Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

Athira Prasad

31 Oct 2022 8:32 AM IST

  • Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 24 To October 30, 2022

    Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 537-554]Self Financing Arts & Science College Managements Welfare Association (KSMA) v. State of Kerala & Ors and Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 537 Dr. R. Prakash v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 538 Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd v. K.N. Madhusoodanan & Ors. and Dhanlaxmi...

    Nominal Index [Citation 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 537-554]

    Self Financing Arts & Science College Managements Welfare Association (KSMA) v. State of Kerala & Ors and Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 537

     Dr. R. Prakash v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 538

     Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd v. K.N. Madhusoodanan & Ors. and Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. P.K. Vijayakumar @ Puthalathkuttan Nair Vijayakumar & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 539

    Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540

    Jancy Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 541

     State Information Commission v. C. V. Rajendran and Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 542

    P.V. Mathai v. State of Kerala & Anr  2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 543

    Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544

    Sabu Thomas v. The Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. and Other Connected Cases 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 545

     Renoj R.S. v. State of Kerala & Anr 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 546

    Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. Dr. P. Balakrishnan & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 547

    M.M. Madhavan Namboodiri & Ors v. The Tahsildar Thamarasseri & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 548

    Abeyson P John v. Station House Officer & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 549

    Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala  2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 550

     Mathew Joseph v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 551

    George Jose P.J. v. State of Kerala 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 552

    Shilpa Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted) 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 553

     Sandra Stephen v. State of Kerala & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 554

    Orders/Judgments This Week

    Kannur University VC Cannot Construe Himself To Be Armed With Unlimited Power: Kerala High Court, Quashes Sanction For Private College

    Case Title: Self Financing Arts & Science College Managements Welfare Association (KSMA) v. State of Kerala & Ors and Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 537

    The Kerala High Court recently set aside the Administrative Sanction issued by the Government to Kannur University in favour of TKC Education and Charitable Society (TKC) for starting a new Arts and Science College for the academic year 2022-23. The court said the Vice Chancellor of the University had acted beyond the scope of his powers while considering TKC's application, which admittedly was incomplete.

    Justice Devan Ramachandran said the VC has been statutorily vested with great powers when it requires immediate action, enabling him to exercise any power vested with the Syndicate or Academic Council of the University.

    'Rules Condone A Situation Where Patient Avails Emergency Treatment In Non-Empanelled Hospital': Kerala HC On Reimbursement Claim In Liver Transplant Case

    Case Title: Dr. R. Prakash v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 538

    The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government to reconsider its decision in a case where an application for reimbursement was rejected because Apollo Hospital, where the patient had gone for treatment in 2011, was a non-recognized hospital under the Medical Reimbursement Scheme and no prior permission had been obtained for availing the treatment there.

    Justice Devan Ramachandran said the incident happened in 2011 "when surely our systems were far behind from what we see today". No decision could have been taken by the government without making a proper investigation as to whether treatment availed of by the petitioner was absolutely necessary or whether he had any alternative in Kerala, said the court.

    Election To Board Of Directors In Banking Company A Private Affair; Writ Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd v. K.N. Madhusoodanan & Ors. and Dhanlaxmi Bank Ltd. v. P.K. Vijayakumar @ Puthalathkuttan Nair Vijayakumar & Ors

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 539

    The Kerala High Court on Tuesday held that writ petitions cannot be instituted against the matter of rejection of nomination for election to the post of Director in the Board of a private banking company.

    The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while in appellate jurisdiction found that the writ petitions before the Single Judge were not maintainable. it observed, it may be true that the Dhanalakshmi Bank, though a private Bank, may be discharging certain duties with respect to receipt of deposits and issue of loans and other financial activities. But the said duty cast upon a private Bank like the appellant, even assuming it as a public duty, has nothing to do with the election to the Director Board of the banking company, whose activity is confined to the realm and control of the shareholders of the appellant company.

    VAT Defaulter Not Liable To Pay Collection Charges If Opts Amnesty Scheme: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: B. Madhukumar Vs Commercial Tax Officer

    Citation: WP(C) No. 14030 Of 2020

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 540

    The Kerala High Court has held that collection charges are not payable if a VAT defaulter opts for the Kerala Amnesty Scheme, 2017.

    The single bench of Gopinath P. has noted that the petitioner had settled the liabilities in terms of the provisions contained in the Amnesty Scheme of 2017, which was introduced by the provisions contained in the Kerala Finance Act 2017.

