Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 - 23, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181 – 202]XXX v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184Dhanesh M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 185Ummu Kulsoom and Others v Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 186Ajaynath v N Shajitha Beevi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 187M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 188Benny Mon v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 189All Kerala Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Protection Council v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 190XX v YY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 192Sreeraj R v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 193Jamsheer Ali v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 194Thomas Antony v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 196Sajeer A v. State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 197Ramakrishnan Nair V P J Varghese, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 198Gilbert Cheran v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 199The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 200Noushad v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 201Mary Joseph and Another v Thomas Joseph and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 202Judgments/ Orders This WeekGestation Period Not Relevant For Termination Of Pregnancy If Medical Board Opines That There Exists Substantial Foetal Abnormality: Kerala HCCase Title: XXX v Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181The Kerala High Court recently held that length of pregnancy is not a relevant consideration for permitting termination of pregnancy when the Medical Board opines that there is a substantial foetal abnormality.The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus permitted appellant-mother to carry medical termination of pregnancy, where the gestation period had progressed beyond 32 weeks, as per Section 3 (2)-B) of the Medical termination of Pregnancy Act on finding of substantial foetal abnormality.[General Clauses Act] Irrespective Of Number Of Days, Expiry Period Of 1-Month Should Be Based On Corresponding Date In Following Month: Kerala HCCase Title: Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan RohiniCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182The Kerala High Court held that irrespective of the number of days in a month or months, the expiration of one month should be determined by identifying the corresponding date in the following month.The Court clarified that if period of a month starts on January 15, one month would expire on February 15 even if this results in a duration of 32 days. Similarly, Court stated if the period of a month begins from February 15, one month would expire on March 15 even if it is only 29 days. Justice A. Badharudeen relying upon the Apex Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v M/S Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) held thus.Needless Deterrent Action Against Complainants Will Discourage Them From Bringing Grievances Against Public Authorities Before Lok Ayukta: Kerala HCCase Title: T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok AyuktaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183The Kerala High Court observed that needlessly taking deterrent actions against complainants under Section 21 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act for filing complaints against public authorities could discourage individuals from bringing their grievances before the Lok Ayukta.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed thus: “The Act of 1999 is an Act that provides for conducting enquiries into any action, omission, or commission by the Authorities specified under the Act, to bring about transparency and accountability in the administration of such bodies. The Lok Ayukta, upon being informed of such illegalities, has the power to make recommendations to the State Government. This being an important remedy available to citizens to bring their grievances against the officers of the State and other public bodies, the Lok Ayukta, while exercising its power, has to ensure that this remedy is not rendered illusory. If needless deterrent actions are taken against complainants, it will discourage the parties from bringing their grievances against public authorities before the Lok Ayukta.”Munambam Land Dispute| 'Issue Before Waqf Tribunal' : Kerala High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of Inquiry CommissionCase Title: Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184The Kerala High Court on Monday(17th March) allowed the petition challenging the appointment of Inquiry Commission to find a permanent solution in the dispute between the Munambam residents and the Waqf Board. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the order of appointment has to be set aside as the matter ...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 17 - 23, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags