Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 2 - October 8, 2023
Navya Benny
8 Oct 2023 5:22 PM IST
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 531-547] The Ramapuram Regional Service Co-Operative Bank v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 531NBCC India Ltd. & Anr. v. Joshy Varghese and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 532Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust & Anr. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 533Gugulloth Lakshman IPS v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 531-547]
The Ramapuram Regional Service Co-Operative Bank v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
NBCC India Ltd. & Anr. v. Joshy Varghese and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust & Anr. and connected matter 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
Gugulloth Lakshman IPS v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and Ors. v. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Arjun Rajasekhar v. Director General of Police (Law & Order) & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
Suo Moto v State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
Shaheena v. Tahsildar & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
Abhaya V. Venu v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
Rajan K v. Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
Dawood v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
Fousiya v Shamsudheen Pokkadan 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
Sojan Scaria v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Secretary v. Muhammed Rasheed 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
A.C. Pavithran & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Connected cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
State of Kerala v Durgadas 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
Siraj v. The District Collector & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
Judgments/Orders This Week
Case Title: The Ramapuram Regional Service Co-Operative Bank v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court has held that newspaper publication of the proposed amendment to bye-laws of a cooperative society alone and not the existing provision of the bye-laws is mandatory for effecting registration of the amendment.
Justice Sathish Ninan observed that Rule 9(ii) of the Co-operative Societies Rules and circular No.25/2016 issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies mandate publication of the proposed amendment of the bye-laws and not the existing provisions. It noted that the Paper publication was intended for the purpose of intimating the members of the society when the members of the society exceeded five hundred in number,
“Therefore, on a proper understanding of Rule 9(ii) of the Rules and Circular No.25/2016, it could only be held that the intimation to the members with regard to the proposed amendment of the bye-laws of the Society, whether it be by personal service or by paper publication as the case may be, need only contain the proposed amendment in its entirety. Such intimation/ publication need not contain the existing provision of the bye-law sought to be amended.”
Case Title: NBCC India Ltd. & Anr. v. Joshy Varghese and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that interest rates payable to allottees withdrawing from a project should be as per Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018 while clarifying that claiming a lesser interest rate does not preclude allottees from receiving the statutory rate.
Justice A. Badharudeen added that while Rule 18 specifies the standard interest rate formula for both promoters and allottees, there can be a deviation from this rate, only when both parties mutually agree to it.
"...the legal position is no more res-integra and payment of interest by the promoter to the allottee or by the allottee to the promoter, as the case may be, shall be the State Bank of India's Benchmark Prime Lending Rate plus two percent interest and shall be computed as simple interest as provided under Rule 18 of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2018. However, payment of interest by the allottee to the promoter as provided under Section 19(7) of the Kerala Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, can be one in deviation from the Rule 18 and the interest can be reduced when mutually agreed to between the promoter and the allottee and not in any other manner".
Case Title: Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust & Anr. and connected matter
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court while dismissing a rent control revision petition stated that subsequent legal advice given to a party cannot be accepted as a ground for condonation of delay to prefer an appeal.
Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed that if delay was condoned based on subsequent legal advice received by a party, then that would defeat the purpose of Limitation Act.
“Subsequent legal advice cannot be accepted as a cause, much less any sufficient cause, to condone the delay in instituting a proceedings in terms of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for if the subsequent legal advice is accepted as the cause to condone the delay in instituting a proceedings, the same would defeat the very object of the Limitation Act, viz, that every remedy should remain alive only till the expiry of the period fixed by the legislature which is a principle founded on public policy.”
Case Title: Gugulloth Lakshman IPS v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
The Kerala High Court has permitted Gugulloth Lakshman, Inspector General of Kerala Police (now suspended), to withdraw his plea seeking to quash the case registered against him for his alleged involvement in Monson Mavunkal cheating case.
However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked him to pay Rs. 10,000 as cost and disbelieved the suspended IG's claim that his counsel had moved the plea without instructions.
"There is a presumption that a lawyer prepared a brief and field before this Court. The averments in the brief is as instructed by his client. Absolutely no evidence is produced before this court to show that lawyer filed this Crl. M.C. without getting instructions from the petitioner. Now this petitioner is blaming the lawyer saying that it was filed without his instruction. The petitioner is an IG of police and he is not an ordinary person... But, he has not filed any complaint before the Bar Council against the counsel for making such a serious allegation in a Crl. M.C. Case. That itself shows that what the petitioner has stated in the affidavit itself is not correct," the bench said.