    Preventive Detention Curtails Fundamental Rights, KAAPA Detaining Authority Should've Considered Bail Cancellation Instead: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Jancy Joseph v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 541

    Quashing a preventive detention order under Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (KAAPA), the High Court recently said the authorities should have considered the option of bail cancellation in respect of the first case against the detenu before resorting to the extreme measure of preventive detention.

    The court clarified that it was not saying that such an option should "necessarily be mechanically pursued" in all cases, but asserted that consideration of such an option was highly crucial and relevant to the case before it.

    The Division Bench consisting of Justice Alexander Thomas and Sophy Thomas said, "We have to bear in mind that, at the end of the day, what is involved is the curtailment of the personal liberties and freedoms of the detenu, which are guaranteed in terms of the safeguards contained in Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India."

    S.18 RTI Act Does Not Empower State Commission To Direct PIO To Furnish Information Sought: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: State Information Commission v. C. V. Rajendran and Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 542

    The Kerala High Court has held that when a complaint is filed before the State Information Commission under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act for illegal denial of information, it may impose a penalty on the errant Public Information Officer. However, the provision does not empower the State Commission to direct the PIO furnish such information to the requester.

    A Division Bench consisting of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P. G. Ajithkumar observed that in case of withholding of information, the aggrieved cannot resort to Section 18 of the Act to get access to the information since the Statute provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by a refusal to provide information under Section 19.

    [S. 353 IPC] Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 58-Year-Old Booked For Using 'Loud Voice' Against Public Servant In Govt Office

    Case Title: P.V. Mathai v. State of Kerala & Anr

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 543

    Quashing the criminal proceedings against a 58-year-old man from Ernakulam, the Kerala High Court has said that Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code would not be attracted when there is no allegation of use of assault or criminal force, or in absence of an accusation that such act was done to deter the public servant from discharging her officials duty.

    The accused had been booked under Section 353 IPC ( Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) for entering Karimannoor Agriculture Office in April 2019, abusing the office staff in loud voice and "deterring" the agriculture officer from discharging her official duty.

    Officers Of State's General Education Dept Not Aware Of Relevant Laws, Unprecedented Increase In Litigation: Kerala HC Mulls Expert Committee

    Case Title: Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544

    The Kerala High Court on Wednesday suggested the General Education Department of the State to constitute an expert committee to address issues plaguing its internal functioning such as recruitment, database management, etc.

    It noted apparent absence of accurate data on students, instructors, and non-teaching personnel in the State's Government and Aided Schools, eventually leading to increased disputes and consequential litigation.

    It suggested the Department to form a committee comprising former DGEs with experience, experts from State Government initiatives such as KITE (Kerala Infrastructure and Technology for Education), Digital University Kerala, Indian Institution of Information Technology and Management-Kerala and legal professionals with practical knowledge.

    Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. was of the view that a substantial amount of litigation can be avoided if the department implements some improvements by leveraging the power of information and communication technology.

    No Bar On Continuing Disciplinary Action Against Teacher Pending Criminal Prosecution Under POCSO Act: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Jollyamma V. Thomas v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 544

    The Kerala High Court on Wednesday observed that there is no ban on the continuation of disciplinary proceedings by Educational Authorities against teachers who are subject to criminal prosecution for offence of child harassment or offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act.

    The Court noted that as soon as a teacher is arrested for a crime, they are suspended from their service. However, in the majority of instances, educational authorities do not complete the disciplinary processes under a mistaken impression that they cannot proceed against the teacher until the Criminal Court has rendered a decision in the pending case.

    Kerala High Court Allows VCs Of Universities To Continue Till Governor Passes Final Order Against Them After Show Cause Notice

    Case Title: Sabu Thomas v. The Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. and Other Connected Cases

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 545

    In a special sitting held on Monday, the Kerala High Court granted relief to eight Vice Chancellors of Universities in Kerala, who were asked by the Chancellor of the Universities(the Governor of Kerala Arif Mohammed Khan) to resign today.

    The Court held that all of them could continue in their positions till a final order is passed by the Chancellor/Governor against them on the basis of the show-cause notice issued by the Chancellor to them today. The Court thus, set aside the the communications issued by the Chancellor asking the VCs of the Universities to resign vide its judgment dated 24.10.2022.

    Kerala High Court Says Governor Could Not Have Asked VCs To Resign, Questions Haste In Issuing Direction

    Case Title: Sabu Thomas v. The Chancellor, Mahatma Gandhi University & Ors. and Other Connected Cases

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 545

    The Kerala High Court on Monday observed that the Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, in his capacity as the Chancellors of nine universities, could not have asked the Vice Chancellors to resign. The Court made this observation in the order passed in the writ petitions filed by eight Vice Chancellors challenging the instruction issued to them by the Governor on October 23 to resign by today 11.30 AM.

    The Court has accordingly, set aside the communications issued by the Chancellor asking the VCs of the Universities to resign.

    POCSO Act Prevails Over SC/ST Act; Accused Entitled To Directly Approach High Court U/S 439 CrPC When Charged Under Both Statutes: Kerala HC

    Case Title: Renoj R.S. v. State of Kerala & Anr

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 546

    The Kerala High Court has held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) prevails over the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). Thus, when offences under both the Acts have been alleged, the accused would be entitled to avail the procedure contemplated under the former for bail.

    The Court found that by virtue of Section 31 of the POCSO Act which makes the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) applicable, the accused person could approach the High Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

    Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while holding so, observed that,"...it is pertinent to notice that despite the SC/ST Act being amended in 2015 and 2018, the overriding effect of POCSO Act, in the event of inconsistency, has not been nullified or interfered with by the Parliament. Thus, it is evident that the legislature intended to give supremacy to the POCSO Act, even over the SC/ST Act, in the event of any inconsistency".

    KFRI Scientist Selection 2015 | Kerala High Court Says No Age Relaxation For Candidate Who Applied In 2012

    Case Title: Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. State of Kerala & Ors. and Dr. Nicky K. Xavier v. Dr. P. Balakrishnan & Ors

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 547

    The Kerala High Court recently held that a candidate who had initially applied for the post of Scientist E-1 in the Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) in 2012, but did not apply again after a third notification was issued for the same posts in 2015, cannot be granted benefit of exemption from applying afresh as the same was only for those candidates who had submitted applications in response to a second notification in 2013.

    Upholding a single bench order, the division bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that the second notification did not contain a clause which exempted persons who had applied in response to the first notification from applying afresh.

    "This would mean that the appellant who had responded to Ext.P23 notification (first notification), lost his opportunity for consideration to the post in question with the cancellation of the said notification and the re-notification through Ext.P24 notification (second notification)".

    Order VIII Rule 1 CPC | Time Limit For Filing Written Statement Only Directory In Nature: Kerala HC Answers In Reference

    Case Title: M.M. Madhavan Namboodiri & Ors v. The Tahsildar Thamarasseri & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 548

    The Kerala High Court recently held that the time limit fixed under Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) for filing a written statement is only directory in character, and not mandatory.

    A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, perused various Apex Court precedents in arriving at its finding, and found favour in the submissions made by Advocates B.G. Bhasker and Biju Abraham appearing for the appellants. It observed, "when the Apex Court has expressed its opinion on the interpretation of a statutory provision, whether it forms part of the ratio or not, all the Courts will have to follow the opinion of the Apex Court in regard to the interpretation".

    Party Contesting That Private Land Was Voluntarily Surrendered Has Burden To Establish The Same: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Abeyson P John v. Station House Officer & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 549

    The Kerala High Court on Tuesday reiterated that if the Panchayat/ Municipality or any contesting party takes a stand that a land was voluntary surrendered, the burden would be on the said Panchayat/Municipality or contesting party to establish such voluntary surrender.

    Justice Anu Sivaraman observed that if there is any case of voluntary surrender of any property by the petitioner or his predecessors-in-interest, it would be for the contesting party respondents to prove the same before the appropriate authorities.

    Religious & Charitable Organizations Encroach Upon Govt Land, Dominate Its Will, Injure Democracy: Kerala High Court Orders Action

    Case Title: Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 550

    The Kerala High Court on Thursday addressed the issue of massive encroachment upon Government properties, particularly by religious/ charitable institutions and expressed dismay at the inaction on part of the Government, political leaders and the society at large.

    "A congenial environment is still in existence in the entire State of Kerala promoting encroachment over the Government land with the apparent acquisition of properties by such institutions. This has given immense wealth and authority to religious institution to dominate the will of Government machineries and it is injurious to our democratic system and the principle of equality and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution".

    Justice P. Somarajan thus directed that both the State and Central Government would be duty bound to follow the Constitutional mandate and preserve properties of bona vacantia and property that belong to the public at large. The Court directed that the properties obtained by such religious or charitable bodies and institutions have to be enquired into and investigated by taking proper action against the culprits.

