Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 20 – November 26, 2023
Navya Benny
26 Nov 2023 7:13 PM IST
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 666-684] Saheer v. State of Kerala & Connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 666P.S. Rajeev v. The Sree Narayana Trusts 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 667Ramachandran P v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 668Malarkodi P v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 669Santhosh Kumar P M v John M T 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 670Joy v Mary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 671Prathibha v State...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 666-684]
Saheer v. State of Kerala & Connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
P.S. Rajeev v. The Sree Narayana Trusts 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
Ramachandran P v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
Malarkodi P v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
Santhosh Kumar P M v John M T 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
Joy v Mary 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
Prathibha v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
M/S Global Plasto Wares v. Assistant State Tax Officer & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
Rajappan Assari v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
Sunil D. Emmatty & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
P.B. Prasobh & Ors. v. K.A. Muhammed Faisal & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
Latha v. T V Sahadevan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
Antony Joseph v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 679
Rijas M T v. Hafseena M 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
P.V. Nidhish v. Sivaprakash 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 681
Shibli K v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
P.H. Babu Ansari & Anr. v. Municipal Council & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 683
M/S.Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited Versus State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 684
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Saheer v. State of Kerala & Connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
Interpreting the law on triple talaq, the Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a Muslim husband on finding that he pronounced talaq-e-hasan which was legal and valid under Muslim Personal Law.
“The copies of the talaq kuries would show that several mediations took place. It is further revealed that respondent No.3 did not co-operate for a Court Centred Mediation also...The materials placed before the Court would reveal that a series of mediations to reconcile the disputes between the parties failed. There are no indications that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner was instantaneous or irrevocable. The resultant conclusion is that the talaq pronounced by the petitioner is not talaq-e-biddat prohibited under Section 4 of the Act.”
Relying upon the landmark decision of the Apex Court in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017), Justice K. Babu observed that talaq-e-biddat or other similar forms of instant talaq were void and unconstitutional and not talaq-e-hasan or talaq-e-ahsan.
Case Title: P.S. Rajeev v. The Sree Narayana Trusts, Special Jurisdiction Case No.6 of 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that finality of a decree does not preclude a court settling scheme under Section 92 CPC from modifying it and that the court's power to amend the scheme or to issue directions for effective functioning of a Trust is derived from the scheme itself.
The Division Bench comprising Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and Johnson John was considering the scope of its jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the affairs of the Trust. In course, it analyzed a scheme framed w.r.t. the Trust under Section 92 CPC, which was amended by the court from time to time.
Case title: Ramachandran P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
The Kerala High Court recently held that the District Level Authorization Committee (DLAC) cannot deny authorization for organ donation based on an assumption that the donor was exploited as she was from a disadvantaged community.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that DLAC cannot assume or presume based on the social status of the donor that the organ was not offered out of affection and altruism.
“I am guided to the impression that ‘DLAC’ appears to have taken the afore view being swayed by the social status of the donor, who appear to be from a disadvantaged one; and thus somehow has presumed that she appears to be subjected to exploitation by the 1st petitioner. However, the impugned Ext.P12 report cannot add any force to this presumption or assumption - as the case may be; and am, therefore, of the firm view that ‘DLAC’ must reconsider the matter, based on the statements that have already been recorded, but adverting specifically to the “Certificate of Altruism”, which the petitioners are stated to have produced before them, from the competent Police Authority.”
Case Title: Malarkodi P v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
The Kerala High Court has held a passenger’s accidental fall from moving train, while trying to alight on realizing that it was the wrong train, to be an ‘untoward incident’ and not ‘self-inflicted injury’.
Taking a view that the dependents of the deceased passenger were entitled to compensation, Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed thus:
“In this case, the respondent has no case that the deceased had any intention to inflict any such injury to himself. On the other hand, he was trying to alight from the train as it was the wrong train. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that there was no intention on the part of the deceased to inflict any injury to himself and as such it is a clear case of accidental falling coming within the purview of 'untoward incident', as defined under Section 123(c) of the Railways Act.”
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar P M v John M T
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court recently set aside an order of the Magistrate Court allowing respondent's application in the suit to amend their pleadings stating that amendments, that are not required for adjudicating the real dispute between the parties and are outside the scope of the reliefs sought in the suit, ought not to be allowed.
Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the amendment sought was belated also.
“The title of the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property has not so far been challenged by the respondents, or for that matter by anybody else, before any forum. Nor has the respondents preferred any counter claim in that regard. Therefore, an amendment, seeking to incorporate facts pertaining to the title of the plaintiff, is not going to serve any useful purpose. It cannot be said that such averments are required for the adjudication of the real issue in controversy by and between the parties, having regard to the scope of the reliefs sought for in the suit. In such circumstances, the amendment sought for ought not to have been allowed. Moreover, the amendment sought for is belated as well.”
Case Title: Joy v Mary
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
The Kerala High Court recently distinguished between necessary parties and proper parties to a suit. It held that necessary party was a party who was entitled to a right to relief in the suit and whose presence would enable the Court to effectually adjudicate the suit. It held that a person who was only remotely or indirectly interested in a suit was not a necessary party.
Justice K. Babu held that “absence of a necessary party is a fatal defect, but the absence of a proper party is not” and observed thus:
“The Code of Civil Procedure does not contain any express provision as to who should be considered necessary parties, but it is clear from an examination of the rules of Or.1 of the Code that two conditions must be satisfied so that a party may be considered a necessary party namely; first, there must be a right to some relief against him in respect of the matter involved in the suit and, secondly, his presence is necessary to enable the court, effectually and completely, to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit. A person who is only indirectly or remotely interested is not a necessary party. A person who may be interested in the result of the suit and who may have a right to seek the assistance of the Court in deciding on the point in issue is a proper party in that suit".
Case Title: Prathibha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
The Kerala High Court deliberated upon the legal issue as to whether a conviction for culpable homicide under section 299 IPC was sustainable if the body of the infant was disposed of in the sea believing it to be lifeless.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction of parents for allegedly causing the death of their infant child and disposing of the body in the sea. The Sessions Court had convicted the parents under Section 302 (punishment of murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence) read with Section 34(common intention).
On analyzing Section 299 IPC, the Division Bench comprising Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John acquitted the parents and observed that the offence of culpable homicide was not attracted as the acts were performed on the body of the infant believing it to be lifeless. It noted that there was no intention or knowledge on the part of the parents to put an end to the life of the infant.
“As evident from the extracted definition itself, the provision is attracted only when a person does an act which causes death of another, either with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. These three are the species of mens rea contemplated in the provision, and unless it is established that the act of the accused would fall under any of these, it would not amount to an offence of culpable homicide. Therefore, in order to attract the Section, the act must be one performed with the intention of putting an end to a human life or with the knowledge that the same may put an end to a human life Needless to say, if the act is performed on a body which the person concerned believed to be lifeless, the offence is not attracted, for when the act was performed, the person concerned could have neither had the intention of putting an end to the human life nor had the knowledge that the act performed by him may or is likely put an end to human life.”
Case Title: Manoj Kumar & Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that a delay of nearly five years in re-submitting a request for obtaining sanction for taking cognizance of an offence Section 153(A) of the IPC ('Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence') cannot be accepted.
It also held that prosecution cannot contend that that period is liable to be excluded under Section 470(3) Cr.P.C.
Section 470(3) Cr.P.C. stipulates that, "Where notice of prosecution for an offence has been given, or where, under any law for the time being in force, the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required for the institution of any prosecution for an offence, then, in computing the period of limitation, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be excluded".
"When the Explanation says that the date on which the application was made and the date of receipt of the order of the Government are allowed to be excluded from the period taken for obtaining sanction, the intention of the Legislature is clear. The provisions under Section 470 of the Code that allows exclusion of the period taken for obtaining sanction requires a strict interpretation. When there occurred a delay of nearly five years to re-submit the request for obtaining sanction, the prosecution cannot be heard to contend that that period is liable to be excluded under Section 470(3) of the Code," Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed.
Case Title: M/S Global Plasto Wares v. Assistant State Tax Officer & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that merely because the show cause notice issued to a defaulter under the GST Act did not refer to a particular statutory provision that may be attracted against such defaulter, the same cannot be said to have caused prejudiced when the facts leading to the invocation of the statutory provision concerned were admitted.
