 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
Nandakumar T.P v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sanal Kumar v. State 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 622
Sindhu and Anr. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 623
Adv. P.V. Jeevesh v. Union of India & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
Judgments/Orders This Month
Case Title: Das @ Anu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court on Friday ruled that the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India does not extend to protecting an accused from being compelled to give his blood sample during the investigation of a criminal case.
Justice Kauser Edappagath said the privilege of Article 20(3) is applicable only to testimonial evidence and drawing DNA samples from the body of an accused in a criminal case, especially in a case involving sexual offence, will not violate his right against self-incrimination protected under Article 20(3). "The right against self-incrimination is just a prohibition on the use of physical or oral compulsion to extort testimonial evidence from a person, not an exclusion of evidence taken from his body when it may be material."
Case Title: Kallar Harikumar v. Amritha Enterprises Pvt Ltd & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that when a cheque issued by a company is dishonored, prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against its Director shall not sustain if the company is not arrayed as an accused.
Justice A. Badharudeen relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court, observed that prosecution against the director of the company merely for the reason that the director had signed the cheque shall not sustain if the company is not arraigned as an accused in the case. "In this case, admittedly, the cheque was issued for and on behalf of a company and the company is not arraigned as an accused. Therefore, in view of the above legal position, the entire prosecution is vitiated and accordingly, the concurrent finding of conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside".
Case Title: Mathew P. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to grant police protection to a part time lecturer at St. Thomas College, Kozhencherry, who pleaded that he was being harassed and threatened by members of the Students Federation of India (SFI), following what he claimed to be a "frivolous complaint" filed against him for questioning the unauthorized absence of two girls in his class.
Justice Anu Sivaraman, passed the order after noting the submissions made in this regard by the Station House Officer of Aranmula Police Station, and the Principal of the College, and observed that it would be for the Principal to raise the issues of law and order before the police, if any such situation is prevalent in the College.
Case Title: S. Krishnakumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the order for transfer of Kozhikode Principal District & Sessions Judge, S. Krishnakumar, who made controversial 'sexually provocative dress' remark Civic Chandran's case.
A Division Bench consisting of Justice A K Jayashankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C P while allowing the judicial officer's writ appeal and quashed the order of Registrar General, transferring him to the post of Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kollam, observed that: "...although his transfer order states that his transfer is in the exigencies of service, the circumstances under which he was transferred, and that too to a post that is not perceived by those in the service, to be of the same status as that of the Principal District & Sessions Judge in the Higher Judicial Service in the State, persuades us to view the same as punitive in nature and unfair to the appellant".
Case Title: Rousha P Ali v. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 564
Observing that the State cannot act arbitrarily and unfairly when it comes to grant of leave to employees, the Kerala High Court Tuesday directed the department of posts to permit a Postal Assistant to take an extraordinary unpaid leave of one year to enable her to pursue a PhD Course in Malayalam.
The division bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nambiar C. P said: "While we are aware that the grant of leave to an employee in the prerogative of the employer it does not follow that an employer who answers to the description of 'state' under Article 12 of the Constitution can act arbitrarily and unfairly in such matters".
Case Title: Mangalam Publications (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday said that 20% wages that had been paid to workers by the employer as 'interim relief' at the direction of government constituted Wage Board would come within the ambit of 'basic wages' for contributions under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan said that such 'interim relief' would not fall within the exceptions carved out for basic wages in Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act. The bench observed, "It is an admitted fact that 20% of the wages are paid as interim relief to all the employees. At no stretch of the imagination, this Court can conclude that this will come within the purview of Section 2(b)(ii) of the Act, 1952."
[POCSO Act] Unilateral Bail Cancellation Without Hearing Accused Not Legal: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muhammed Yasin v. Station House Officer & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday reiterated that while hearing an application for cancellation of bail, even of an accused booked under the POCSO Act, an opportunity of hearing must be accorded to the accused. It condemned the action of a local Fast Track Court which cancelled the bail of the Petitioner herein, an accused under Sections 354A(I)(i) IPC and Sections 9 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, with an opportunity of hearing. The bail cancellation was sought on the ground that the accused-Petitioner had contacted the victim child and violated other bail conditions.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, while setting aside the bail cancellation order, observed that, "When the cancellation of bail is sought either on the ground of post conduct of the accused like violation of the conditions of the bail or on the ground of the occurrence of supervening circumstances, the court must issue notice to the accused to explain why the bail granted to him should not be cancelled. He should also be given a fair opportunity of hearing. The order cancelling the bail unilaterally without hearing the accused cannot withstand legally".
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
Quashing a rape case against a lawyer, the Kerala High Court on Thursday said there is no specific allegation in the prosecutrix's statement that he had given a false promise to marry her based on which she had been induced into a sexual relationship. The prosecution case was that the accused had sexual intercourse with the woman on the basis of a false promise of marriage. Though the woman had given her no objection for quashing the proceedings, the public prosecutor had argued that the high court cannot quash a rape case even if the dispute has been settled between the parties.
Observing that the allegation is "so vague" and that woman has not been even able to disclose the dates of of alleged sexual intercourse, Justice Kauser Edappagath said admittedly the couple was in a consensual relationship for the past four years.
Case Title: V.K. Bhasi v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
The Kerala High Court recently embarked upon a detailed analysis of the Solatium Scheme of 1989 framed by the Central Government under Section 163(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which provides for compensation in hit and run accidents.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was of the opinion that the general public is not aware of the Scheme or the competent authority to be approached in order to submit an application for getting compensation in 'hit and run' cases. "A reading of Sections 161 to 163 of the Act, 1988 and the Solatium Scheme, 1989, will show that it is a complete code and a time limit is also prescribed for paying the compensation in 'hit and run' motor accident cases. The victims of hit and run motor accident cases should invoke the above provisions and the statutory compensation available to them should be utilised," the bench said while explaining the Scheme in detail.
Case Title: Mount Zion College of Engineering v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
The Kerala High Court recently directed the District Collector, Pathanamthitta to disburse electricity charges to a private college which was used as a Covid First Line Treatment Centre from May 21 to December 20 in 2020.
Justice V.G. Arun passed the order directing the officer, who is also Chairperson of Disaster Management Authority, to disburse the amount within an outer limit of two months.
Case Title: Devanandan M.C. & Ors. v. The Board of Control for Cricket in India & Ors
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
The Kerala High Court has said that Justice R.M. Lodha Committee recommendations do not apply to the district cricket association elections.
Justice N. Nagaresh in a judgement delivered on Monday said the Committee and the apex court in Board of Control for Cricket v. Cricket Association of Bihar and others intended to make reforms in the governance of BCCI and bring the state cricket associations (SCAs) in harmony with such reforms, adding the top court has categorically held in its decision that the composition of the SCAs will remain unaffected "and so does the right of those forming such Associations under Article 19(1)(c)."
Case Title: Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit and Anr. v. Divyata Nedungadi alias Divya Balakrishnan and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 571
The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that Unreserved Category Candidates can be excluded from the selection process itself, if the statute disentitle their consideration for vacancies earmarked for a particular reserved category, even in the absence of suitable candidates.
Division bench consisting of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha said that permitting open category candidates to participate in such selection process will only give them "false hopes".
CBI Not Liable To Furnish Information Under RTI Act, Exempted U/S 24: Kerala High Court
Case Title: S. Rajeev Kumar v. The Director, Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is not liable to furnish any information sought under the RTI Act, as it is included in the second schedule in contemplation of Section 24 of the RTI Act which exempts certain organisations from the Act. As per Section 24 of the RTI Act, the Act shall not apply to the intelligence and security organisations specified in the Second Schedule, being organizations established by the Central Government or any information furnished by such organizations to that Government. [Information pertaining to allegations of corruption and human rights violations are not exempted.]
Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed that as per a notification issued by the Government in 2011, CBI, NIA and National Intelligence Grid are included in the Second Schedule to RTI Act, and therefore, CBI is not liable to furnish any information. "Therefore, it can be seen that once CBI is included in the second schedule in contemplation of Section 24 of the Act, 2005, the said organization is not liable to furnish any information".
Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. M.V. Dines & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
The Kerala High Court last week ruled that Statute 66 of Calicut University (Conditions of Service of the Teachers and Members of Non-Teaching Staff) First Statutes, 1979 enables an incumbent in a lower category to claim promotion only to the immediate next grade.
Allowing Kerala government's appeal against a single judge decision, the division bench of Justice P.B. Sureshkumar and Justice C.S. Sudha rejected the argument that promotion need not be from the immediate lower category only and can be effected from any of the lower categories.
Case Title: NG v. AKG & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 574
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated the settled position that while considering custody matters, Court must pass orders ensuring that the child is not totally deprived of the love, affection and company of one of the parents.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that if the child is denied the opportunity to interact with one of the parents, it certainly will cause "snapping of the emotional and psychological bondage". While stating so, the bench took note of the position in Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan (2020) where the Supreme Court held that child has a human right to have the love and affection of both parents. "Just because the parents are at war with each other, does not mean that the child should be denied the care, affection, love or protection of any one of the two parents. A child is not an inanimate object which can be tossed from one parent to the other. Every separation and every re-union may have a traumatic and psychosomatic impact on the child," the SC had said.
Case Title: Ramsiyamol R S v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 575
The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that economic backwardness or the possibility of social stigma cannot be a ground for transgressing the statutory prohibition prescribed by the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and granting permission for medical termination of pregnancy.
Justice V G Arun observed, "In the absence of any medical reasons referable to the petitioner or the foetus, economic backwardness or possibility of social stigma cannot compel this Court to transgress the statutory prohibition and grant permission for medical termination of pregnancy".
Case Title: Sebastian Joseph & Anr v. The University of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
The Kerala High Court recently held that when the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for appointment of Teachers in Universities and Colleges (UGC Regulations 2018) does not impose any upper age limit for the position of Professor, any stipulation in the Kerala University First Statutes 1977 cannot hold to the contrary.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed, "...when the "UGC Regulations 2018" has deliberately and consciously refused to impose the stipulation of an upper age limit for the purpose of appointment as a Professor, I fail to understand how any such contra - stipulation in the "First Statutes" of the Kerala University, particularly when it was introduced as early as in the year 1986 – much before the "UGC Regulation" were framed - can operate to the detriment of persons like the petitioners".
Case Title: Dr Ferosh M Basheer v. The University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in cases filed challenging the selection of a candidate to a post, the persons "whose interests would be jeopardised" by the outcome of the proceedings must also be arrayed as parties to the petition.
The division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C. S. Sudha said: "As such, in a case of this nature, not only candidates whose interests would be affected directly on account of the outcome of the proceedings, but also candidates whose interests would be jeopardised, are necessarily to be arrayed as parties to the writ petition."
Case Title: Sreeja Mannangath v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated the settled position of law that misuse of liberty granted to an accused person by indulging in similar/other criminal activities, thereby violating conditions imposed in the bail order, would amount to a 'supervening circumstance' in order to their cancel bail.
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order while considering the petition for cancellation of bail moved by the de facto complainant/petitioner since the accused resorted to disturbing her with an attempt to outrage her modesty and committing overt acts, after his release on bail. "...It has to be held that the accused herein has no respect to the Court order and he has been repeatedly disturbing the defacto complainant in violation of the condition imposed by this Court. Therefore, these are supervening circumstances which would tempt this Court to exercise the power of cancellation of bail", the Court observed.
Case Title: Abu Thahir v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 579
The Kerala High Court on Monday reiterated that recording voice sample of accused does not violate his right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution and directed that the recording and testing of voice samples as part of the investigation be done in a Centre as notified by the Central Government as per Section 79A of Information Technology Act. The provision stipulates that the Central Government may, for the purpose of providing expert opinion on electronic form of evidence before any Court or other authority specify, by notification in the Official Gazette, any Department, body or agency of the Central Government or a State Government as an Examiner of Electronic Evidence.
Taking view of this, Justice A. Badharudeen modified the impugned order to the extent it directed the petitioner (accused in an NDPS case) to appear before the Director of All India Radio Station, and ordered him to appear before the Cyber Forensic Division, State Forensics Science Laboratory, as it is the centre notified under Section 79A of IT Act. "...who is the person capable of recording the voice sample of the petitioner? In fact, Section 79A of the IT Act, authorises the Central Government to issue notification in this regard. Therefore, the voice sample also can be collected by the Cyber Forensic Division, State Forensics Science Laboratory, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram".
Case Title: Nazeem S.R. & Ors. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. and Kuriakose K.B. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday extended the time period for submission of applications by the candidates, who had earlier applied for 'Reserve Driver' posts and were included in the rank list prepared by state Public Service Commission, till November 14.
Justice Devan Ramachandran gave the petitioners the liberty to make an application to the competent authority of KSRTC along with the documents and evidence to show that they were included in the old rank list prepared by the PSC. The candidates were earlier required to file such applications before October 26. "If this is done by the petitioners, their claims will be considered by the KSRTC appropriately adverting to all other required criteria as may be satisfied," said the court.
Case Title: Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. Joshi Varghese & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
Observing that when exemption is sought for the first appearance, the standards to be applied should be more stringent, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed Cardinal Mar George Alencherry's petition seeking exemption from personal appearance in the private complaint cases filed against him before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kakkanad, for alleged illegal sale of the land belonging to the Church.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the exemption from personal appearance contemplated under Section 205 Cr.P.C is an exception to the normal rule and subject to the discretion of the court. "...granting an exemption to the petitioner for the first appearance in this case, would send a wrong message to the Society as well. According to the petitioner, he is a religious head required to carry out several functions in various capacities and seeks exemption on that ground. In my view, the position that he holds would not make him entitled to any special privileges when he is brought before a court of law as an accused. The statutory mandate is over and above all the superiority the accused possesses or claims to have, by virtue of his position. Irrespective of his position, he is just an accused before the court of law, who is not entitled to claim any special privilege and is required to face the proceedings just like any other citizen. The provisions of Cr.P.C does not distinguish between ordinary citizens and persons holding superior positions in their religious, political, social, or other institutions".
Case Title: Vishnu M v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
Reiterating that there is no absolute prohibition in entertaining an application under Section 85(3) CrPC at the instance of an accused even after the expiry of statutory period, the Kerala High Court recently said that nothing will preclude the legal heir of the accused from submitting an application in this regard when the accused is no more.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. relied upon the court's recent decision in Transsafe Refrigeration Private Ltd. (M/s.) and another v. State of Kerala and another wherein it was held that even after expiry of the said period, an application at the instance of the accused can be entertained. "In the light of the observations made by this Court in the said decision, it is clear that there is no absolute prohibition in entertaining an application at the instance of the accused even after the expiry of the statutory period," the bench said.
Case Title: Dr. Prathibha K. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
The Kerala High Court recently directed State's Principal Health Secretary to decide a medical officer's representation seeking to relieve clinical doctors from the responsibility of participating in meetings of Gram-level Administrative Committees for the purpose of deciding list of beneficiaries eligible for financial assistance for kidney dialysis. The Petitioner alleged that to participate in such meetings, Medical Officers of Primary, Family and Community Health Centres have to abstain from their duties, which in turn adversely affects other ordinary patients. He apprehended that "doctors in the primary, family, and community health centre will be implicated in some criminal case under the prevention of corruption Act for the corruption done by the Panchayath Governing Body in granting and distributing money for the kidney dialysis treatment to in eligible candidates and its misuse." The petitioner thus sought that rather non-clinical doctors be vested with the aforesaid responsibility.
Justice N. Nagaresh has directed the Health Secretary to take appropriate decision in the matter, within a period of two months.
Case Title: Jose and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday pointed an inconsistency in Sections 9 and 12 of the Kerala Promotion of Tree Growth in Non-Forest Areas Act, 2005 and urged the legislature to clear the same by way of an amendment. Section 9 provides that a person not below the rank of a Forester can seize the trees together with the tools, if the same is found to be in contravention of Section 6 of the Act. Sub-section (3) thereof provides that the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) is the competent authority to file a final report before the competent Magistrate Court. However, the DFO is also the prosecution sanctioning authority under Section 12 of the Act.
In this light Justice A. Badharudeen observed: "The legislature must apply its wisdom either to designate an officer below the rank of the Divisional Forest Officer to file report as provided under Section 9(3) or the sanctioning authority shall be a person holding the post superior to the post of the Divisional Forest Officer. Such an amendment is inevitable to clear the inconsistency."
Case Title: Ubaid A.M. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that in order to extend the statutory period of 180 days to complete the process of investigation as per Section 36-A(4) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, the report produced by the Public Prosecutor ought to disclose the progress of investigation in addition to the reasons to detain the accused person.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed, "...a mere re-production of the application or request of the Investigating Officer by the Public Prosecutor in his report, without demonstration of the application of his mind and record of his own satisfaction would not render his report as the one envisaged under Section 36-A(4) of the Act. Similarly, in the report, the Public Prosecutor shall narrate the progress of investigation and the specific reason for the detention of the accused beyond 180 days".
Case Title: Gisha Marin Jose v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 586
Questioning the government's decision to not grant leave to its employees under Rule 91A of Part I Of Kerala Service Rules for pursuing PhD, the Kerala High Court on Monday said the State cannot summarily reject a leave application for Doctoral or Postdoctoral Research.
Justice Devan Ramachandran rejected the government's argument that a general decision has been taken to not extend leave under Rule 91A to PhD candidates.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the Travancore Devaswom Board and the Cochin Devaswom Board to ensure that proper facilities are provided to Sabarimala pilgrims in the temples under their management during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season of 1198 ME (2022-23). "The Temple Advisory Committees of those temples, which are identified as Sabarimala Edathavalams, and also other temples which are identified by the concerned Devaswom Board to provide facilities to Sabarimala Pilgrims during Mandala-Makaravilakku festival season, shall render necessary assistance to the concerned Sub Group Officer/Devaswom Officer in providing proper facilities to Sabarimala pilgrims in the respective temples," said the court.
The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar also directed Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to ensure that proper facilities are provided to the Sabarimala pilgrims in the Guruvayur Sree Krishna Temple.
Case Title: Dr. K.K. Vijayan v. The Chancellor and Dr G. Sadasivan Nair v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 588
The Kerala High Court on Monday quashed the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor of Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies (KUFOS), Dr. K. Riji John.
The division bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly said that the constitution of the selection committee and its recommendation in John's case was illegal.
...we have no hesitation to hold that the selection of Dr. K. Riji John as the Vice Chancellor of the Kerala University of Fisheries and Ocean Studies, overlooking the UGC Regulations, 2018, cannot be sustained under law. We are also of the view that the Search cum Selection Committee constituted is also in violation of the UGC Regulations, 2018.
Case Title: Milan Dorich v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 589
The Kerala High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to the three Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) employees, who were booked in September for assaulting a man and his daughter for demanding renewal of a concession certificate for her.
The video of the incident had been leaked in the media, causing a public outcry against the incident.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas in the order observed that the courts must strictly confine to the allegations and the statements given by the witnesses and their legal implications.
Case Title: Rishada Haris K.P. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated the settled position that an order of preventive detention can be passed against a person who is already in custody, subject to the condition that the detaining authority is aware of the detenu already being in detention, and secondly, that there are compelling circumstances justifying such preventive detention.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas added that the detaining authority must be satisfied from the material produced before it that the detenu is likely to be released from custody in the near future whereafter, he is very likely to indulge in further prejudicial activities.
Case Title: Bennat Tom V. v. Calicut University & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
While dealing with a case relating to 'Class Representative' elections in the Government Law College at Kozhikode, the Kerala High Court held that the power vested in a Returning Officer is limited to verifying the validity of a nomination paper, and not determining the eligibility/ competence of a candidate.
In the instant case, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Returning Officer had rejected Petitioner's nomination paper on the ground that if he won the elections, it would be a futile exercise since his classes were set to end soon. Turning down such an approach, the bench observed,
"...what the Returning Officer has actually done is not to decide the validity of the nomination, but the eligibility of the petitioner to contest the election – which the said Authority surely obtained no competence or jurisdiction to have done."
Case Title: K.P. Ramachandran Nair & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to quash a complaint under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, merely because the demand notice issued in local language was returned unserved.
Justice A. Badharudeen, observed that there is a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. It further added, "Issuance of notices in the correct address is a matter of evidence and, therefore, the same is not a reason to quash the complaints."
Case Title: Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice-Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman)
Citation:2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court on Thursday allowed the plea challenging the selection of Priya Varghese, wife of K.K. Ragesh, private secretary to Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan as an Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam at Kannur University and directed the competent authority of the University to reconsider the credential of the 5th respondent (Priya Varghese) and decide whether she should continue on the Rank List. On such enquiry being completed and the Rank List sufficiently modified, further action to make an appointment can be taken forward.
Case Title: Omassery Labour Contract Co-Operative Society & Ors v. Mukkam Municipality & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that even if a tender process had been validly initiated, the Municipality is vested with the authority to cancel the said process for valid reasons, and call for fresh tenders. It added that there can be no cause for illegality or impropriety being imputed to the same, if the said decision is taken after considering the various complaints before it.
The Single Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed, "When the law does not recognise any indefeasible right in a lowest bidder to be awarded a contract, the petitioners cannot be heard to contend that they being the lowest bidders in a tender which was cancelled for specific reasons, are entitled to approach the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for annulling the decision to cancel and request for directions to award the contract in their favour".
Case Title: State of Kerala Rep. by Chief Secretary & Ors. v. Ravi Parameswara Raja
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that the Constitution of India's 26th Amendment would not alter the obligation of the State under Article 295 (2) to pay annuity to the legal heirs of the Malayala Brahmin family that possessed sovereign rights over the territory of Paravur, which now falls under Ernakulam district.
The court was dealing with a matter relating to pension of the Malayala Brahmin family which had relinquished its sovereign rights over Paravur to the rule of Travancore State in 764AD, In consideration of the relinquishment, the ruler of Travancore State would pay annuity to the family. In 1971, the annuity was treated as a family pension.
Case Title: Sofikul Islam v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court on Thursday observed that Aadhaar card is not recognized by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, as a document of proof of the date of birth of an accused under the Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when there is a dispute regarding the age of an accused, if a certificate from the school is available, which specifies the date of birth, that alone can be looked into for the purpose of identifying the date of birth of the alleged child under section 94(2)(i) of the JJ Act, 2015.
Case Title: Akshay@Ajeesh@Ananthu v. State of Kerala & Anr and Akhila A.P. @ Lalu & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that an application for default bail, filed timely through e-filing mode, cannot be ignored by the trial courts for want of production of physical copy of the same.
Justice A. Badharudeen, said: "Now we are in the E-world. In many Courts e-filing is made mandatory and steps to complete mandatory e-filing in all Courts in India are on its final call. Such being the scenario, how can a court ignore an application filed through e-filing mode to hold that there was no petition filed within time for want of production of physical copy of the same within time".
Case Title: K C Antony Versus Principal Commissioner
Citation: WP(C) No. 13511 Of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 598
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act does not impose any limitation for the purposes of filing an application for condonation of delay.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that it was completely wrong on the part of the department to treat the date of filing of the application for condonation of delay as the relevant date for the purpose of considering whether it was filed within 6 years or not.
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar Nair v. Suresh P. Sreedharan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a threat of illegal eviction/ trespass can be remedied by approaching a civil court. It added that High Court's writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in such cases seeking police protection, when even the basic facts are disputed and the rights claimed cannot be established in summary proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was dealing with a writ appeal preferred by a Landlord, against the Singhe Judge's order in a writ petition preferred by the tenant alleging trespass and seeking police protection against illegal eviction.
Case Title: Khaledur Rahman v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a marriage between Muslims under personal law is not excluded from the sweep of the POCSO Act.
Justice Bechu Kurain Thomas said if one of the parties to the marriage is a minor, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the marriage, offences under the POCSO Act will apply.
The court disagreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Javed v. State of Haryana (2022 LiveLaw (PH) 276); by Delhi High Court in Fija and Another v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others (2022 LiveLaw (Del) 793) and by Karnataka High Court in Mohammad Waseem Ahamad v. State (2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436). "With respect to the learned Judges, I am unable to agree to the proposition laid down in those decisions that an offence under the POCSO Act will not get attracted against a Muslim marrying a minor," Justice Thomas said.
Interest Not Leviable For Belatedly Deducting TDS If There Is No Liability: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Special Tahsildar V. Union Of India
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 601
The Kerala High Court has held that where there is no liability to deduct TDS, the mere fact that TDS was so deducted and paid to the Income Tax Department belatedly, cannot give rise to a claim for interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act.
The single bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that the delay in remitting the amounts deducted as TDS arose only on account of the fact that the officer in question was deputed for election duty for the period from January 2014 to May 2014 in connection with the Lok Sabha Election of 2014.
Case Title: K. Surendran v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 602
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Chief Secretary to consider the representation filed by the BJP State Unit President K. Surendran against participation of government employees in CPI(M)'s demonstration outside Governor Arif Mohammad Khan's official residence.
The Division Bench consisting of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while disposing of the petition seeking to prevent the government from participating in the protest, refused to pass any direction. However, it directed the Chief Secretary to consider the letter submitted by the BJP State Unit President K. Surendran.
Case Title: Mani C Kappen v. Sunny Joseph & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 603
The Kerala High Court has held that the petitions filed under the Representation of People Act, 1951 come within the ambit of orders passed by the Apex Court extending the period of limitation in the wake of the widespread COVID-19 pandemic.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed:
"The expression "all other proceedings" as employed in the original order dated 23.03.2020 and "any other laws which prescribed period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings" as employed in orders dated 08.03.2022, 27.04.2021, 23.09.2021 and 10.01.2022 leaves no room for any doubt that the Supreme Court intends to extend the period of limitation/outer limit fixed under any enactment. This Court, therefore, finds little merit in the contention of the petitioner that the benefit of the orders extending limitation is not applicable to a proceeding under the Representation of the People Act, 1951".
Case Title: Kuriachan Chacko & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Joy John & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
The Kerala High Court on Friday held that inclusion of events/ materials in the additional charge sheet, that are subsequent to filing of initial final report, is legally permissible. It added that as long as the evidence collected and the subsequent events point towards the commission of crime for which the report has been filed, the investigating agency would be justified in collecting such materials also and is in fact bound to forward it with the report.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was of the view that determining as to whether such materials are relevant or even admissible are to be agitated during the trial. "The right of the investigating agency to collect all evidence cannot be cribbed, cabined or crippled. The Investigating Officer has to unearth the real truth behind the alleged crime so as to serve the ends of justice. In the said process, if he chances upon or collects materials that are even subsequent to the filing of the initial final report, it cannot be stated as a legal proposition that those materials cannot be included in the further final report or that they are prohibited. Under section 173(8) Cr.P.C, the officer has the power to obtain further evidence, both oral and documentary. The term 'further evidence' cannot be interpreted restrictively as including only those that were prior in time to the initial final report. Such evidence, if collected and included in the further final report, will be a matter to be appreciated, as mentioned earlier, at the time of trial", the Court observed.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Baiju Kottarakkara
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
The Kerala High Court on Monday closed the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Malayalam film director Baiju Kottarakkara that had been initiated against him for making abusive remarks during a news channel discussion against a trial court judge, who is hearing the 2017 actor abduction and assault case.
The division bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. disposed of the case after Kottarakkara tendered an unconditional apology. "Taking note of the averments in the additional affidavit filed by the respondent before this Court, and having viewed the contents of the compact disc wherein the respondent has tendered an unconditional public apology for his actions, we deem it appropriate to take a lenient view in the matter and close this Contempt of Court Case, by accepting the aforesaid unconditional apology tendered by the respondent contemnor. We also accept and record his undertaking that he will exercise due care and caution in future, while making comments in relation to the judiciary on public platforms, keeping in mind that incorrect and irresponsible statements made in public have the propensity to undermine public", the Court observed.
Case Title: Suhadath K.K. v. Shihab K.B. & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
The Kerala High Court on Friday upheld the Magistrate Court's order granting an amount of Rs. 31,68,000/- as maintenance to a divorced woman under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Single Judge Bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the parties hail from financially strong backgrounds and have a "very high" standard of living. It reiterated, "It is trite that the court while fixing the reasonable and fair provision of maintenance to be paid to a divorced woman shall keep in view the status of parties, capacity of the former husband to pay maintenance and also other attendant circumstances. The amount so fixed must be enough to take care of the future needs of a woman in the prevailing socio-economic...It has come out in evidence that both the petitioner and the 1st respondent are hailing from very financially well settled families and their standard of living was very high."
Case Title: Aswin Krishna Prasad v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
Ruling that neurostimulator is neither a treatment nor a cure, the Kerala High Court on Monday declared a 19-year-old, who suffers from primary generalised dystonia — a movement disorder that causes the muscles to contract involuntarily, eligible to be included in the 5% quota for admission of persons with disabilities in KEAM-2022 exam. "Consequently, the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations is directed to include the petitioner's name in the provisional list of PwD candidates," said the court.
The teenager, who had a pulse-generator or neurostimulator implanted in 2016 had applied for the common admission to professional degree courses through KEAM-2022. Since he has a bench disability of 40 percent, he claimed reservation meant for PwDs. The State Medical Board had found the petitioner suitable for all courses except fisheries, but not eligible for PwD quota since he was found to be having zero percentage disability with the neurostimulator.
Justice V.G. Arun observed that the pulse-generator (neurostimulator) that had been implanted in him to provide relief to his dystonia symptoms was neither a treatment nor a cure.
Case Title: Devika K.D. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
The Kerala High Court recently held that the previous opinion of the Advisory Board, which led to the revocation of the earlier detention order, and even the revocation of such detention order, are crucial materials which ought to be examined and considered by the detaining authority before it takes a decision for another detention under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas, observed, "...the non consideration of such relevant materials is fatal and the decision making process ... is liable to be interdicted".
The court added:"It was the bounden duty of those authorities, more particularly, the detaining authority, to consider the impact and effect of the said opinion of the Advisory Board, to decide as to whether the ingredients of Section 13(2) are duly fulfilled. It is all the more necessary when the Advisory Board, in its previous opinion, has pointed out specific procedural flaws and that therefore, the parameters in clause (iii) of Section 13(2) would then be highly relevant and prominent. So, at least after such due consideration by the detaining authority, the non confidential part of the opinion of the Advisory Board, in favour of the detenu, which led to the revocation of the previous detention order, and the order of the State Government, revoking the previous detention order, should have been made available to the detenue concerned, as well as for the consideration of the detaining authority, as they are relevant and crucial".
Case Title: M.K. Surendrababu v. Kodungalloor Town Co-Op Bank Ltd. & Ors. and other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
Commenting on the delay in adjudication of cases, the Kerala High Court recently observed that introspection by the judiciary is also necessary or otherwise, people will lose faith in the system. The court directed its Registrar General and Registrar (Judiciary) to bring to the Chief Justice's notice the old writ petitions pending in different jurisdictions and take appropriate steps in accordance with his directions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan said some of the writ petitions are pending for about 20 years in the high court and blamed the Registry for "the sorry state of affairs". "I am forced to say that there are some latches on the part of the registry also for this sorry state of affairs. It is the duty of the registry to report before the jurisdictional roaster judge about the old cases, after getting permission from the Honourable Chief Justice. The jurisdictional judge may not be knowing about the old cases because in High court, the usual practice is that, once the cases are admitted, unless there is an urgent memo or a petition for an early hearing or other petitions for any directions, it will not be listed except for final hearing," said the court.
Kerala High Court Asks Jail Authorities To Ensure Privacy In Lawyer-Client Meetings
Case Title: Prasoon Sunny v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
The Kerala High Court on Friday directed the State and prison authorities to explore the possibility of providing sufficient space for advocates and clients to privately interact in jails.
While Senior Government Pleader Tek Chand submitted that there are space constraints in certain sub-jails, Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed, "...there should be sufficient space for the advocates and clients, to interact, and privacy should also be taken note of". The Court was dealing with a petition filed by Advocate Prasoon Sunny stating that there is no privacy for lawyer-client interactions in jails.
Case Title: Union of India & Anr v. Pavithran K. & Anr and other connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that a Government servant who retires on the last working day of the preceding month and whose annual increment falls due on the first of the succeeding month is not entitled for sanction of annual increment for the purpose of pension and gratuity.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. passed the above order in a batch of petitions filed by Union of India against the order of Central Administrative Tribunal holding the retirees to be entitled to the same.
Case Title: Hombale Films LLP v. The Mathrubhumi Printing and Publishing Co. Ltd. & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed as not maintainable the petitions filed by Hombale films (producer of Kantara movie), against the ad-interim injunction orders passed by the Palakkad District Court and the Kozhikkode District Court restraining the use of song 'Varaha Roopam' in the movie. It was held that the remedy before the High Court cannot be invoked when other remedies are available against the interim orders. The injunction orders were passed in the copyright infringement suits filed alleging that "Varaharoopam" was plagiarised from the song "Navarasam" of Kerala-based band Thaikkudam Bridge.
The High Court bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed that the petitioner had approached the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, completely bye-passing the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, while dealing with applications under Order 39 of the Code. "The supervisory jurisdiction of this Court is not to be exercised to inter-meddle with every ad-interim order passed by the subordinate courts. If that is the case, the Courts of original jurisdiction and appellate Courts will become defunct, and this Court will be flooded with such litigation, unsettling and dislodging the legislative framework laid down under the Code", it observed, while dismissing the petitions.
Case Title: Sujith A. V. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 613
The Kerala High Court on Friday reiterated that a prosecution witness who was examined in chief, cross-examined and re-examined, cannot be compelled to appear before the Court as Defence Witness under Section 233(3) CrPC. Section 233(3) CrPC provides that if the accused applies for the issue of any process for compelling the attendance of any witness or the production of any document or thing, the Judge shall issue such process unless he considers, for reasons to be recorded, that such application should be refused on the ground that it is made for the purpose of vexation or delay or for defeating the ends of justice.
Justice A. Badharudeen relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Badri Yadav observed that: "Thus the law is very clear on the point that the provisions of the sub-section 3 of Section 233 CrPC could not be understood as one compelling the attendance of any prosecution witness, who was examined in chief already, cross-examined and reexamined, to be examined as a defence witness".
Non-Reporting Of Child Sexual Abuse Is A Bailable Offence Under POCSO Act: Kerala High Court
Citation: XXXXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 614
The Kerala High Court on Thursday held that the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a bailable offence. Section 21 makes the failure to report an offence under POCSO Act punishable with imprisonment upto six months or if the person is in charge of an institution or company, imprisonment can extend upto one year.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas said if the statute does not declare a particular offence as bailable or non-bailable, reference has to be made to the schedule attached to the CrPC.
The court noted Section 21 of POCSO Act makes contravention of Section 19 and Section 20 of the Act punishable but by itself does not declare the offence to be a non-bailable offence."A reading of the Schedule to Cr.P.C. extracted above evidences that if, under other laws, the offence is punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine only, the offence is bailable and non-cognizable. It is thus evident that section 21 of the POCSO Act, which provides for a punishment of six months or a maximum of one year, is a bailable offence," said the court.
Promise Of Marriage Made To A Married Woman Cannot Become A Basis For Rape Case: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Tino Thankachan v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated that a man's promise to marry an already-married woman is not enforceable in law, and any sexual relation between them on the basis of such a promise would not attract the ingredients of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.
Quashing a rape case registered by the Punaloor Police Station in 2018, Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the married woman voluntarily had sex "with her lover" and she knew pretty well that she cannot enter into a lawful marriage with him as she was already married. "Recently this Court in XXX Vs. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 296] has held that the promise alleged to have been made by the accused to a married woman that he could marry her is a promise which is not enforceable in law. Such an unenforceable and illegal promise cannot be a basis for the prosecution under Section 376 of IPC".
Case Title: M.A. Hakkim v. M/S Patanjali Agro India Pvt. Ltd. and connected cases
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 616
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the intention of the parties to an agreement, as to the seat of arbitration, can be determined from their conduct.
Justice N. Nagaresh was dealing with a case where the Sale Contract between the parties prescribed Haridwar as the seat of arbitration but the subsequent High Sea Sale Agreement prescribed Kollam as the seat. While determining the question as to which of the above seats would be final, the High Court observed, "Intention of the parties as to the seat of arbitration should be determined from other clauses in the agreement and the conduct of the parties...As the initial Sales Contracts were specifically made contingent upon signing of "mutually acceptable" High Sea Sales Agreements and the subsequently executed and "mutually acceptable" High Sea Sales Agreements specified that arbitration should be held at Kollam, the joint intent of the parties can only be taken as one deciding that the seat of arbitration should be Kollam." The bench further observed, "Contracts are to be interpreted according to their purpose. The purpose of contract is the interest, objectives and values that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises joint interest of the parties".
Prima Facie New Vehicle Having Temporary Registration Can Ply On Roads: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Praicy Joseph v. Regional Transport Officer (Registration Authority), Ernakulam & Anr.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 617
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday held that prima facie a car dealer can deliver a new motor vehicle to the owner on the strength of a temporary certificate of registration issued under Section 43 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, after assigning a temporary registration mark under Rule 53C of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held that distinguishing between persons who obtained permanent registration number and those who are awaiting a 'fancy' permanent registration number, particularly when both paid the entire consideration, tax and insurance amount, is prima facie discriminatory.
Case Title: Muhammed Shanavas v. Radhakrishnan & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 618
The Kerala High Court recently said that a solitary instance of absence of a counsel or party on the day the case is listed cannot be a ground for the application being dismissed for default.
The division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen said: "The courts are created to adjudicate substantial interest of the parties rather than to dispose the cases in a numerical quantity. The court should be very sensitive in dealing with the cases of litigants, especially, many of the cases are remained non represented due to laches or negligence on the part of the counsel".
Case Title: Hussain v. State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 619
The Kerala High Court has observed that the Court may permit the prosecution to tender such evidence which appears to be essential to decide the case in a just manner, even after the commencement of the trial.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that: "It is true that the prosecution is duty bound to place all the evidence to be tendered along with the final report and copies thereof shall be furnished to the accused, as mandated under Section 208 Cr.P.C, in a Sessions trial".
However, in an appropriate case where the evidence sought to be tendered by the prosecution is absolutely necessary to decide the case fairly and the Court is of the opinion that the said evidence is essential for the just decision of the Court, the Court observed that:
...the said evidence also can be permitted to be tendered and there is no hard and fast rule that the prosecution is totally debarred from adducing evidence in excess of the materials, what have been filed along with the final report.
Case Title: Memana Baby v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 620
The Kerala High Court recently held that in order to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC the prosecution must establish firstly that a suicide has been committed, and secondly that the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide, has played an active role in the same with such a mens rea.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that even if circumstantial evidence is being relied upon to prove the same in the absence of direct evidence, the chain of evidence must be complete and the conclusion which is arrived after examining the chain of evidence must point towards the culpability of the accused and not to any other conclusion. The bench reiterated the settled position of law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the court has to scrutinize each and every circumstantial possibility, which is placed before it in the form of evidence and the evidence must point towards only one conclusion, which is the guilt of the accused.
Accordingly, the Court found in the instant case that although the death of the deceased herein was an unnatural death,
"...those are not reasons for finding a person guilty, unless the prosecution is able to prove beyond doubt that he is responsible for the death. It is the settled law that suspicion, however, grave it may be; cannot take the place of proof".
Case Title: State of Kerala rep. by the Addl. Secretary to the Government v. The Chancellor
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by the State Government against the order of the Chancellor appointing Ciza Thomas as the Vice Chancellor in charge of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that there was no doubt that Thomas was fully qualified going by the UGC Regulations, since it permits experience in both teaching and research, and since she was working as the Senior Joint Director in Directorate of Technical Education, the choice was justified.
Case Title: State of Kerala rep. by the Addl. Secretary to the Government v. The Chancellor
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 621
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reminded that Constitutional functionaries such as the State Government and the Governor ought not to contest litigations with the view to obtain a win, but to ensure that the law is complied with and that the Constitutional imperatives are supported and achieved, and in any case, the students are not made to suffer as a result of the same.
The Court made the above observation while dismissing the petition filed by the State Government challenging the order of the Chancellor appointing Ciza Thomas (3rd respondent herein) as the Vice Chancellor in charge of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University, and holding her to be fully qualified in occupying the said position.
Case Title: Nandakumar T.P v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Sanal Kumar v. State
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 622
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation to take up the investigation into the death of Malabar Cements whistleblower V. Saseendran and his two minor sons with due seriousness and to constitute a new investigating team under the supervision of a senior and competent officer.
Justice P. Somarajan pulled up the investigating agency for filing the supplementary report by way of an eye wash without addressing the relevant issues involved in the crime.
Hence, in the given circumstances, I am of the view that one of the most reputed investigating agencies in India - CBI, should be more vigilant while acting on investigation pertaining to the very serious offences and it shall not be an eye wash. The entire investigation taints and tarnishes the well deserved reputation of the CBI as a premier investigating agency.
Thereby, the Court directed that: Necessarily, the Director of Central Bureau of Investigation shall take up the matter with due alacrity to the gravity and seriousness so as to constitute a new investigation team under the supervision of a senior and competent officer, who has necessary expertise in the field and is not gullible.
Sharon Murder Case : Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Application Of Greeshma's Mother
Case Title: Sindhu and anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 623
The Kerala High Court, on Wednesday, dismissed the petition seeking Bail moved by Greeshma's mother Sindhu, who is one of the accused booked for the murder of Sharon Raj.
Justice Viju Abraham passed the order.
The investigation is only in the initial stage, and the petitioners were arrested only on 01.11.2022...Further, role if any of the petitioners, who are the mother and uncle of the 1st accused, could be revealed only in the course of the investigation. The learned public prosecutor raised apprehensions that if the petitioners are released on bail at this stage, there is every chance for them to destroy the evidence and also to influence the witnesses. Considering the seriousness of the allegation and taking into consideration the fact that the investigation is only in the initial stage, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners at this stage.
Case Title: Adv. P.V. Jeevesh v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 624
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday dismissed the plea filed by a lawyer challenging the action of the Governor of Kerala withholding bills passed by the State legislature indefinitely, and without adopting any of the courses envisaged under Article 200 of the Constitution.
The Court obseved that it cannot Court cannot fix a time limit for the Governor to give assent to bills.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, passed the above order.
Other Significant Developments
Vice Chancellor Appointment | How Can Kerala University Function Without VC? High Court Slams Senate
Case Title: Dr. K.S. Chandrashekhar v. The Chancellor and other connected cases
The High Court on Tuesday grilled Kerala University Senate for not nominating a member for the selection committee, which has to consider names for appointment of the varsity's new vice chancellor.
The court was hearing a petition challenging the Governor, Arif Mohammed Khan's "withdrawal" of membership of 15 Senators. Khan had taken the decision in his capacity as the Chancellor.
Following a reference from the Judge-in-Charge of Thrissur district, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday issued an official memorandum to the district's judicial officers asking them not to actively involve themselves in organising "Kodathi Vilakku" which is hosted annually at the Guruvayur temple.
Noting that an event under the banner of "Kodathi Vilakku" is annually hosted at the Guruvayur temple by an organising committee comprising of members of the Chavakkad Munsiff Court Bar Association, the high court administration said that even though there can be no objection to the Bar Association members organising such an event, the use of the name "Kodathi Vilakku" is unacceptable "for it gives the impression that the Courts in our State are in some way connected with the organization of the event."
Vice Chancellors Move Kerala High Court Challenging Governor's Show Cause Notice On Appointment
Case Title: Dr. Gopinath Ravindran v. Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.
The vice chancellors of various state universities have approached Kerala High Court against the show-cause notices issued to them by state Governor Arif Mohammed Khan last month asking them to explain how they can continue on their posts after Supreme Court recently quashed the appointment of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University's VC for being contrary to University Grants Commission (UGC) norms.
Khan, who is the chancellor of the universities, in the notice said that on failure to show cause the legal right to hold the post of Vice Chancellor, the Chancellor may declare the appointment to the said post as illegal and void ab initio. The VCs have argued that the notice is without authority or jurisdiction and is also vitiated by errors apparent on the face of its record.
Case Title: Dr. K.S. Chandrashekhar v. The Chancellor and other connected cases
Hearing a matter related to the Senate of Kerala University, the High Court on Wednesday heavily criticised the body for not nominating a representative to the Selection Committee constituted for appointing a new Vice Chancellor.
Observing that the Senate was refusing to nominate their member due to a decision taken by the Chancellor on August 5, Justice Devan Ramachandran said: "Be that as it may, there can be no doubt that the Kerala University requires a Vice Chancellor soon. The disputes between the stakeholders cannot proceed to a situation where the selection of the Vice Chancellor can be delayed indefinitely. They cannot be at war all the time, and thus frustrate the legitimate right of the student community, particularly, to have a Vice Chancellor in office at the earliest".
Case Title: Laila Bhagaval Singh v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Kadavanthara
The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam on Wednesday dismissed the bail application filed by one of the accused, Laila Bhagaval Singh, in the Elanthoor human sacrifice case.
The JFCM-VIII, Ernakulam, Eldose Mathew, found favour with the submission made by the prosecution that the incident in the said case is one which has had no precedent in the State in the recent past. "The prosecution case is that the accused have murdered and mutilated two women as part of a ritualistic human sacrifice and dismembered their body and buried. This is a well orchestrated crime accomplished with well pre-planning and prior meeting of mind between the accused persons. All these facts are to be thoroughly investigated. The investigation of the case is in the preliminary stage. If the accused is released on bail at this stage, it will affect the progress of the investigation. There is also chance for her intimidating the witness, tampering with evidence in this case and being absconded. Moreover, the offence is exclusively triable with the Court of Session", the Court said.
Kerala High Court Extends Time For VCs To File Objections To Chancellor's Show Cause Notices
Case Title: Dr. Gopinath Ravindran v. Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors. and other connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Thursday extended the time till November 7 for the Vice Chancellors of various state Universities to respond to the show cause notices issued to them by the Governor for their removal.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was informed by advocates appearing on behalf of the Vice Chancellors that they were inclined to file objections before the Chancellor against the impugned show cause notices.
Case Title: Adv. K.V. Manoj Kumar v. State of Kerala & Anr.
A lawyer has filed a petition before the Kerala High Court against a judicial magistrate's decision to not order investigation on a Section 156(3) CrPC complaint related to the alleged heckling of Governor Arif Mohammed Khan during a conference at Kannur University in December 2019.
Since the police had earlier allegedly not acted on his complaint, the complainant in September moved an application before the judicial magistrate. However, according to the petition filed before the high court, instead of ordering investigation, the judge posted the case for recording the sworn statement of the petitioner.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Governor's Order Appointing Ciza Thomas As KTU's VC-in-charge
Case Title: State of Kerala v. The Chancellor, APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday refused to stay Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's order appointing Ciza Thomas, the senior joint director of the directorate of technical education, as Vice Chancellor in-charge of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU).
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice to Khan, who is chancellor of the university, and Thomas on the petition moved by the state government. The UGC was also suo motu impleaded as a respondent in the matter. In the plea filed through Senior Government Pleader V. Manu, it has been argued by the State that Thomas's appointment by the Chancellor is not in conformity with the provisions of the APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University Act, 2015.
Amid Governor Arif Mohammed Khan's increasing legal battles with the Kerala government and Vice Chancellors of state universities, the counsel representing the Governor in Kerala High Court have resigned from their positions. Senior Advocate Jaju Babu, who was appointed as Kerala Governor's Legal Advisor in 2009, and Advocate M.U. Vijayalakshmi, the Standing Counsel of the Chancellor of the state universities, tendered their resignations to Khan on Tuesday. Khan is the Chancellor of the state universities.
"For reasons known to you also, the moment has come for me to vacate my position. Thank you so much for the opportunities for professional and personal development that you have provided me as Honorary Legal Advisor, during your tenure also," the resignation letter addressed by Babu to the Governor, reads.
Case Title: G. S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others
An Ex-Councillor of the Medical College Ward in Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation, G. S. Sreekumar, has moved the Kerala High Court seeking CBI or judicial investigation into Thiruvananthapuram Mayor Arya Rajendran's purported letter seeking a list of CPI(M) party members for appointment to various posts on a contract basis in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.
In the petition moved through Advocate K. R. Rajkumar, it has been alleged that the Mayor Rajendran and the LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary D.R. Anil, who belongs to the ruling party, had requested the CPI(M) Party District Secretary to provide the list of party members for appointment to various posts in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.
Case Title: G. S. Sreekumar v. State of Kerala and Others
The Kerala High Court on Thursday issued notice to Thiruvananthapuram Mayor Arya Rajendran and LDF Parliamentary Party Secretary D.R. Anil in the plea moved seeking CBI or judicial investigation into the purported letter seeking a list of CPI(M) party members for appointment to various posts on a contract basis in the Health Division of the Municipal Corporation.
Justice K. Babu sought response only from the private respondents at this stage. "Let them file their response because allegations are filed against them", the court said.
Case Title: State Of Kerala v. Eldose Kunnapilly
Hearing a petition seeking cancellation of the order granting anticipatory bail to the Congress MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly in a case accusing him of rape and attempt to murder, the Kerala High Court on Thursday permitted his counsel to examine the documents, including Section 164 CrPC statements of the victim, in the presence of the Court officer on Monday.
Justice Kauser Edappagath also extended the interim order passed earlier this month directing the accused to appear before the investigating officer every day at 9 AM and cooperate with the investigation till the next posting date.
Case Title: R. Baji v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation
The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the State Government to come up with a plan as regards the future payment of salaries of the employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC).
Justice Devan Ramachandran also expressed hope that the KSRTC in the future would be self-sufficient to meet its expenditure. "Until the prior commitments of the KSRTC through loans are properly settled, their chances of becoming self sufficient are remote," observed the court.
Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin
In a matter related to the road safety, the Kerala High Court on Thursday delved into the issue of overhanging cables, footpath maintenance, and reckless driving by vehicles, particularly private buses.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, observed: "As the Court has been saying earlier, the concept of maintenance of roads has assumed larger proportions, and we are concerned with road safety as an umbrella of issues".
Consumer Forum In Kerala Directs Apple India To Compensate BCA Student For Defective MacBook
Case Title: S. Mahendranadh v. Apple India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Alappuzha, recently directed Apple India to pay a compensation of Rs. 36,500/- to a 20 years old BCA student, who was sold a defective Apple Macbook. The device costed over Rs. 2 lakhs and came with a one year warranty. The compensation was determined at the rate of Rs 500/- per day he was not provided an alternate laptop/ refund while his defective Macbook was sent for repair at the authorized service centre.
The Commission presided by President S. Santhosh Kumar and Member, C.K. Lekhamma observed, "If a person is purchasing product by spending such huge amount he is expecting best functioning from the product. Here in this case though the product was purchased on 19/3/2021 on 6/1/2022 it became defective...It is to be remembered that PW1 (complainant) was studying for BCA and laptop was must to perform the studies."
Case Title: Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala and Other Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court on Friday expressed strong displeasure at the practice of citizens dumping waste and garbage in stormwater drains which contributes to the issue of flooding in Kochi city. It therefore directed the District Collector and Cochin Corporation to act against the disconcerting state of affairs.
Single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran cautioned all commercial establishments and citizens that any such acts would be treated as an "affront" to the directions of the Court and will be proceeded against under every statute, civil or criminal. It observed, "One fails to understand how the citizens dump every type of garbage, including plastic into the stormwater drains, and going by the available reports, this is even being done by commercial establishments and hotels. Unless the fear of law is thrust into all of them by the authorities by taking the most stringent action, it can never be controlled, and it will be a continuing saga".
Case Title: K. Surendran v. State of Kerala
BJP State Unit President K. Surendran has approached the Kerala High Court to prevent the government employees and beneficiaries under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act from participating in the protest march and demonstration in front of Governor Arif Mohammad Khan's official residence on November 15.
In the petition moved through Advocate Vishnu Pradeep, Surendran has alleged that "the ruling party and its allied parties" are engaged in a mass campaign to ensure maximum participation in the protest, and strict directions have been given to their affiliated service organisations to ensure that all its members mandatorily participate in the protest march and dharna.
Case Title: P. Sheeba Paul v. Union of India & Ors. and Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court on Monday appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court in a batch of petitions challenging the upper age limit under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act 2021. By virtue of Section 21(g) of the ART Act, the maximum age for men has been prescribed as 55 years, and the age limit prescribed for women is 50 years.
Justice VG Arun appointed Advocate Ramola Nayampally as amicus curiae in the matter.
Case Title: Karenjit Kaur Vohra @ Sunny Leone & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday stayed the criminal proceedings in a 2019 FIR against Bollywood actor Sunny Leone, her husband Daniel Weber and an employee of theirs.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. passed the order staying the criminal proceedings until the next date of hearing, today in a plea moved by the actor.
They have approached the Kerala High Court with a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings pending against them before an Ernakulam Court in connection with an FIR accusing them of cheating and criminal breach of trust.
Case Title: Muhammed Jashid P. A. v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently sought a report from a Sessions Court on the circumstances under which the bail application of an accused was kept pending for a period of two days despite its directions to dispose of the matter on the date of surrender itself.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A A has directed the Registry to call for a report from the Assistant Sessions Court, Kasargod and has posted the matter for further consideration on 25th November 2022.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the police and the Enforcement Wing of Motor Vehicles Department to take strict action against the unauthorised use of national and state emblems as well as government boards on vehicles.
The division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar said many vehicles ply in the state carrying the name board 'Government of India', 'Government of Kerala', 'Kerala State', 'Government Vehicle', etc. to mislead the Police, the Enforcement Officers of the Motor Vehicles Department, by giving an impression that the vehicles are owned by a government department.
