Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citations:104- 154]

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

xxx v. State, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

YYY v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123

Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125

B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126

Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127

Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128

Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129

Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131

M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132

The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133

State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134

Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135

K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137

Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138

P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139

Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140

Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141

Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143

Sabeena E.K v. District Collector, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145

Ukkash A .v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146

1. Kerala High Court Upholds Telecast Ban On MediaOne Channel, Dismisses Appeal Against Single Bench Judgment

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

The Court dismissed the appeal moved by Malayalam news channel MediaOne against the single judge order upholding the recent ban imposed on it by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on national security grounds. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting refusing to renew the broadcast license granted to MediaOne.

Also Read: 'Clear, Significant Indications Impacting Public Order & Security' : Kerala High Court While Upholding Telecast Ban On MediaOne

2. Specific Remedy Under CPC Often A Total Bar To Claim Remedy Under Article 227 Of Constitution: Kerala High Court

Case Title: C.G. Thampi v. Jyothis & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

The Court recently held that it cannot entertain a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). As such, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition and directed the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate court as per law. Therefore, the High Court ought not to have entertained the Revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, in a case where a specific remedy of appeal is provided under the code of Civil Procedure.

3. Can't Object To Issue Passports To Children Of Single Parents For Lack Of Court Order: Kerala HC Asks Officer To Pay ₹25K As Litigation Expense

Case Title: Shiny Shukoor v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

The Court recently asked an Assistant Passport Officer in Kottayam to shell out litigation expenses amounting to Rs. 25,000 from his own salary for objecting to re-issue passport to a single parent's daughter. In his order, Justice Amit Rawal has also called it a classic case of highhandedness by the Assistant Passport Officer objecting to re-issue the passport of children of a single parent facing a matrimonial discord and directing them to approach the court and obtain the court order.

4. 'Medical Services' Fall Within Ambit Of Consumer Protection Act, 2019: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr Vijil & Ors v. Ambujakshi T.P & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

In a significant decision, the Court has ruled that medical services fall within the purview of the term 'service' defined under Section 2(42) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Observing so, Justice N. Nagaresh dismissed a plea filed by a group of doctors who prayed to declare that the consumer fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 do not have jurisdiction to take cognizance of complaints in respect of medical negligence and deficiency in medical service.

5. Breach Of Contract | Can't Forfeit Security Deposit Towards Risk Liability In Absence Of Loss/Damage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

The Court has recently ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, one party cannot forfeit the security deposit towards risk liability when they have not suffered any loss or damage. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that it was settled that when the question is one of forfeiture of the security deposit in case of breach of contract, such sum does not ipso facto go to the respondents.

6. State Can Notify All Corporations, Municipalities & Panchayats U/S 58(f) Of Transfer Of Property Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

The Court has recently held that the State Government is justified in notifying all Corporations, Municipalities and Panchayats in the State of Kerala under Section 58(f) of the Transfer of Property Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly thereby refused to interfere with a State notification in that regard and accordingly dismissed an appeal.

7. Kerala High Court Notifies Directions For Road Safety Amid Rising Accidents Involving Sabarimala Pilgrims

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

In a judgment that runs beyond 120 pages, the Court has issued a set of directions to ensure road safety and adherence with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act in the wake of the rising number of accidents reported concerning Sabarimala pilgrims travelling in buses and other contract carriages. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar discovered that despite several guidelines in place, vehicles were being permitted to run on public roads disregarding road safety standards, thereby posing a potential threat to the safety of passengers and other road users.

8. Kerala High Court Drops Proceedings Against Two Nuns Accused Of Sharing Rape Survivor's Photo With Media

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

The Court quashed the proceedings against two nuns for allegedly disclosing the identity of a rape survivor by sharing her photo with the media. The nuns had shared a photograph of the rape survivor along with a few priests via email to three media personnel, however, the name or identity of the survivor was not published in the reports. Moreover, the email contained specific instructions to the recipients to not publish the photograph.

9. Proof Of Will : Onus Is On The Propounder To Remove Suspicious Circumstances : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kousalya & Anr v. Leena & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

The Court has recently ruled that if there exist suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, it is the onus of the propounder to remove all those reasonable doubts in the matter and the test to be applied in this connection is the satisfaction of judicial conscience.Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S Sudha observed that suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the testator's signature or that the testator was in a sound state of mind at the time when the will was made or that the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them.

10. No Opportunity Of Hearing Given To Managing Director Imprisoned In UAE: Kerala High Court Quashes Income Tax Assessment Orders

Case Title: Atlas Jewellery [P] Ltd Versus Deputy Commissioner

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

The Court has quashed the income tax assessment order on the grounds that no opportunity of hearing was given to the Managing Director who was imprisoned in UAE. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has ruled that the principle of natural justice has twin ingredients, firstly opportunity to show cause and of being heard should be given, it must be a real opportunity and not an unreal one, the right to a fair hearing is essential and secondly, the orders passed by the authorities should give reasons for arriving at any conclusion showing a proper application of mind.

11. 'Unwholesome': Kerala High Court Deletes Bail Condition Imposed On Migrant Labourers To Produce Sureties From State

Case Title: Sanjeev Hansda & Ors v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

The Court deleted the condition imposed by a Judicial Magistrate of producing sureties from Kerala on the bail granted to a group of migrant labourers. In a plea moved by the workers, Justice K. Haripal observed that it was unwholesome to insist them to produce sureties from the State itself while deleting the condition that sureties must belong to the State of Kerala. However, since the specific allegation against the accused was that they caused damage to the State to the tune of Rs.12 lakhs, it was held that they are liable to bear a portion of the damage sustained by the State.

12. Temporary Relinquishment Of Promotion Can Extend Beyond One Year: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Deputy Director of Education & Ors v. P.A Suhura

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

The Court has ruled that the Government Order issued in 1991 mandating that temporary relinquishment of promotion shall be for a minimum period of one year only implies that it should be at least for a minimum period of one year and that it can go beyond one year. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that the said Order was issued considering the administrative inconvenience caused due to repeated temporary relinquishment of promotion by employees for short periods to the same grade to suit their convenience.

13. No Compensation U/S 73, 74 Contract Act For Mere Breach Of Contract Without Actual Loss/ Damage : Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Devchand Construction v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

The Court has ruled that in the case of a breach of contract, no compensation can be granted under Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act unless such breach resulted in an actual loss or damage to the opposite party. Justices P.B. Suresh Kumar and C.S. Sudha opined that the words 'loss or damage' would necessarily indicate that the party who complains of breach must have really suffered some loss or damage apart from being faced with the mere act of breach of contract since every breach of every contract need not necessarily result in actual loss or damage.

14. 'Allegations Criminal In Nature, Prior Sanction U/S 17A PC Act Prima Facie Not Necessary': Kerala HC Nods To Vigilance Probe Against Ex-VACB Officer

Case Title: K. Jaya Kuma v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

The Court dismissed a petition filed by a retired Superintendent of Police (Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau) seeking to quash a case registered against him by the Vigilance Special Investigation Unit. Justice Sunil Thomas gave green light to the VACB to continue with its probe against the petitioner finding that the offences alleged against him were not covered by the protection under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

15. S.173 CrPC | Investigating Agency Can Hold Further Probe On Receiving New Information: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

The Court while dismissing the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case ruled that Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not restrict the investigating agency from conducting a further probe into a crime when it is notified of new information. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 173(8) of CrPC does not imply that further investigation could be conducted only after getting further materials in connection with the crime.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Dismisses Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case

16. Maintainability Of A Petition Can Be Contested Long After Its Admission: Kerala High Court

17. Kerala High Court Directs 5 College Students Accused Of Ragging Their Juniors To Engage In Social Service For 2 Weeks

Case Title: Harikrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

The Court directed five college students of TKM Engineering College to engage in social service for two weeks, to quash the proceedings pending against them for ragging two junior students. Arguing that they had settled the matter among themselves, the accused had sought to quash the proceedings pending against them. While agreeing to quash the proceedings against them, Justice K. Haripal ordered the petitioners to undergo some kind of social service preferably in the General Hospital for two weeks.

18. Failure Of The Dealer To Attend Assessment Proceedings, No Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Karvy Innotech Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner (ASSMT) SGST Department

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

The Court has held that the failure of a dealer to attend assessment proceedings cannot be regarded as the violation of principles of natural justice. The single bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas has observed that petitioner/dealer was granted sufficient opportunity to contest the assessment proceedings and the failure to do so cannot be regarded as a violation of the principles of natural justice to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

19. 'Experience A Relevant Criteria In Selection Process': Kerala High Court Upholds Appointment Of Lecturer At CUSAT

Case Title: Dr. Sonia K Das v. Cochin University of Science and Technology & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

The Court has upheld the appointment of Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT) Director of Legal Studies- Dr. Vani Kesari A, by dismissing a petition challenging the selection process. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P observed that it was up to the court to decide if the procedure followed by the statutory selection committee was legal, even if it was deviant from the one prescribed by the statute.

20. Kerala High Court Aids 10 Year Old Rape Survivor To Terminate 30 Weeks Pregnancy

Case Title: YYY v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 123

The Court came to the aid of a 10-year old girl who was allegedly sexually abused by her father, by permitting her to undergo medical termination of her 8-month (30 weeks) old pregnancy. Finding the plight of the girl who became pregnant at such a tender age 'unfortunate', Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea for medical termination of pregnancy moved by the girl's mother.

21. Taxpayer Can't Approach High Court To Avoid Mandatory Pre-Deposits While Availing Appellate Remedy: Kerala HC

Case Title: Nico Tiles v. State Tax Officer & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

The Court has recently held that a taxpayer cannot seek to avoid mandatory pre-deposits as a remedy to an appeal under Section 107 of the State Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that granting such relief would render the provisions of the Act redundant. The Court also noted that this appeal was preferred as early as March 2020, so the liability to make the pre-deposit befalls on the date of filing of the appeal. This liability cannot be eschewed from reckoning on the basis of subsequent events, which as claimed by the petitioner to be beneficial to it, the Judge noted.

22. Suit Filed By Minor Without Appointing Next Friend Is A Curable Irregularity: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Krishna Moorthy Rao v. S. Bhanumathi @ Lakshmi & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 125

The Court held that a suit filed by a minor without a next friend need not be taken off from the file since the same is a curable irregularity and by filing a subsequent application, the defect can be cured. Justice A. Badharudeen held that the defect can be cured by filing a separate petition for the same and that the suit can be proceeded thereafter. As such, it was held that the appointment of a next friend subsequent to the filing of the suit is not bad in law.

23. Kerala High Court Reinstates Its Directions On Use Of Flex Boards In State

Case Title: B.S. Syamkumar v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 126

The Court has reiterated the extensive set of directions it had issued last year on the issue of the use of plastics/flex boards in the State. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly recalled the directions in a petition challenging the State's inaction in taking effective measures to prohibit the manufacture, storage, sale and usage of Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) Flex.

24. Passport Cannot Be Denied To Child On Sole Ground That One Parent Is Non-Indian Citizen : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chaitanya S. Nair (minor) v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 127

The Court recently ruled that even if one of the parents of a minor child refused to give consent, the passport issuing authority is entitled to issue a passport to the minor, provided the requisite form is submitted. While allowing the petition of a minor girl, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas also observed that there is no legal prohibition in incorporating a non-citizen as the legal guardian in the passport of a minor child.

25. Film Production Units Have To Form ICC Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court Orders In WCC's Plea

Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors. [WP(C) 34273/2018]

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 128

The Court observed that film production units have the responsibility to form an Internal Complaints Committee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 - commonly known as the POSH Act. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also recorded that AMMA has volunteered to constitute an ICC and added that if AMMA constitutes an ICC as undertaken the same shall be in accordance with the provisions of the POSH Act.

Also Read: WCC Case : Kerala High Court Urges AMMA, FEFKA & Other Film Bodies To Form Joint Committee To Redress Grievances Of Women Artists & Employees

26. Political Parties Not Bound To Establish Internal Complaints Committee Under POSH Act : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 129

In a significant decision, the Court observed that political parties are not legally liable to establish Internal Complaints Commitee as per the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 since there is no employer-employee relationship among its members. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so in a PIL moved by the Centre for Constitutional Rights Research and Advocacy (CCRRA) seeking directions to constitute Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) within political parties in accordance with the POSH Act 2013.

27. 'Stipulated Time Mandatory & Sacrosanct': Kerala High Court Discharges Maoist Leader Of UAPA Charges Citing Delay In State Sanction

Case Title: Roopesh v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 130

The Court discharged alleged Maoist leader Roopesh of charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and sedition under Section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code on the ground of irregularities in the order granting sanction for prosecution.

A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran noted that the word 'shall' in the Act and the Rules cannot be said to be merely directory and pointed out that Section 45(2) specifically speaks of the recommendation of the authority and the sanction by the appropriate Government 'shall' be within such time as prescribed.

28. Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till March 25

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 131

The Court extended the validity of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Courttill March 25 considering the difficulties lawyers may have to face if the stay on orders is vacated immediately. As such, a full bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar, Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P Chaly disposed of the suo motu petition.

29. Ancheri Baby Political Murder: Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Mani And Two Other Accused

Case Title: M.M. Mani & Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 132

The Court allowed the discharge application moved by former minister M.M Mani and two others where they sought to quash the proceedings pending against them in the scandalous Ancheri Baby murder case of 1982. Kuttappan and O.G. Madhavan were the other two accused who have been discharged of all charges today. Justice Sunil Thomas acquitted the trio setting aside the decision of the trial court dismissing their plea to drop the charges against them in the case finding that the witnesses were not credible.

30. Junior In Cadre Can't Draw Higher Pay Than Senior Solely Due To Implementation Of A New Scheme: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: The Registrar & Ors. v. Dr. Elizabeth K. Syriac

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 133

The Court reiterated that the implementation of the subsequent Scheme shall not result in a situation where the juniors are permitted to draw more salary than seniors in the cadre. A Division Bench of Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P added that if such a situation is created, it is only appropriate that the said anomaly is corrected by having the pay of the seniors stepped up to that of the juniors.

31. Leave To Criminal Appeal Not Automatic, Can Only Be Granted After Application Of Mind: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Ratheesh & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 134

The Court has recently established that leave to a criminal appeal can only be granted after proper application of mind by the Court to see if arguable points have been raised in the appeal. Justice Kauser Edappagath held so while referring to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar [(2008) 9 SCC 475] where it was held that in deciding if leave should be granted, the High Court must apply its mind and consider whether a prima facie case has been made out or arguable points have been raised.

32. Writ Petition To Initiate In-House Inquiry Against Judges Alleging Misconduct Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 135

The Court recently upheld a Single bench decision that dismissed a couple of petitions seeking the constitution of an In-House Committee to probe into the alleged judicial misconduct against two judges. While dismissing a couple of appeals, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P held that the In-House Inquiry was not a 'law' for a litigant to ask for its enforcement.

33. Kerala High Court Quashes Proceedings Against K.P Sasikala In Sabarimala Violence Case

Case Title: K.P. Sasikala v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

The Court recently dropped all charges against Hindu Aikya Vedi leader K. P. Sasikala for purportedly triggering a dawn-to-dusk hartal in the State to protest the entry of women in Sabarimala temple in 2018. The said hartal had resulted in large-scale vandalism against which a PIL was moved before this Court to fix liability for the damages caused. Justice K Haripal allowed Sasikala's plea to quash all the proceedings against her, finding no legal evidence to inculpate her in the crime of abetting the unlawful assembly.

34. 'Courts Can't Trench & Pick Holes In The Academic Pasture' : Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Moved By 92 MBBS Students

Case Title: Aravind TR & Ors. v Kerala University of Health Sciences

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 137

It was reiterated that courts should steer away from replacing their views in the place of expert opinion in academic matters. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V observed that it is not the domain of courts to trench in the academic pasture and pick holes in it and that it is better to give preference to the opinion of experts in the field in such matters.

35. Quashing Moral Policing Cases On Settlement Sends Wrong Message To Public : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Muhammed Nazar & Ors. v State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 138

The Court recently ruled that moral policing is an offence that involves mental depravity and that such cases cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement between the accused and complainant. Justice K. Haripal was adjudicating upon a case in which a violent mob had attacked an unarmed man for taking a woman belonging to a different community in his car.

36. Family Courts Act | Not All Transactions With In-Laws Qualify As Circumstance Arising Out Of Marital Relationship: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.T. Philipose & Anr. v. Sunil Jacob & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 139

The Court has ruled that every transaction by either of the spouse or by both of them with the in-laws or relatives cannot be termed as 'in circumstances arising out of a marital relationship under the Family Courts Act, 1984. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas found that the impugned transaction in the plea was purely a business transaction between the son-in-law and father-in-law, and hence held that it cannot be termed as circumstances arising out of a marital relationship.

37. 'Nothing Short Of Ridiculing Their Powers': Kerala High Court Denies CBI Probe For Not Approaching Statutory Authorities First

Case Title: Western Ghats Protection Council v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 140

The Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Western Ghats Protection Council seeking a CBI enquiry into the allegedly illegal financial dealings of Kenza Holdings under the guise of a Villa Project. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly refused to entertain the plea noting that the petitioner society had not approached the relevant statutory authorities prescribed by law before seeking an investigation by the CBI.

38. 'A Clear Case Of Injustice': Kerala High Court Directs Post-Office To Disburse Domestic Help's Deposit With Full Interest, Imposes 5K Cost

Case Title: Saroja v. Postmaster & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 141

The Court directed the post-office authorities to disburse the amount deposited by a domestic help under the time deposit scheme with full interest till the date of withdrawal within a month. Finding it to be a case of injustice, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the authorities as litigation cost while adding that the constitutional court cannot be a silent spectator in such situations.

39. Assessee's Recourse To Constitutional Provisions Not A 'Proceeding Under Income Tax Act' : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Udaya Sounds v. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

The Court ruled that a Special Leave Petition filed by an assessee under Article 136 of the Constitution of India cannot be regarded as a proceeding under the Income Tax Act. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that while an assessment, appellate, and even revisional proceeding qualify as "proceedings under this Act', one instituted under the Constitution did not.

40. Kerala High Court Issues Directions For Handling Applications Of Accident Victims Or Their Dependents Under Employees Compensation Act

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 143

The Court issued guidelines to be followed by the concerned authorities while dealing with applications filed by accident victims or their dependents seeking compensation under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923. While disposing of a suo motu petition, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly accepted the report submitted by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority wherein it had suggested a few mechanisms to establish a proper system for effective consideration of such applications.

41. Persons Who Purchased A Portion Of Paddy Land After Commencement Of Act Can't Reclaim It For Residential Use: Kerala High Court Overrules Earlier Precedent

Case Title: Sabeena E.K v. District Collector & connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

The High Court held that owners of a portion of a paddy field who purchased it after the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 are not entitled to reclaim it for the purpose of residential use. As such, a Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Shaji P Chaly and Justice Sathish Ninan overturned the Division Bench decision in Yousuf Chalil v.State of Kerala [2019 (4) KLT 33].

42. 'Unfortunate That Father-Daughter Can't Walk On Public Road Without Being Subjected To Lewd Comments': Kerala HC Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused

Case Title: Shajimon V. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 145

The Court denied anticipatory bail to a man who was accused of injuring a father for questioning him and the other accused for passing lewd comments about his minor daughter. While hearing the matter, Justice Gopinath P. orally remarked that such incidents of father and daughter being subjected to lewd comments while walking on a public road were unfortunate.

43. Sexual Harassment At Workplaces| Kerala HC Calls For Prompt Re-Constitution Of Local Complaints Committee Under POSH Act Upon Expiry Of Its Term

Case Title: Ukkash A v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 146

While dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the Court directed the concerned authorities to take steps to reconstitute the Local Complaints Committee established under the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, whenever its term expires. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly disposed of a PIL noting that the provisions of the Act were to be strictly implemented.