    Kerala High Court Requests Centre To Consider Enacting Law To Uniformly Regulate Religious & Charitable Organizations

    Case Title: Cardinal Mar George Alencherry v. State of Kerala

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 550

    The Kerala High Court on Thursday requested the Central Government to explore the possibility of a uniform Central legislation to regulate the functioning of charitable organizations and religious institutions.

    Justice P. Somarajan made the above request while addressing the issue of massive encroachment upon Government properties, particularly by religious/ charitable institutions, and the inaction on part of the Government, political leaders and the society at large in this regard.

    When Charge Memo Is Set Aside By Competent Forum, Then Suspension Order Dependent On It Also Ceases To Have Force Of Law: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Mathew Joseph v. The Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw(Ker) 551

    The Kerala High Court on Tuesday observed that once the charge memo issued to a delinquent employee is set aside by a competent forum, the suspension order that is dependent on it also ceases to have force of law.

    Division Bench consisting of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. observed that when the memo of charges is set aside, then there exists no enquiry in the eye of the law and thus, the employee must be deemed to be in service without any proceedings till the issuance of fresh proceedings, if any. Therefore, the employee is also entitled to the salary and other benefits for the said period.

    Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 34-Year-Old Accused Of Attempting To Kill Another For Losing Carom Game

    Case Title: George Jose P.J. v. State of Kerala

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 552

    The Kerala High Court on Thursday granted bail to person accused of attempting to kill another for losing a carom game.

    Justice Viju Abraham in the order said:

    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the fact that petitioner is in custody from 05.10.2022 onwards and also the fact that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents, I am inclined to grant bail to the petitioner. In the result, the bail application is allowed.

    Enhancement Of Annuities For Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple A Matter For Legislation: Kerala High Court Dismisses Writ

    Case Title: Shilpa Nair v. State of Kerala (Deleted)

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 553

    The Kerala High Court recently held that enhancement of annuities paid to the Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple and prescription of interest for the delayed payment is a matter to be decided by the legislature, since it can be effectuated only by appropriate amendment to Section 6 of the Sree Pandaravaka Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1971.

    The development comes in a plea seeking enhancement of annuities by 25% every four years. The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed, '...any such increase shall be taking into account the prevailing state of affairs, including the rate of inflation and change that has been brought about in the nature and complexity in the administration of Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple over a period of time. All the same, it is a matter for legislation. This Court is not expected to direct the State to carry out a legislation in a particular manner".

    Family Property No Reason To Deny EWS Certificate To Married Woman Living Separately: Kerala High Court Opines Prima Facie

    Case Title: Sandra Stephen v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 554

    The Kerala High Court has prima facie held that the extent of family house plot of a married woman living separately cannot be a reason for denying her EWS Certificate. It thus directed the Village Officer to issue a provisional Economically Weaker Section (EWS) Certificate to the Petitioner, subject to the final outcome of the Writ Petition.

    Justice V G Arun while admitting the Writ Petition, observed that:

    I find prima facie merit in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that, being a married woman living separately, the extent of her family's house plot cannot be a reason for denying the EWS certificate to the petitioner.

    Other Significant Developments This Week

    'Public Confidence And Black Robes' Is All What A Judge Has, Nothing Else Sustains Us: Kerala High Court To Baiju Kottarakkara In Contempt Case

    Case Title: Suo Motu v. Baiju Kottarakkara

    The Kerala High Court Tuesday said the counter affidavit filed by Malayalam Film Director Baiju Kottarakkara in the suo motu contempt proceedings initiated against him for making "abusive remarks" against a trial court judge neither specifically affirmed that he made those comments, nor refuted the same.

    Granting a further period of three weeks to him to make his stance clear, the court sought a fresh affidavit on the charges against him. Kottarakkara had made the comments against a judge, who is presiding over the trial of 2017 actor abduction and assault case.

    Kerala High Court Extends Stay On Appointment Of Priya Varghese As Associate Professor In Kannur University

    Case Title: Dr Joseph Skariah v. Vice-Chancellor (Selection Committee Chairman)

    The Kerala High Court on Tuesday extended its stay on the appointment of Priya Varghese, wife of K.K. Ragesh - who is private secretary to the Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, as an Associate Professor at the Department of Malayalam, in Kannur University.

    Justice Devan Ramachandran extended the court's interim order, while adjourning the case challenging Varghese's appointment.

    Family Property No Reason To Deny EWS Certificate To Married Woman Living Separately: Kerala High Court Opines Prima Facie

    Kerala High Court Impleads MoHFW In Suo Moto PIL After CTCRD Says Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Can Be Included Under Rare Diseases Policy

    Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala & Ors

    The Kerala High Court on Wednesday impleaded the Secretary of Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as a respondent in the suo motu public interest writ petition seeking inclusion of 'Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia' as a rare disease under the National Policy for Rare Diseases.

    The division bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, passed the interim order, after noting though the Central Technical Committee for Rare Diseases (CTCRD) had examined the case and opined that Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) disease could be categorized as a Rare Disease under Group 2 in the policy, a notification has to be issued by the Central Government so that support can be availed by the patients.

    Police Misbehaviour Can't Be Tackled By Issuing Circulars, Superior Officers Will Be Personally Responsible For Overlooking Misdemeanor: Kerala HC

    Case Title: Anil J.S. v. State of Kerala

    The Kerala High Court on Thursday directed the State Police Chief to file a further report on the manner in which its directions insisting the Police to behave well with the citizens were being complied with.

    Justice Devan Ramachandran, on being informed by the Government Pleader Joshy Thannickamattom, that a circular had been issued by the State Police Chief in this regard, observed that, it is not merely sufficient that, the State Police Chief issues circulars, but it should be ensured that every Police Officer adheres and abides by the same. The compliance report is woefully wanting in this regard, since it merely says that a circular has been issued. This Court certainly requires further information from the State Police Chief, as to the manner in which the above mentioned Circular has been implemented across the State and among all the officers in the hierarchy of ranks.

    In A First, Family Counselling Centre Inaugurated By Chief Justice S. Manikumar At Kerala High Court

    A Family Counselling Centre, a facility under the aegis of Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee, was formally inaugurated by the Chief Justice, High Court of Kerala S. Manikumar, on October 26.

    This service facility was initiated by the Chairman of Kerala High Court Legal Services Committee, Justice A Muhamed Mustaque, to help the litigants in matrimonial and allied matters to address their emotional needs and to help and guide them to reach a logical conclusion to their protracted litigations.

    Vismaya Dowry Death Case | Legal System Must Remain Immune From Media And Public Pressure: Kerala High Court

    Case Title: Kiran Kumar S v. State of Kerala & Anr.

    The Kerala High Court on Wednesday, while considering the convict's appeal in the Vismaya dowry death case, said the legal system must remain immune from the public and media pressure while dealing with sensational cases.

    The appeal has been moved by Kiran Kumar against his conviction and the sentence imposed on him by the trial court in the case related to his wife's death.

    The division bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Sophy Thomas said the legal system must be sensitive towards public interest but should not be swayed by too much public pressure while dealing with sensationalised cases.

    Kerala High Court Says Only 'New Driving Culture' Can Prevent Road Accidents

    Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Corporation of Cochin

    The Kerala High Court on Friday observed that only a "new driving culture" can prevent road accidents in the state.

    Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that despite every effort of the court to ensure that accidents are minimised, it was distressing to know that road mishaps have continued.

    "As this Court has been emphasising earlier, only if there is a new culture of driving, can such incidents be controlled, particularly in view of the fact that the number of vehicles are increasing day by day".

    Kerala Govt Approaches High Court For Cancellation Of MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly's Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case

    Case Title: State Of Kerala v. Eldose Kunnapilly

    A Petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court by the state government challenging Thiruvananthapuram Court's order granting anticipatory bail to the Congress MLA Eldhose Kunnappilly in a case accusing him of rape and attempt to murder.

    In the Petition, moved through Additional Public Prosecutor, it has been argued that the lower court erred in granting pre-arrest bail at the initial stage of investigation. The State has said that custodial interrogation is highly necessary in the case.

    Kerala High Court Grants Interim Bail To Sri Lankan Refugees Caught Attempting To Illegally Travel To Canada On Fishing Boat

    Case Title: Dilakshan & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

    The Kerala High Court on Friday granted interim bail to Sri Lankan nationals, who are accused of attempting to illegally travel to Canada via sea, and directed the trial court to complete the trial within three months after receipt of final report in the matter.

    During the bail period, the accused persons, who had been apprehended near Vaddy Harbour, Kaikulangara Cheny Kollam West Village Kollam, will remain confined to a home run by Gandhi Bhavan International Trust, Pathanapuram and Open Prison and Correctional Home, Nettukaltheri, Thiruvananthapuram, until further orders. The petitioners were earlier living in various refugee camps in Tamil Nadu.

    Next Story