Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 10- February 16, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92- 111]Divya K S v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92State of Kerala v Dr Jyothish Kumar V& Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 93T.M.Leela and another V. P.K.Vasu , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 94Dr.S.Ganapathy V Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 95Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 96Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 98Mahadevi v Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 99XX v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 100G. Giri v G. Geetha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 101N Prakash v Manoj Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 102Chinnamma George v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 103AS v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 104Rajitha P.V. v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 105Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd V. State Of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 106Suresh Nathan V The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 107Abdul Azeez v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 108Ayishabi Thcharakkunnummal v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 109Dasan v Yathra and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 110Shibin Shiyad v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 111Judgments/Orders this weekGovt Can't Impose Compulsory Service Bond On Students Midway Through Course, 'Legal Certainty' Proscribes Unforeseen Obligations: Kerala HCCase Title: Divya K S v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92The Kerala High Court has ruled that government cannot insist students to execute bonds for compulsory service midway through their course. The Court further stated that the government should have informed the students about the compulsory service before admitting them to the program and cannot impose the execution of such bond agreements midway through their studies. The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar explained the concept of 'legal certainty' and stated that government actions must be based on pre-established rules, with clear certainty regarding about the penalties that would follow in case of breach of those rules.PSU Employees Nearing Superannuation Can't Seek To Continue In Service Until Govt Takes Formal Decision To Enhance Retirement Age: Kerala HCCase Title: State of Kerala v Dr Jyothish Kumar V& Connected CasesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 93The Kerala High Court has set aside a single bench order permitting employees of various Public Sector Undertakings (PSU's) to continue in service, irrespective of their retirement age, until the government takes a decision on the expert committee's report on the feasibility of enhancing retirement age from 58 to 60. The Division Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran And Justice Muralee Krishna S. however did not interfere with the single judge's decision insofar as it ordered the State government to direct the Expert Committee to submit its report.Article 227 Of The Constitution Cannot Be Used As An Appellate Or Revisional Power: Kerala High CourtCase Name: T.M.Leela and another V. P.K.Vasu Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 94The Kerala High Court, while dismissing a petition, observed that its supervisory jurisdiction, as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. Such power must be exercised sparingly and in cases of apparent error or grave injustice. “The power under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless the following requirements are satisfied-- (1) the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceeding, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice occasioned thereby.,” held the Court.Kerala High Court Rejects Septuagenarian's Plea Against 'Brain Death', Says Parliament Recognized It Through Definite Medical ProcedureCase Title: Dr.S.Ganapathy V Union Of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 95The Kerala High Court has ruled that it cannot review the concept of brain death in India since the Parliament is the only authority to define brain death.The Court further stated that the Parliament through the Transplantation of Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA) of 1994 has recognized brain death and the procedure for transplantation of human organs from brain dead patients in India.The Court passed the above order in a PIL moved by Dr S. Ganapathy who challenged the concept of brain death, argued that it was unscientific and certifying brain death violated Article 21 of the Constitution. He also challenged the constitutional validity of Section...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 10- February 16, 2025

Tellmy Jolly

Tags