44. Development Permit Not Needed For Residential Building In A Small Plot Just Because It Is Sub-Divided From A Large Plot : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

The High Court has ruled that a Panchayat cannot insist on the production of a development permit from an owner of a small portion of land, which is sub-divided from a large plot, to allow the construction of a residential building on his property as per Kerala Panchayat Building Rules, 2019. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly held that the Rules contemplate an entirely different situation from the purchase of a small plot of land by an individual from a larger area, whether the owner of the property had divided it into various plots and sold it or not.

45. No Illegality In Senior Lawyer Filing Joint Vakalat Along With Junior Counsel For Client : Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

The Court ruled that once a client authorises an advocate to conduct a case, the advocate is empowered to file a joint vakalat on behalf of the client. Justice N. Nagaresh added that filing a joint vakalat is not a ground to deny any lawyer his professional fee: "The said authorisation would include authorisation to do all that is necessary to conduct and prosecute the case, including filing joint Vakalat along with junior lawyer in the office of the senior lawyer."

46. Govt Servants Can't Participate In Any Strike; Absence From Work 'Dies Non': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

The High Court barred the government employees from participating in the ongoing two-day nationwide strike organised by the National Convention of Workers against the policies of the Centre while directing the State to declare dies non on the protest days. It declared that the participation of government servants in the ongoing two-day strike is 'illegal'. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly directed the State to issue directions prohibiting the same while adding that no government servant shall participate in the strike as it was against Rule 86 of the Kerala Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1960.

47. K-Rail Silverline - No Illegality In State Invoking LARR Act For Land Acquisition : Kerala High Court

Case Title: M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150

The Court held that the State government was justified in acquiring land in furtherance of its K-Rail SilverLine Project invoking provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (LARR Act). Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Railways Act, 1989 would not apply to this case since the Silver Line Project was not yet declared as a Special Railway Project by the Centre.

48. Victim Can't Prefer Appeal U/S 372 CrPC Proviso Challenging Adequacy Of Sentence Imposed On Convict: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151

The Court recently ruled that one cannot prefer an appeal under provide to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a trial court's order, challenging the adequacy of sentence imposed upon the convict. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and C. Jayachandran dismissed a criminal appeal adding that such an appeal can only be preferred by the State under Section 377 of CrPC.

49. News Report Claiming Devotees Made To Wash Feet Of 12 Brahmins At Temple False: Kerala HC Drops Suo Motu Case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152

The Court refused to interfere with a long-standing ritual at the Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Thripunithara, where the temple tantri washes the feet of 12 priests. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar had taken suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in the said Temple, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. However, upon verifying, it was brought out that the news report was incorrect.

Also Read: 'With Immense Power Comes Burden Of Responsibility': Kerala High Court Asks Media To Refrain From Publishing Unverified/False Information

50. Actor Sexual Assault Case | Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Prime Accused Pulsar Suni

Case Title: Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday declined to grant regular bail to Pulsar Suni, the prime accused in the sensational 2017 sexual assault case where a prominent actress was abducted and raped in a moving vehicle pursuant to a conspiracy. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan rejected the application noting that bail cannot be granted at this stage. It will convey a wrong signal to the society, the Court said. 

51. 'Can't Conduct Survey To Ascertain EWS Eligible For 10% Reservation': State Submits, Kerala HC Disposes Plea

Case Title: Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154

The Court disposed of the plea filed by Nair Service Society seeking the implementation of the comprehensive survey suggested by the Justice AV Ramakrishna Pilla Commission to ascertain the economically weaker sections (EWS) in the State who are eligible for 10% reservation as per the 103rd Constitutional amendment. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan disposed of the petition after the State submitted that owing to its financial state and the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, it was not in a position to implement the said recommendation for a comprehensive survey.

Other Developments

55. Right To Be Forgotten : Kerala High Court Formulating Information Management Policy To Mask Personal Information In Judgments

Case Title: xxx v. Union of India and connected matters.

The Court declared that it was in the process of drafting an Information Management Policy which could possibly address the issue of masking of the parties' names in its orders and judgments. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas announced so while adjudicating upon a batch of seven petitions seeking the remedy of masking their names in different cases dispised of by this court. The matter has been listed on April 1 for further consideration.

56. Costs Over 80 Crores A Year' : Plea Before Kerala High Court Challenges Pensions Granted To Ministers' Personal Staff In State

Case Title: Dinesh Menon v. State of Kerala & Ors.

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court challenging the manner of appointment of personal staff to ministers in the State and the consequent pension benefits provided to them despite having served only a couple of years in office. Significantly, the plea estimated that the State is currently spending at least Rs. 80 crore per annum for paying pension.

57. 2019 Postal Ballot Fraud | Kerala High Court Asks Police Chief To Explain 2 Years' Delay In Concluding Investigation

Case Title: Ramesh Chennithala v. Election Commission Of India & Ors.

The Court came down heavily on the special police team constituted to investigate the alleged postal ballot fraud in 2019, for its inordinate delay in winding up the probe. Noting that the team had undertaken to conclude the inquiry within two months from September 2019, a Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly directed the State Police Chief to explain the reason behind more than two years of delay in completing the investigation.

58. Is This The Rule Of Law We Boast Of? Kerala High Court Voices Distress Over Unauthorised Boards, Banners & Flagposts

Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Court came down heavily on the Municipalities and Corporations for their enduring inaction over the unauthorised installations such as banners, boards and flag posts around the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran expressed his distress over unauthorised installations being put up in blatant violation of law disregarding all orders of the court and the Kerala Road Safety Commissioner on this issue. "When someone criticised our state recently, you claimed that Kerala upholds rule of law. Is this the rule of law that we boast of?" the court remarked.

59. Full Bench Of Only Women Judges, For The First Time, In Kerala High Court

Incidentally, on international women's day, a full bench comprising only women judges will hear a case in the Kerala High Court. This is the first time in the history of the Court that a full bench comprising only women judges has been constituted. The cause list showed Justices Anu Sivaraman, V Shircy and M.R Anitha as members of the women's only full bench.

60. Hotel No.18 POCSO Case: Kerala High Court Denies Pre-Arrest Bail To Accused Roy Vayalat

Case Title: Edadan Chindan Nair & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.

The Court directed the State government to reconsider the application moved by an Indian National Army (INA) veteran for a Central government pension scheme on the ground that his application was rejected for hypertechnical grounds. Justice Murali Purushothaman recorded that the petitioner's application was rejected mechanically without any application of mind. The Court also added that there were many freedom fighters whose sacrifices and names were not known to the common man.

63. Chengara Land Agitation | 'Sovereign Obligation Of State To Honour Its Commitments': Kerala HC After Govt. Claims Scarcity Of Assignable Lands

Case Title: A.D. Johnson & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Court while dealing with a batch of petitions seeking expeditious distribution of available land to the landless Scheduled Caste and Tribe families at Chengara expressed its apprehension over the State's submission that there was a scarcity of assignable lands. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that this was a cause of concern particularly since these issues arose out of an agitation that had its own sordid consequences and that steps should be taken to prevent such events from happening again.

64. Can State Fix RT-PCR Rates For Private Labs? Kerala High Court Refers Issue To Division Bench

The Court referred the issue relating to the fixation of charges for the RT-PCR test, as he held a divergent view from another judge who ruled that the government had no power to regulate the price of the test to a Division Bench. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that after going through the relevant statutory provisions that there is a sufficient source of power for the State to regulate the price rate of RT-PCR tests, thereby dissenting with a previous decision of a Single Judge.

Case Title: C.C Kunjaru v. State of Kerala

The Court allowed the plea moved by the father of a deceased Twenty20 worker, C.K. Deepu seeking to transfer the bail applications moved by the accused from the Ernakulam Principal Sessions Court.The petitioner had argued that he learned from reliable sources that the father of the sessions judge is the district secretary of the CPI(M) in Thrissur and an interested party in the case Justice Mary Joseph thereby directed that the case be transferred to the Sessions Court in Thrissur.

66. Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Investigation Against Dileep In His Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr.

The Court refused to stay the investigation initiated against actor Dileep by the Crime Branch for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice K Haripal while adjourning to hear the matter on March 28, clarified that there will be no stay on the investigation against Dileep and the other accused in the matter.