The Court was dealing with a case where penalty was imposed under Section 73(11) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act [CGST Act]/State Goods and Services Tax Act [SGST Act] ('CGST/SGST Act') for non-payment of tax due to the State.
Section 73(11) of the GST Act states, "notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (8), penalty under sub-section (9) shall be payable where any amount of self-assessed tax or any amount collected as tax has not been paid within a period of thirty days from the due date of payment of such tax".
"While it may be a fact that Ext.P1 notice issued to the appellant did not specifically refer to Section 73(11) of the CGST/SGST Act, when we find that, on the admitted facts, the appellant had not paid tax due to the State despite collecting the same from its customers, then, as per the statutory provisions, it is the provision of Section 73(11) and not the provision of Section 73(8) that will apply to determine the penal liability of the appellant," the Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Kauser Edappagath observed.
Case Title: Rajappan Assari v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that there ought to be an express or implied trust of property or entrustment for any specific purpose in order to attract the liability for criminal breach of trust as provided under Section 406 IPC.
Justice P. Somarajan explained that the mere existence of a commercial transaction and deposit of amount with any person or institution would not attract criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC.
"A deposit of amount with a person, if it is intended for keeping the same without the liability of interest or any premium payable on that account would attract the criminal liability under Section 406 IPC, if it was dishonestly misappropriated, converted or dispossessed in violation of any direction prescribing the mode of its user or any legal contract. On the contrary, when the deposit is for the purpose of incurring interest, failure to return the amount as agreed would not canvass the criminal liability under Section 406 IPC, unless it constitutes entrustment of the said amount or any dominion over the property for any specific purpose either express or implied or to utilise the periodical interest for any such specific purpose, either express or implied. In short, a mere deposit of amount with any banker, financial institution or any person, if it is for getting interest, unless satisfies the abovesaid cardinal ingredients, cannot be brought under the purview of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 IPC and no criminal liability can be fastened for the offence punishable under Section 406 IPC," the Bench observed.
Case Title: Sunil D. Emmatty & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
The Kerala High Court recently berated the Sports Council for its failure to take any action when it received a report from the Observer as regards certain concerns in the elections to Kerala Hockey, that apparently led various issues including dispute as to the selection list of players to represent the State in the National Games in November, 2023.
"The irony is that if the “Sports Council” had completed their actions earlier, without having waited for nearly one and half years after the elections, the latter limb of the controversy would have never arisen. It is their inaction in the matter, which has led to the disputes regarding the Teams; but here again... they have acted only at the eleventh hour," Justice Devan Ramachandran observed.
Case Title: P.B. Prasobh & Ors. v. K.A. Muhammed Faisal & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
The Kerala High Court held that the protection of sanction as provided under Section 197 Cr.P.C. would apply when the alleged act done by a public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty.
Section 197 Cr.P.C. provides that when a public servant who is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the government, is accused in any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duties, no Court shall take cognizance of such offence except with the previous sanction, in the case of a person who is employed or, as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed, in connection with the affairs of a State or the State Government.
"...the protection given under Section 197 would be available when the alleged act done by the public servant is reasonably connected with the discharge of his official duty and is not merely a clock for doing the objectionable act. If there is a reasonable connection between the act and the performance of the official duty, the excess will not be sufficient ground to deprive the public servant of the protection," Justice N. Nagaresh explained.
Case Title: Latha v T V Sahadevan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
The Kerala High Court recently upheld an order passed by the Employees Compensation Commissioner (Industrial Tribunal), Idukki which rejected the compensation claim of the dependents of the deceased on the finding that he was an independent contractor and not an employee within the purview of the Act.
The deceased was an electrician and used to supply light and mike sets for conducting small programs and he died due to electrocution while connecting mike set for the function organized by the respondents.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed that the deceased was an independent contractor and his work was not controlled by the respondents and was not an employee under the Act.
“The mike set used in this case belonged to the deceased. Since it was only a hiring of mike set for the purpose of a programme, there was no necessity for the deceased to do his work personally. Instead, he could have done the same by engaging his own employees. His work of connecting the mike set is not controlled by the respondents. In the above circumstances, it is to be held that deceased Babu was not an employee but an independent contractor. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner is perfectly justified.”
Case Title: Antony Joseph v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 679
The Kerala High Court refused to allow a plea seeking a direction to the Government to settle a dispute pertaining to unified Mass at St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica, Ernakulam.
The petitioners averred that the Church remained closed due to disputed between rival factions, and sought mediation involving eminent personalities such as the Arcbishop of Ernakulam, the Synod of Major Archiepiscopal Church of Ernakulam, the Athiroopa Samrakshana Samithi, the Commissioner of Police and the Station House Officer of Central Police Station and such others, to resolve the issue.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was of the considered view that the State or its functionaries could not intervene in the matter, since the same was of religious, and not temporal nature.
"...what the petitioner projects is exclusively a religious activity, into which normally, the State or its functionaries cannot intervene. This is well settled through a catena of judgments of this Court and the Supreme Court, and therefore, this Court cannot cause any deviation, merely because the petitioners seek a settlement between the warring factions," the Court observed.
Case Title: Rijas M T v, Hafseena M
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
The Kerala High Court has expressed concern over the arduous procedure to obtain a maintenance order and has suggested the Parliament to bring about apposite changes in the law to ameliorate the situation.
"Destitute women and children are made to loiter in the corridors of the Courts to receive their monthly maintenance, which adds to their woes...this Court is of the firm view that the time is ripe for the Parliament to ponder in bringing corresponding changes in Chapter IX of the Code [Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents] to make it consonance with the law declared in Rajnesh or even think of a comprehensive maintenance law," Justice CS Dias observed.
Case Title: P.V. Nidhish v. Sivaprakash
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 681
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that that the Kerala Real Estate Appellate Tribunal, which has special power to regulate its own procedure, can appoint a Commission as well, if the Tribunal is of the opinion that appointment of such a Commission is necessary for getting certain material aspects, which are required for the purpose of deciding the matter in controversy in between the promoter and allottee.
The Court added that the said power is not drawn from Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC specifies the conditions under which the court may permit parties to the appeal to present evidence at the appellate stage.
Perusing various provisions of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 ('Act, 2016'), Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
"....the Appellate Tribunal has the power to regulate its own procedure and the said power is given to deal with a matter, where the Appellate Tribunal requires anything to be done within the mandate of law for addressing the real dispute in between the litigants. It is apropose to note that Section 35 of the Act, 2016, in fact, gives wide power to the Authority to enquire and appoint one or more persons to make an inquiry in relation to the affairs of any promoter or allottee or the real estate agent, as the case may be. In the said circumstances, it is difficult to lay down law, holding that the powers of the Appellate Tribunal is much less than that of the Authority when the statute specifically provides power to the Appellate Tribunal to regulate its own procedure. To be more vivid, it could not be held that the power to appoint a Commission to have enquiry available to the Authority, is not available to the Appellate Tribunal".
Case Title: Shibli K v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 682
The Kerala High Court has upheld the decision of Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) declining a PwD candidate's request to bring his own scribe to examination.
Stating that the decision was meant to rule out any possible misuse of the scribe during exam, the Court clarified that the Commission may itself allot a scribe to the candidate from the panel prepared by it.
Analyzing the objectives of the Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act (RPwD) and the circulars issued by the KPSC, the Division bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice C.Pratheep Kumar observed thus:
“The circular issued by KPSC contains provision for providing the service of a suitable scribe from a panel prepared by them to PwD candidates on request. Since the scribes are provided from the panel prepared by KPSC, it is also capable of ensuring the purity of competitive examinations and to rule out any manipulations. Therefore, it is to be held that the above circular issued by KPSC is capable of protecting the rights of persons with disabilities and to rule out the possibility of misuse of own scribe. In the above circumstance, the conduct of the fifth respondent in declining the prayer of the appellant to chose his own scribe and providing a scribe from the panel prepared by them cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.”
Enacting Laws In English Will Not Deter Growth Of Regional Language: High Court To Kerala Govt
Case Title: P.H. Babu Ansari & Anr. v. Municipal Council & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 683
The Kerala High Court emphasized the need for publishing statutes and rules in English language, as envisaged in Article 348(3) of the Constitution.
Article 348(3) permits usage of any local language other than English for use in the Legislature of the State but requires that a translation of the same in the English language be published under the authority of the Governor of the State in the Official Gazette of that State which shall be deemed to be the authoritative text thereof.
Relying upon decisions such as Thanga Dorai v. Chancellor, Kerala University (1995), and Murali Purushothaman v. State of Kerala (2002), which emphasized upon the requirement of of an English text for a Bill, Act, or Ordinance, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas explained,
"When a State like Kerala opens its invitation for people from all over the world to invest, it would be incongruous if the laws are incomprehensible to them. The importance of English as an international language of communication and comprehension within and outside the Country cannot be ignored. Parochial considerations have to be kept aside while contemplating growth and development of the State. Enacting laws in English as mandated by the Constitution in a diverse country like India, will not have any bearing on the growth of the regional language. On the other hand, it can enhance the growth potential of the State as an investment destination with better awareness about its laws. Therefore, this Court reminds the State Government to abide by the Constitutional obligation to prepare the texts of all Statutes, Rules and other enactments in English, lest this Court be compelled to issue appropriate directions in that regard".
Case Title: M/S.Gaiagen Technologies Private Limited Versus State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 684
The Kerala High Court has rejected the assessee's claim for a service tax refund to meet the VAT demand on the pest control contract.
The bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman has observed that the claim of the petitioner that the service tax authorities must be directed to meet the demand for VAT, if any, found payable by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Sharon Murder Case: Kerala High Court Says Validity Of Final Report Can Be Decided By Trial Court
Case Title: Greeshma @ Sreekutty V The Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Case number: Crl.MC 9206/ 2023
The Kerala High Court said that the validity of the final report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Sharon Raj murder case shall be considered by the Trial Court.
The allegation is that the final report was prepared and submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who headed the special investigation team and not by an officer in charge of a police station as per Section 173 (2) of CrPC.
The Court was considering a petition moved by Greeshma, who allegedly poisoned Sharon Raj to weasel out of their romantic relationship. Her mother and maternal uncle are also arrayed as co-accused for allegedly abetting the crime and for destroying the evidence.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan directed thus:
“The main contention of the petitioner is that the final report filed in this case is not by a competent officer…..It is an admitted fact that the case is already committed and pending trial before the Additional Sessions Court- Trial For Abkari Act Cases, Neyyatinkara. In such situation, I am of the considered opinion that this point need not be considered by this Court at this stage. The petitioner shall file a petition before the Trial Court raising this point and the Trial Court will consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Saiby Jose Kidangoor v. The State Police Chief & Ors.
Case Number: WP(Crl.) 110/ 2023
The Kerala High Court directed that the Special Judge of the Vigilance Court shall consider the final report submitted by the investigating agency within a period of two months. The Court noted that the police, after completion of the investigation, had submitted a final report under Section 173 CrPC stating ‘further action dropped’ against Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangaoor.
Advocate Saiby was accused of collecting money from clients under the pretext of bribing judges of the High Court. The Ernakulam Central Police Station had registered the FIR against Advocate Saiby, by invoking offences under Section 7(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court today noted that the police have completed the investigation and submitted the final report under Section 173 CrPC.
Justice K. Babu on perusing the final report submitted before it directed that the final report shall be considered by the Special Judge.
“The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner prayed for a direction to the Special Judge to consider the report in a time bound manner. The special judge shall consider the report in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment." Accordingly, the petition was closed.
Temporary Magistrate Faces Kerala Lawyers' Protest Over Direction To Arrest Advocate
The Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) announced on Monday that it has received assurance from the Judge-in-charge of Malappuram, High Court Judge Justice N. Nagaresh, that the Magistrate who allegedly verbally abused a junior lawyer and directed his arrest, shall be transferred at the earliest.
Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) on temporary service, Tirur, Lenin Das, was alleged to have verbally accused Advocate Favad Pathoor, for allegedly assisting a witness during chief examination, and went onto direct his removal from Court premises, and arrest by the police.
Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 38410/ 2023
The Kerala High Court considered a petition filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) seeking measures to restrict the operation of All India Tourist Permit vehicles through the nationalized routes and scheme covered ROUTES formulated under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act, 1988).
During the hearing, Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh asked how KSRTC could challenge an amendment brought by the Central Government in the Rules, in this case.
Case Title: Jose Babu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 38159 OF 2023 (T)
The Kerala High Court recently directed Kannur University to refrain from granting approval to the appointment of a general category candidate made by the Manager of Nehru Arts and Science College, on a post reserved for physically disabled candidates.
Justice T.R. Ravi issued the interim direction, and sought the response of the respondents in the matter.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C).No. 231 of 2023
The Principal Secretary of Revenue Department, Tinku Biswal, informed the Kerala High Court recently that Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund (CMDRF) portal has been redesigned to have a page exclusively for the HIV infected persons, which would exclusively be within the control of the concerned District Collectors or their authorized officers, in a bid to ensure the privacy of such applicants.
The development comes in a plea alleging that in order to avail the benefit of a Government Order granting HIV infected persons Rs. 6,000/- largesse every 6 months, the applicants who often below to the lowest income strata of society, would have to take the assistance of platforms such as Akshaya Centre for uploading their applications and medical documents, which leads to breach of their confidentiality and privacy.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was further told that a person could now apply on the portal with their Medical-cum-Life Certificate issued by a competent Anti-retroviral Therapy (ART) Centre, and that the District Collector or authorized officer would then verify the same, and send the documents to the concerned ART Centre for authentication.
Kerala High Court Stays GO Directing Release Of School Buses For 'Nava Kerala Yathra Program'
Case Title: Philip Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 38552 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court has stayed the State government's order directing headmasters to release school buses upon request of the organizing committees of Nava Kerala Yathra program.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued the direction in a plea filed by the parent of a 9th grade student averring that as per provisions of the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules and the permit granted to school buses, such buses could only be used for transportation of students and for other educational purposes.
The Judicial First Class Magistrate (JFCM) on temporary service, Tirur, Lenin Das, who was alleged to have verbally abused a junior lawyer and directed his arrest, has been transferred to Kannur to the post of Additional Munsiff.
Bar associations had launched protests against the Magistrate following reports that the officer misbehaved with a young lawyer. The Magistrate was alleged to have verbally accused Advocate Favad Pathoor, for allegedly assisting a witness during chief examination, and went onto direct his removal from Court premises, and arrest by the police.
The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocate Association (KHCAA) has unanimously decided to appoint Advocate Saiby Jose Kidangoor as their President. The Executive Committee has taken this decision today based on Rule 12 of the KHCAA bye-law. As per Rule 12 of the bye-law, when there is a casual vacancy in the Executive Committee, they can fill up the vacancy by Co-option from among the members of the Association.
Case Title: Rajesh P.R. v. Child Welfare Committee
Case Number: WP(C) 35823/ 2023
The Kerala High Court orally pointed the lacunae in law after a couple, who had adopted a girl child (now a major), sought its permission to annul the adoption on the ground that she hasn't integrated into the family.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran was of the firm view that the provisions relied upon by the petitioners' counsel could not be invoked, since the child had now turned 18-years-old, due to which the Child Welfare Committee ('CWC') could not be approached for annulling the adoption.
"The child was a child when adopted, now she’s a woman. How will you annul it?...And where will she be sent? CWC has lost control over her now. They are not in charge. From today, I must treat her as a woman since she is now 18, not as a child. And I have to ensure her safety. You’ve given up, its now for me to take care of her. CWC cannot do anything now. If I declare so, she’ll be left nowhere. So I have to make sure she’s protected right away and I need a specialized agency for that. I am worried," Justice Ramachandran orally noted.
Case Title: K Sivanandhan v. State of Kerala and other matters
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 23267 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 24835 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 25152 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 25410 OF 2023, WP(C) NO. 25575 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court queried the State why an administrative order cannot be issued to Banks instructing them that the credit ratings of farmers would not be reduced on account of Paddy Receipt Sheet (PRS) loan, and that SupplyCo would take full responsibility to ensure the same.
Justice Devan Ramachandran made this oral observation while considering a batch of petitions filed by aggrieved farmers who sold their paddy to the State Government through Supplyco but had not received any payment in return. The Court had disposed the writ petitions, directing payments to be disbursed to the farmers without delay.
CrPC Amendment Allowing Electronic Service Of Summons Notified In Kerala
Kerala Government has notified the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kerala Second Amendment) Act, 2023 providing for summons to be served electronically, in addition to the other modes.