Case Title: Sayed Mohammed Noorul Ameer and Ors. v. U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Criminalisation of election process is of grave concern to democracy and if persons with criminal antecedents are permitted to continue as Members of Parliament / Legislatures even after conviction by a competent court, that would only send wrong signals to public at large, the Kerala High Court said.
The observations were made while refusing to suspend the conviction of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal in a case of attempt to murder. The plea was moved to prevent his disqualification as a sitting Member of Parliament.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that there are materials prima facie evidencing the criminal acts on the part of Faizal. It remarked,
"Criminalisation of election process is of grave concern in our democratic polity. The tentacles of political crimes and criminalisation of election process have started grappling free and fair elections. Incidents of criminal acts being committed even during meeting of legislative bodies are surfacing. Proliferation of crime in election process could garner momentum to cripple Indian democracy, if men with criminal background are allowed to continue to be part of the democratic system. If persons with criminal antecedents are permitted to continue as Members of Parliament / Legislatures even after conviction by a competent court, that would only send wrong signals to public at large."
Kerala High Court Comes To Aid Of Interfaith Couple, Both Employed With Govt
Case Title: Arjun Rajasekhar v. Director General of Police (Law & Order) & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court came to the aid of a Lance Naik in the Indian Army and an employee of the Indian Railways, seeking to marry each other. Their interfaith relationship was being opposed by the woman's family.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Viju Abraham ordered that the woman could not be detained against her will, and thereby directed her release. The man's family said it would take necessary steps for ensuring the safety of the detenue.
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
In a recent suo moto case on missing properties from court custody, the Kerala High Court noted that Rule 184 of Criminal Rules of Practice, 1982 dealing with maintenance of property registers was not in consonance with the technological advancements of present times.
Justice V.G Arun noted that amendments have to be made in Rule 184 for introducing recent technological advancements including digitizing records and registers.
“In my opinion, Rule 184 ought to be amended and provision should also made for digitizing the registers and records, in consonance with the recent developments. Digitization of the registers and introduction of electronic tracking system will help in preventing the stalemate of cases due to the missing, pilferage or damage of properties produced in court. I am expressing this opinion, being conscious of the fact that the case at hand is not an isolated instance of the missing of properties produced in court.”
Case Title: Shaheena v. Tahsildar & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that the purpose of attachment of a property would come to an end when the absconder to whom the property belongs, surrenders before the Court. It added that there would thus not be any attachment order in force hindering payment of tax in respect of the property when it is subsequently sold to another.
While passing the order, Justice Murali Purushothaman, relied upon the decisions in Vimalaben Ajitbhai Patel v. Vatslaben Ashokbhai Patel & Ors. (2008), and Abdul Khadar v. State of Kerala (2015), which had laid down that once the person, against whom the proclamation was issued and whose property was attached, surrenders before the Court and the standing warrants are cancelled, he is no longer an absconder and the purpose of attachment of the property would thus come to an end.
Case Title: Abhaya V. Venu v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
The Kerala High Court has granted leave to a life convict undergoing incarceration at Central Prison & Correctional Home, Viyyur for undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.
The convict's wife had approached the Court seeking parole for her husband who had been undergoing imprisonment for the past 7 years, so that he could complete the treatment procedure to have a child, via IVF/ICSI (In Vitro Fertilization / Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection) Procedure.
Wondering how the Court could turn a blind eye to such genuine requests merely on technicalities, the Single Judge Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed,
"...when a wife comes before this Court with a request that she wants a child in the relationship with her husband who is undergoing imprisonment in Central Jail, this Court cannot ignore the same on technicalities. Conviction and sentence in criminal cases is mainly to reform and rehabilitate the offenders. The state and society want to see the convict coming out of jail after rejuvenation as a reformed man/woman who will be part of our society. A person who has undergone a sentence in a criminal case need not be treated as a different person when he comes out. He has every right to lead a decent life just like any other citizen".
Case Title: Rajan K v. Joint Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
The Kerala High Court has held that a person who was living beyond the territorial limit of the Society due to a transfer or change in residence becomes ineligible to continue as a member of the Society as per Rule 16 of the Co-operative Societies Rules and Clause 11 of the bye-laws.
Justice Sathish Ninan observed that while the bye-laws did not mention transfer as a ground for ceasing membership, one's transfer beyond the Society's operational area affected their eligibility for membership.