67. Kerala HC Asks Centre To Expeditiously Consider State's Plea To Include 3 Medical Colleges As Centres Of Excellence For Treatment Of Rare Diseases

Case Title: State of Kerala & Anr v. Manoj M. & Ors

The Court recently directed the Centre to expeditiously take an appropriate decision on the State government's request to include three State-run medical colleges as centres of excellence for treatment of rare diseases. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also persuaded the Centre to take a favourable stand on the State's request as it would go a long way in benefitting the children suffering from rare diseases.

68. Witness In Actor Assault Case Moves Kerala High Court Against Investigating Officer Alleging Harassment

Case Title: Sagar Vincent v. Biju Paulose & Ors.

The Court considered a petition filed by Sagar Vincent, a witness in the 2017 actor sexual assault case alleging that investigating officer in the case Biju Paulose was threatening him. Justice Anu Sivaraman asked the Government Pleader to get instructions in the matter while posting it next week for consideration.

69. KSRTC Challenges Hike In Diesel Prices For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Issues Notice

Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.

The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation has moved the High Court challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh issued notice to the Centre and the oil companies in the matter.

70. Explain Delay In Appointment Of Chief Investigating Officer At Police Complaint Authority: Kerala High Court To State

Case Title: Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors

The Court asked the State to explain its delay in appointing a Chief Investigating Officer at the State Police Complaints Authority despite several extensions granted to it. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly disagreed with the submission of the State that it had taken prompt steps to implement the previous directions of the Court in this matter.

71. Diesel Price Hike For Bulk Purchasers: Kerala High Court Denies Interim Relief To KSRTC

Case Title: Kerala State Road Transport Corporation v. Union of India & Ors.

The Court refused to grant interim relief on the plea moved by Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) challenging the decision of State-owned Oil Marketing Companies to increase the price of diesel sold to the Corporation, which is allegedly much higher than the market price. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Oil Marketing Companies to file a statement explaining the present pricing mechanism by the next posting date. The matter will be taken up again on April 4.

72. Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Plea Seeking CBI Probe In RSS Worker's Murder

Case Title: Arshika S. v. State of Kerala

The Court reserved its verdict on the preliminary objections raised in the plea seeking to hand over the investigation involving Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) worker Sanjith's murder, who was hacked to death in November last year, to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Justice K. Haripal noted that it had already expressed its view that this is a matter to be investigated by CBI. The observations came in a plea filed by the RSS worker's wife seeking to hand over the case to CBI.

Also Read: KHCAA To Consider Resolution Seeking Constitution Of Internal Committee To Redress Sexual Harassment Grievances Of Women Lawyers

73. 'Not Afraid Of Any Political Colour' : Kerala High Court After State Holds All-Party Meeting To Remove Illegal Flag Masts

Case Title: Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police

The High Court said that it was not intimidated by any political party after the State finally took a stance on the erection of flag poles and advertisements in public places after repeated court orders. Justice Devan Ramachandran orally observed that the city of Kochi underwent a substantial transformation after its intervention while clarifying that such orders were passed in the public interest and not to favour any political party.

74. Plea In Kerala High Court Seeks Practical Training & Internships For Indian Students Pursuing MBBS From Chinese Universities

Case Title: Parents Association of Foreign Medical Graduates v. Union of India & Ors.

The Court will consider a plea filed on behalf of 92 foreign medical students studying in different universities in China seeking a direction to the concerned authorities to provide them with practical training and internship facilities in India till the travel restrictions to China are lifted. Justice N. Nagaresh admitted the matter today while posting it on March 30 for further consideration.

Also Read: Kerala High Court Holds Reference To Condole Demise Of Former CJI Ramesh Chandra Lahoti

75. Kerala High Court Restrains 5 BPCL Trade Unions From Participating In Upcoming Nationwide Strike On March 28, 29

Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd v. Cochin Refineries Employee's Association & Ors.

The Court restrained five trade unions in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (BPCL), Kochi, from participating in the nationwide strike called by a joint forum of trade unions which has been scheduled to take place on March 28 and 29. Apart from issuing an interim order, Justice Amit Rawal also issued notice to the respondents in the matter before admitting it.

Also Read: CBI Registers FIR To Probe Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund Scam