The Bill amends Sections 62 and 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), which stipulates the procedure for serving summons, and summons to produce document or other thing, respectively.
Case Title: State of Kerala represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Crime Branch Wayanad v. UIDAI Represented by Deputy Director General & Others
Case Number: WP (CRL.) 1156/2023
The Kerala High Court recently admitted a plea moved by a Wayanad Investigating Officer requesting order to UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India) to compare the sample fingerprint collected by him (believed to be of a culprit) with its biometric data and disclose identity of the Aadhaar holder.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan admitted the matter and served notice on Central Government Counsel for Deputy Director, UIDAI and Secretary of the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Bijoy A.K. & Ors.
Case Number: Crl. M.P. No. 1140/ 2023
A Kerala Court permitted the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) to furnish digital copies of documents having 26,000 pages to be furnished to 55 accused persons, instead of hard copies.
The decision has been instrumental in enabling the ED to save around Rs. 17 lakhs of central exchequer, which was the expected expenditure it would have incurred in supplying hard copies of the documents.
The Special Sessions Judge Shibu Thomas passed the Order in a case filed by the ED against 55 persons accused of various offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Can't Use Children For Non-Educational Activities Like Govt's 'Nava Kerala Sadass': High Court
Case Title: P.K. Navas v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 39398 OF 2023
Reinforcing the fundamental right to education, the Kerala High Court has made it clear that schools and educational authorities can't compel children to participate in activities of non-educational colour, such as state government's 'Nava Kerala Sadass'.
The programme envisages direct interaction of top officials with the people and redressal of their grievances. Employees in public service and aided institutions are asked to participate in the program in the respective districts and ensure maximum participation of public, which has resulted in hindrance to the functioning of public offices, and educational institutions.
Justice Devan Ramachandran said, "...the right to education is a constitutionally protected right, which enures to every student and child, notwithstanding their class, creed or status; and it is the duty of the Educational Authorities to protect this, rather than encourage them into activities, which are in non-educational color," the Court observed.
Bar Council Of Kerala To Enquire On Kottayam Lawyers Agitation Against Chief Judicial Magistrate
The Bar Council of Kerala has constituted a Sub-Committee comprising K. P Jayachandran, Joseph John, K. K Nazzer , S. Sudarsanakumar, K.R Rajkumar and P.A Mohammed Sha for inquiring into the reasons that led to the Kottayam lawyers’ agitation against the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the subsequent developments. K. P Jayachandran is the Convenor of the Sub-Committee and Joseph John is the Member Secretary of the Sub-Committee. The Sub-Committee shall visit the Kottayam Court Centre and submit a report before the Bar Council within a period of seven days.
The advocates of the Kottayam Bar Association abstained from attending court proceedings on Thursday to protest against the initiation of criminal proceedings against Advocate Nawab M.P. based on a complaint of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Pursuant to this, there were protest marches held in the Kottayam Court Centre against the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Case Title: Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) v. Director, Directorate of Enforcement and connected matter
Case Number: WP(C) 26228/ 2022 and WP(C) 25774/ 2022
The Kerala High Court granted permission to the Enforcement Directorate (ED) to issue fresh summons to Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB), and former Minister, Dr. T.M. Thomas Issac, in relation to the masala bonds case.
ED had issued summons to KIIFB, and the then Finance Minister, Dr. Issac, alleging violations of provisions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) for raising funds by issuing rupee-denominated bonds (masala bonds) abroad.
KIIFB and Dr. Issac thus filed separate petitions before the High Court challenging the issuance of the same.
Justice Devan Ramachandran took note of the submission of the Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) A.R.L.Sundaresan, instructed by Standing Counsel for ED Jaishankar V.Nair, that ED was willing to issue fresh summons to the petitioners and other persons who were within the scope of investigation.
Cricketer Sreesanth Moves Kerala High Court For Anticipatory Bail In Cheating Case
Case Title: S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 10582/ 2023
Indian Cricketer S. Sreesanth has approached Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a cheating case.
When the matter was taken up, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. asked the State not to take any coercive action against the Cricketer till the next date of posting on November 28, 2023 (Tuesday).