“The Society is formed to cater the needs of the employees within its area of operation - Trivandrum District. When a member is transferred beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Society, he ceases to satisfy the eligibility criteria to be a member that is, he no more fulfills the requirement in the bye-law to be a member of the Society.”
Case Title: Dawood v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction of a person accused of displaying obscene books for sale in a shop room on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove that the books were obscene or that the accused was in possession of the shop room from where the books were seized.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice C.S. Dias noted that the material prosecution witnesses, i.e. the police officers who conducted the search, had neither stated that the books were obscene nor had they proved ingredients for the offence under Section 292(2)(a) IPC ('Sale of obscene books, etc.') against the accused.
"The prosecution having failed to state anything on the contents in the books and no incriminating circumstances being put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the action of the courts below in scrolling through the books and then concluding that they are obscene is erroneous and unjustifiable. The action of the courts below has caused prejudice to the accused, because he has been denied an opportunity to explain the exercise carried out by the courts below. Hence, this Court is of the view, there is a total failure of justice in the courts below holding that the books are obscene and, therefore, the accused is guilty of committing the offence," Justice Dias declared.
Case Title: Fousiya v Shamsudheen Pokkadan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
The Kerala High Court has ordered the return of patrimony amount given by a woman's family to her husband at the time of their marriage, irrespective of the fact that there was no documentary evidence to prove the source of money or the handing over of money.
Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that in matrimonial cases, documentary evidence cannot be insisted upon to prove every transaction taken place during a marriage. The Court relied upon the oral testimony given by the wife’s father and brother regarding the patrimony amount. It held thus:
“It is true that no documentary evidence is there to prove the source of money or to prove the handing over of money at the time of marriage. But the oral testimony of PWs 1 and 2 is clear and cogent enough to come to a conclusion that Rs.1,50,000/- was handed over to the respondent at the time of marriage as patrimony of the appellant.”
Case Title: Sojan Scaria v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
The Kerala High Court directed the Ernakulam Sessions Court to return the electronic equipment of Marunadan Malayali Channel, that was seized in connection with a case against its Editor.
The equipment were seized by the police in connection with a case pertaining to the broadcast of a news item against MLA Sreenijin, alleging mal-administration of Sports Hostel at the instance of the MLA in his capacity as the Chairman, District Sports Council.
"This case is to be proved mainly based on oral evidence. I do not know why the entire equipments of this channel are seized by the Police in connection with this case," Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan remarked.
Case Title: Secretary v Muhammed Rasheed
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court has held that filing revision petitions without attaching the order passed in first instance is in total violation of the High Court's Practice Rules.
It has ordered all lawyers and litigants to ensure that when Revisions, Criminal Revision Petitions, Original Petitions are filed, it must also contain the certified copy of orders passed in the first instance.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha said the Registry has not been raising objection on this issue and hence it is constrained to pass a judicial order directing "all lawyers/litigants to attach the copy of the orders passed in the first instance, in cases of Revisions, CRPs and OPs. Practice of not attaching the order, is totally in deviation to the High Court Rules.”
Case Title: A.C. Pavithran & Ors. v. State of Kerala and Connected cases
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
The Kerala High Court has acquitted four of nine BJP activists who were convicted for committing the murder of a CPI(M) worker due to political rivalry, while they were all lodged in Central Prison at Kannur, serving their sentences in a different case.
The bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice P.G. Ajith Kumar observed that prisons are meant for reformation of detainees and not for indulging in factionalism or political activities. It quoted Mahatma Gandhi and stated, "Crime is the outcome of a diseased mind and jails must have an environment of hospital for treatment and care."
Court said prison is no place for factionalism and questioned the prison authorities over housing prisoners in different blocks based on their political allegiance.
“We fail to understand how the authorities of the Central Prison, Kannur could house prisoners in different blocks based on their political allegiance. That, in fact, leads to incidents like the instant one. Like prison officers, prisoners also shall not indulge into any political activity inside the four walls of prisons.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Durgadas
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court observed that despite acquittals in criminal cases, when the government was unable to form an opinion regarding the character and antecedents of a person, then it can conduct an independent and separate enquiry to assess the character of the candidate.
Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that the government cannot disqualify a candidate from acquiring an employment in public service merely because a criminal case was registered against him. It stated that the government can consider the allegations along with materials against the candidate in the criminal case independently to assess the character and integrity of the candidate to see whether he was suitable for entering the service or not.
