Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 12 – 18, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269 - 278]Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others,2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270V.T. Jinu & another v. State of Kerala & others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271Prakash Sankar v. BSNL and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 272P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273Syamlal v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 274K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 275Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 276Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 277P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278Judgments/ Orders This WeekKerala High Court Orders Renewal Of Passport Despite Pending Interpol Red Corner Notice Against ApplicantCase Title: Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269The Kerala High Court recently ordered the re-issuance or renewal of passport against a person against whom red corner notice issued by the Interpol was pending. The submitted before the court that for the past more than 4 years, no steps have been taken by the Qatar authorities for his extradition from India.Justice Gopinath P. relied on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that mere issuance of red corner notice is not sufficient for the arrest of a person in India. In the case it was held that unless the proceedings under Extradition Act, 1962 is initiated, a person cannot be extradited from India. The High Court held that there was no need to deny passport to the petitioner merely because a red corner notice is pending against him. The Court taking into account that Supreme Court through various cases has laid down that right to travel abroad was a part of personal liberty under Article 21, held that denial of passport services to the petitioner would be a deprivation of personal liberty.CIC Appointed Prior To 2019 RTI Amendment Act Entitled To Pensionary Benefits Equivalent To Retired Supreme Court Judge: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270The Kerala High Court quashed State Government's letter to the former State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) informing him that he cannot be given pensionary benefits equivalent to a retired Supreme Court Judge.Justice Harisankar V. Menon said that even after the amendment of the RTI Act, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are unchanged on account of the 2 provisos in Section 16(5).S.197 CrPC | Insulting SC Community Member, Fabricating Records Not 'Official Duty' Of Public Servant; Sanction Not Required: Kerala HCCase Title: V.T. Jinu & another v. State of Kerala & othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a revision petition filed by a public servant seeking to quash a Special Court order framing charges against him under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for want of prosecution.The complaint against the petitioner was that he, along with the deceased first accused, abused the de facto complainant while she was in official duty by calling her caste name with an intention to humiliate her in public and that they also forged documents to hold that she misappropriated some amount under 9 CB Bills, which resulted in her suspension.The judgment was passed by Justice A. Badharudeen relying on the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another, wherein it was held that the alleged acts of the officers engaged in cheating, fabrication of records, or misappropriation are not acts in discharge of their official duties.Lok Adalats Don't Have Inherent Power Of Review On Merits U/S 22D Legal Services Authorities Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Prakash Sankar v. BSNL and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 272While hearing a Writ Petition before it, the Kerala High Court held that Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not grant the power of review on merits to Permanent Lok Adalats established under the Act.Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to concur with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur and Others, which held that the review procedure under the Legal Services Act is more liberal than the one provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.Service Law | Charge Memo Must Contain Date And Time Of Occurrence, Use Of Phrases Like 'On Many Occasions' Vague: Kerala High CourtCase Title: P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and anotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not permissible to hold a departmental enquiry on vague charges that use words like...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 12 – 18, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags