50 Important Judgments Of Kerala High Court In 2023

1. Assisted Reproductive Technology Act | Enforcing Upper Age Limit On Couples Who Were In The Middle Of Treatment Is Arbitrary : Kerala High CourtCase Title: XXXX v. Union Of India and Connected CasesCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 1The Kerala High Court observed that the imposition of age restriction under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act, 2021 without a transitional provision, is irrational and arbitrary. Thereby, the Court issued the direction that the petitioners who were undergoing ART services as of the date on which the ART Act came into effect (25.01.2022) shall be permitted to continue their treatment.The Court has also directed the National Assisted Reproductive Technology and Surrogacy Board to alert the Central Government about the need for a re-look at the upper age limit prescribed in Section 21(g) of the Act.The Court issued the aforesaid directions while disposing of a batch of Writ Petitions filed challenging the upper age limit of 50 years for women and 55 years for men prescribed under the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulations) Act, 2021 which prohibits the application of ART services to persons above the prescribed age limit.2. Plastic Ban : Kerala High Court Lifts Ban On Non-Woven Bags Of 60 GSM & AboveCase Title: Nibu Kasim & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. and M/S Go Green Bags v. Union of India & Ors.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 19The Kerala High Court held that the inclusion of non-woven bags of 60GSM and above in the list of banned single use plastic items by Government Orders without regard to the GSM standards, and in violation of the provisions of the Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 as arbitrary and illegal.Justice N. Nagaresh, passed the order in two writ petitions filed before it challenging the ban on the non-woven bags brought into effect by virtue of certain Government Orders by the State of Kerala and the Kerala State Pollution Control Board.The Court in this case noted that while Section 23 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 provided that the Central Government is competent to delegate its powers and functions under the Act, 1986, the rule making power of the Central Government cannot be delegated."When, in exercise of the rule making powers under Section 25, the Central Government has prescribed minimum standard in GSM for manufacturing of non-woven bags, then under any delegated power the State Government cannot prescribe a different standard which would negate the rules framed by the Central Government. If any State Government issues executive instructions contrary to the Rules framed by the Central Government, it would amount to exercise of powers which the Act, 1986 has prohibited to delegate", it observed in this regard.3. Court Retains Power To Execute Its Maintenance Order Against Person Residing Outside Its Jurisdiction: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Aswathi & Anr. v. Rajeesh Raman & Anr. and Betty Philip v. William ChackoCitation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 20The Kerala High Court held that even though an order of maintenance may be enforceable at the place where the person - against whom it is made - resides, the court which passed the order also retains the power to execute it outside the jurisdiction where such person is residing.The Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen considered the legal question as to whether a court which passed an order of maintenance under Section 125 and 127 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is competent to execute the order against a person, who has been residing in a place outside its jurisdiction."...it is necessary in the interests of justice to visualise the plight of poor wife and children or the parents, as the case may be, if a view taken to the effect that each and every execution proceedings to enforce order of maintenance obtained by the wife, children and parents at the place where the person against whom the order was made. If such a proposition is declared, a clever husband or son or daughter, as the case may be, could very well shift their residence, outside the jurisdiction of the court where the order of maintenance sought to be executed, so as to defeat the enforcement of the order. No doubt, it may be easy for them to shift their residence periodically, to defeat the enforcement of the maintenance order," the court observed.4. COVID First Line Treatment Centre Can Be Termed As Hospital For The Purpose Of Claiming Insurance: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Star Health Insurance And Allied Insurance Company Ltd v. Avinash T and Anr.Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 34The Kerala High Court recently observed that COVID First Line Treatment Centre can be termed as a Hospital for the purpose of insurance claims.Justice V G Arun said that as per the COVID-19 advisory for patient admission to CFLTCs issued by the Government, the Centre identified as COVID Health Care Centre should treat all mild and moderate symptomatic persons under surveillance and should be utilised for treating positive ...

50 Important Judgments Of Kerala High Court In 2023

Navya Benny

Tags