The Kerala High Court on Friday took suo motu cognizance of the incident wherein a three-year old child had fallen into an uncovered drain in Panampilly Nagar on Thursday evening. The child had been walking with his mother when he fell into the drain, and had a narrow escape due to the timely intervention of his mother and other local persons.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was informed about the incident today by the Amici Curiae S. Krishna and Vinod Bhat. The matter was listed today on an emergent basis, and the appearance of the Secretary of Cochin Corporation was called, since the upkeep of such spaces were exclusively vested with them.
Case Title: Augusthykutty v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors.
Following the policy decision taken by the Central Government to disinvest 100% of its holdings in Air India and transfer of its share to Tata Group (M/S Talace Pvt. Ltd.) in January this year, the Kerala High Court has been informed that the airline company is no more a 'State' within the purview of of Article 12 of the Constitution.
In an affidavit filed through its Assistant Manager (Personnel), the company said since it has ceased to be a government company, a writ petition is not maintainable against it.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Union of India & Ors.
The Kerala High Court, in a special sitting convened on Saturday, directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to inform citizens through the Virtual-Q platform that for the time being, no tour operator in aviation sector has been granted permission for helicopter facility at Nilakkal. The said direction was issued in light of a Limited Liability Partnership, namely, Enhance Aviation Services Ltd. offering 'Sabarimala Ayyappa Darshan Helicopter Service Package' without requisite permissions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, "Considering the fact that Sabarimala and its vicinity has been declared as Special Security Zone in terms of the notification issued under Section 83(1) and (2) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 and taking note of various aspects of crowd management and other security aspects in Sabarimala, as pointed out in the report of the Assistant Inspector General of Police, which we have referred to in the order dated 10.11.2022 in SSCR No.23 of 2022, various directions have been issued restricting the movement of vehicles from Nilakkal and prohibiting parking of vehicles on the roadside from Nilakkal to Pamba. Despite all such restrictions, the 11th respondent offered darshan and other facilities to Sabarimala pilgrims as part of its 'Helicopter Service Package' without obtaining any permission whatsoever from the Travancore Devaswom Board".
Kerala Chief Justice S. Manikumar Waylaid By Drunk Man In Kochi; Accused Arrested
The Kerala High Court Chief Justice S. Manikumar's official vehicle was stopped by a person near Goshree Bridge in Kochi around 2 am on Monday, according to media reports.
The reports said that Chief Justice Manikumar was returning from the airport through the Container Road, when the accused person, who has been identified as Tijo, jumped in front of the vehicle and started hurling verbal abuses against the state's senior-most judge. The Muluvukad police have registered a case against the accused upon a complaint received from the Chief Justice's security staff, namely Antony Perera, and have arrested him.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Eldose Kunnappilly
The Kerala High Court on Monday reserved its order on the petitions seeking cancellation of the order granting anticipatory bail to Congress MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly in the case accusing him of rape and attempt to murder of a woman.
Justice Kauser Edappagath, during the arguments today, said: "Even in a case where 100 times you consent for sexual relations, if you do not give consent to the 101st time, it amounts to rape. No doubt".
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday said that protestors in Vizhinjam need to comply with its orders for unhindered ingress and egress to Adani Project site.
Justice Anu Sivaraman said: "There is the authorization by this court to see that ingress and egress is provided. It is not as if the police or Central forces are powerless. It is only to see that there is no law and order situation, and the people who are there are not put to peril. Please don't take that as a trump card. It is not very difficult to see that the order is complied with. Just removing the pandhal is not a difficult proposition for anybody. To say that there is some kind of inability either in this court to pass an order or in the police to carry out that order is a misapprehension".
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sreeram Venkitaraman
The State Government has approached the Kerala High Court against the Additional Sessions Court I, Trivandrum order dismissing the culpable homicide charges against IAS Officer Sriram Venkitaraman and his friend, Wafa Firoz, in the alleged drunk driving case related to the death of journalist K.M. Basheer in 2019.
The Sessions Court, while dropping the charges under Section 304 which provides punishment for culpable homicide and Section 201, which penalizes causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information, last month had however maintained that the other charges under Sections 304 A (causing death by negligence) and 279 (rash and negligent driving) of the IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act would stand. Venkitaraman had argued that there was no evidence regarding him having driven the vehicle in a drunken state.
R. Baji v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ltd.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday asked the State government to formulate a permanent solution or scheme for resolving the issues faced by KSRTC in dispensing salary to its employees.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing the petitions filed by the employees of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation seeking direction to the Corporation and its Managing Director to formulate a scheme for payment of salary to its employees at least before the 5th day of every month.
Case Title: Babu Thomas v. Mini Antony IAS & Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday directed the Secretary to the Government, Food and Civil Supplies Department, and the Director of the Civil Supplies Office of the Commissioner of Civil Supplies to implement its directions to disburse arrears, if any, payable to the Ration Dealers, for distribution of COVID-19 Free Food Kits and Onam kits.
Justice N. Nagaresh was dealing with a contempt plea, filed by the Organizing Secretary of All Kerala Retail Ration Dealers' Association stating that the Department has not complied with High Court's direction dated February 2, 2022.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sreeram Venkitaraman
The Kerala High Court on Friday stayed the order dropping culpable homicide charges IAS Officer Sreeram Venkitaraman in the 2019 rash driving case.
Admitting State's appeal against the order passed by the Additional Sessions Court I, Trivandrum, Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., said: "Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to pass an interim order. Accordingly, it is ordered that the operation of the order dated 19.10.2022 in Crl. M.P. 2325/2022 in SC No. 595/2021 shall stand stayed for a period of 2 months". The Court has also issued notice to the respondent herein.
A suo motu case alleging professional misconduct has been registered by the Bar Council of Kerala against the lawyers of a Kochi-based law firm.
The case has been initiated against Advocates B.A. Aloor, Prasanth K.P., Anuraj S., Krishnenthu Suresh, Vishnu Dileep, and Mohammed Ameer of Aloor Associates on the basis of media reports stating that they "created dramatic scenes" in the court "in connection with the incident of gangraping a 19-year-old girl in Kochi."
Kerala High Court Seeks Action Taken Report Following Violent Protests Against Adani Vizhinjam Port
Case Title: M/S Adani Vizhinjam Ports Pvt Ltd & Ors v. Dr. V.P. Joy IAS & Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday enquired as to what steps have been taken by the State in light of violent protests at Vizhinjam, where fishermen have been protesting against construction of an International Seaport by the Adani Group.
Justice Anu Sivaraman directed that all appropriate steps ought to be taken in light of the developments over the course of the last two days, and that the same must to be informed to the Court by Friday.
Questioning the curfew in the girls hostel in the Government Medical College, the Kerala High Court on Tuesday asked the competent authorities to provide the rationale as to why restrictions have been imposed on students from even walking in the campus after 9.30 PM. The Court observed that there could be justification for the same only if compelling reasons could be shown.
The Court in the instant case was considering a plea moved by certain girl students of Government Medical College Kozhikode against the impugned notification issued by the Higher Education Department barring female students from going out of the Hostel after 9.30 PM.
Justice Devan Ramachandran in this light observed that,
"...in the modern times, any patriarchism - even in the guise of offering protection based on gender - would have to be frowned upon because girls, as much as boys, are fully capable of taking care of themselves; and if not, it must be the endeavour of the State and the Public Authorities to make them so competent, rather than being locked in".
The Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee and the Kerala Federation of Women Lawyers are jointly conducting a session on 'Gender Justice and Women's Imprisonment' on 1st December 2022 at the Kerala High Court Auditorium at 4.40P.M.
The session is delivered by Dr. Rimple Mehta, Senior Lecturer and Associate Dean, International (South and Southeast Asia) School of Social Sciences, Western Sydney University.