“The Government cannot merely restate the allegations in the prosecution and hold that the character is bad to make him unsuitable for the post. Thus, we make it clear that in criminal cases where the prosecution cases end up in acquittal if the Government cannot form an opinion based on the prosecution allegations and other materials including the finding entered by the criminal court as to the character of the person, the Government is bound to conduct separate enquiry as to the character antecedents of the person. Thus, mere registration of the criminal case will not enable the Government to disqualify such a person from becoming a member of service.”
Case Title: Siraj v. The District Collector & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that as per Section 19 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 (hereinafter, 'the Act, 2008'), a vehicle could be seized only when it is used or deemed to have been used for any activity in contravention of the provisions of the Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, explained that this was because seizure is a drastic power which could be exercised only when conferred by the statute.
"Seizure of a vehicle interferes with the right of an owner to use his property in the manner he likes, subject, of course, to law. Since seizure interferes with proprietary rights, provisions conferring the power of seizure must be interpreted strictly. The safeguards and the stipulations provided by the statute for the exercise of such a power must also be strictly complied with," the Bench observed.
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: Kerala Pradesh School Teachers' Association & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: W.P.(C) 29565/ 2023
The Kerala High Court issued specific directions to the State to ensure that the pending amount of Rs. 54 Crores proposed to be released by it as arrears of payments to government and aided schools under the 'Noon-Meal Scheme', shall be made available to the schools by October 5, 2023.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice T.R. Ravi observed that although the State Government had undertaken to release the arrears of payments soon, in light of the issues between the Centre and the State with respect to the funds having been resolved, it was not fully done, and only an amount of Rs. 10,02,55,650 had been released as arrears for the months of June, July, and 10 days of August.
Case Title: K.G. Mohandas & Anr. v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors.
Case Number: WP(Crl.) 641/ 2023
The Kerala High Court asked the State's Police Chief to meet the parents of Dr. Vandana Das, a 23-year-old house surgeon who was murdered while on duty, and redress their grievances with respect to the probe.
The direction was made by Justice Kunhikrishnan while hearing the parents' plea for transfer of probe to the CBI. The parents alleged that involvement of certain police officials in the matter was not being properly investigated, and the chargesheet was filed in favour of the accused. The bench orally expressed its qualm on transferring the probe at a stage when the Police investigation is over.
The young doctor was brutally killed during the wee hours of the morning on May 10, while she was on duty. She was stabbed multiple times by Sandeep, a school teacher, using dressing room scissors. The attacker had been brought to the Kottarakkara Taluk Hospital by the police for treatment of his injuries.
"This is a case which affected the conscience of the society...In such situation, according to me, the State Police Chief should summon the case diary in this case and hear the petitioners and redress the grievance of the petitioners and submit a report before this Court," the Court observed.
Case Title: Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: Crl. M.C. 8070/ 2023
The Kerala High Court has stayed the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court issuing summons to Lakeshore Hospital and 8 of its doctors accused of transplanting the liver and kidneys of an 18-year-old, in violation of the provisions of the Transplantation of Human Organs Act (THOA), 1994.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the Order, staying the summons for a period of 6 months.
Kerala High Court Orders Action Against Vloggers Found Promoting Use Of Modified Vehicles
Case title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Case number: SSCR 20/2021
The Kerala High Court has asked the State Police as well as the Enforcement Officers in the Motor Vehicles Department to initiate appropriate action against some vloggers who it noted were promoting the use of modified vehicles, including buses with modified LED lights, by posting vlogs on YouTube and other online media.
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar further ordered action against owners and drivers of such vehicles. It ordered,
"Take stringent action against vehicles, including Government vehicles, which are being used in a public place without complying with the safety standards in AIS-008. Stringent action shall be taken against the use of altered vehicles in public places, including vehicles brought through Carnet...The vehicles in the screenshots reproduced hereinbefore at paragraph 27 shall also be proceeded against, strictly in terms of the above directions. Appropriate proceedings shall be initiated against the owner and driver of such vehicles and also the vloggers who promote the use of such vehicles by posting vlogs on YouTube and other online media."
[Attack Against Lawyer] Bar Council Of Kerala Declares Oct. 5, 2023 As Protest Day
The Bar Council of Kerala has declared October 5, 2023, as a Protest Day, against the brutal attack on Adv. B.S. Prakash at Nedumangad Court complex yesterday.
As per news reports, Advocate Prakash was assaulted by a man who had come as a witness in a case. Pursuant to the case being adjourned to another date, the attacker, Shajahan, proceeded to assault his lawyer, Advocate Prakash.
Case title: K.C. Unni v Central Bureau Of Investigation, Soby George v Central Bureau Of Investigation,
Case number: Crl.Rev.Pet 608/ 2022, Crl.Rev.Pet 268/ 2023
The Kerala High Court ordered further investigation into the death of Violinist Balabhaskar. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressing dissatisfaction at the investigation conducted by the CBI, directed thus:
“ In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the view that the investigation conducted by the CBI has not been full proof and the circumstances arising in the case need to be probed further…..”
Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 24828 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court directed the State to forthwith provide adequate number of toilets and drinking water facilities to the tribal families in Pothugal, Vazhikadavu, and Karulai villages in Nilambur Taluk, that were disconnected from mainland following 2018-19 floods.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice A. J. Desai and Justice V.G. Arun passed the direction on being informed that its previous order dated August 17, 2023, directing State authorities to provide an adequate number of bio-toilets and drinking water facilities had not been fully complied with.
"Quite unfortunately, one e-toilet facility has been installed there without any water, for 300 families," Petitioners' counsel informed the Court today.
Case Title: Human Rights Foundation & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 31662 OF 2023(G)
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court seeking directions to be issued to the State authorities to appoint a proficient Cardiac Surgeon team to lead the cardiac surgery department at General Hospital, Ernakulam, and to take prompt measures to appoint a skilled team of cardiac doctors on a permanent basis.
When the matter came up before Justice Devan Ramachandran, the Court remarked that General Hospitals should be maintained as 'centres of excellence'.
"The General Hospitals are the mainstay of the medical requirements of ordinary citizens; and surely, therefore, are require to be maintained as splendid centres of excellence," the Court observed.
Case Title: Treesa K.J. v State of Kerala
Case number: WP(C)Nos.23911/2018 & Connected matters
The Kerala High Court asked the Kochi Municipal Corporation and the Public Works Department to take strictest possible action against those found blocking drains by dumping waste, ultimately leading to flooding of roads in the city.
The bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran had taken cognizance of the recent flooding incidents on Saturday, after Amicus curiae Govind Padmanabhan submitted a report in this regard, during hearing of a petition filed in 2018 over blockage of a canal in the area.
Case Title: Mubeen Rauf v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 32733 OF 2023
The Kerala High Court sought inputs from the State Police Chief (SPC) on how individuals associated with a movie could file complaints against activities aimed towards denigrating and tarnishing a movie, so as to trigger a proper investigation.
The bench also sought to know the consequences flowing therefrom, both under penal law, as well as under the laws relating to cyber activities.
The Court issued the above direction while considering the plea filed by the director of 'Aromalinte Adyathe Pranayam', seeking a gag order to ensure that social media influencers and film reviewing vloggers do not publish any reviews of the film for at least 7 days following its release.
Terming movies as intellectual properties involving the 'reputations, sweat and blood, and aspirations' of several people associated with it, Justice Devan Ramachandran observed:
"While the right of free speech is inherent and constitutionally guaranteed, it certainly has to be tempered with reason and restraint, as are constitutionally required under Article 19(2). A fair criticism of an intellectual property, be that a movie or otherwise, and a pernicious attempt to blackmail, and extort, are two different aspects, which have to be clearly seen through and dealt with distinctly. Just as an attack on a property is a criminal offence, a pestilential review deliberately done with the afore intent is no less, because eventually, both are attacks on tangible properties".
Case Title: Aiswarya S. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 29080 OF 2023(I)
The Kerala High Court has sought response from State government on the plea moved by a 19-yr-old medical aspirant with locomotor disability, denied admission to pursue MBBS Course.
"It must be borne in mind that, what we are dealing with is the life of a person, whose ambitions will be killed, solely because she is found to be ‘disabled’. It requires empathy and concern before a person can be declared as being 'disabled' and incapable of pursuing medical studies," Justice Devan Ramachandran observed.
Kerala High Court Allows Life Convict To Pursue LLB Course; Permits Admission Through Online Mode
Case Title: Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: CRL.M.APPL.NO.3/2023 IN CRL.A NO.740 OF 2018
The Kerala High Court directed the authorities of the KMCT Law College to complete the admission process to the 3-Year LL.B. Course in online mode, for a convict serving life imprisonment at Open Prison and Correctional Home, Cheemeni, Kannur.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath directed the wife of the convict to be physically present at the College at 12.00 noon today, with all the necessary documents, and to render the fees. The Court further directed the petitioner to appear through video conferencing link, so as to complete the admission formalities within the stipulated time.
