Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160 - 170]Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 166M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 167M.S Paulose & Anr v. State of Kerala & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 168Bibin K. B. & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 169Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Smt. Sophy Thomas & Anr., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 170Judgments This Week1. Marriage To Another Caste Not Relevant For Claiming Reservation Under Article 16(4) : Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Beksy A v. District Collector & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 160The Court recently reiterated that the marriage of an individual from one caste to another as permitted by law has no relevance for the purpose of claiming the benefit of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. Observing so, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea moved by a woman who had challenged the order rejecting her application for a caste certificate citing that she had married to another caste, and thus not eligible for the same.2. Rape On False Promise Of Marriage Can't Be Presumed Merely Because Accused Married Another Woman After Sex With Prosecutrix : Kerala High CourtCase Title: Ramachandran @ Chandran v. State of Kerala & AnrCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 161The Court has delivered a noteworthy judgment explaining when sex on the promise of marriage can amount to rape. Setting aside the conviction of a man for the offence of rape on false promise of marriage, the Court clarified merely because the accused contracted another marriage immediately after the sexual act with the victim, it cannot give rise to the presumption of lack of consent.3. Advocate Who Voluntarily Suspended Legal Practice For Govt Employment No Longer A Member Of The Bar: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Saumya M.S. v. State of Kerala & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 162The Court recently ruled that a serving Government employee, who had earlier secured enrollment as an Advocate and had later suspended his legal practice for taking up the above Government employment, cannot be treated as a "member of the Bar" for the purpose of selection and appointment as Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade II. A Division Bench of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice Viju Abraham observed that this was so since as per the Advocates Act and Bar Council of India Rules, a person who was initially enrolled as an Advocate and later voluntarily suspended from legal practice is not entitled to practise as an Advocate.4. Kerala High Court Asks State To Revisit The Procedure For Search & Seizure In Abkari CasesCase Title: Anil Kumar A.B. v. State of Kerala & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 163While directing the State to compensate two persons who were falsely implicated in Abkari cases, the Court addressed a question concerning the search, seizure and arrest procedure in abkari cases in the State and opined that the State Government should take serious note of the same. The petitioners were arrested and in confinement for more than 50 days in connection with two separate Abkari cases. They were subsequently found to be innocent and were exonerated by the investigating agency by filing subsequent reports before the Court concerned.Also Read: 'Jail Is Jail': Kerala High Court Asks State To Pay ₹2.5 Lakhs To Two Persons Falsely Implicated & Detained For Over 50 Days5. Can't Deny Public Employment On Basis Of Place Of Residence/ Domicile: Kerala High Court ReiteratesCase Title: Liji A.S v. State of Kerala & OrsCitation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 164The Kerala High Court recently observed that a candidate cannot be denied public employment merely on the ground that she is not a resident or domicile of a particular location. Ruling so, Justice V.G. Arun set aside a resolution and declared that the Panchayat cannot deny an appointment to the most meritorious candidate for the reason that she is not a resident of the Panchayat.6. Kerala High Court Refuses To Reschedule KUHS Final Year MBBS ExamCase Title: Manju A.& Ors v. Kerala University of Health and Sciences & Ors.Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 165The Court refused to reschedule the dates of the III Professional MBBS Degree Part-II Examinations to be conducted by the Kerala University of Health and Sciences (KUHS) in the plea moved by a large group of medical students from the State. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan however clarified that students who failed to appear for the examination on March 31 should be permitted to appear along with their junior batch in the exams which are...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round Up: April 4 To April 10, 2022

Hannah M Varghese

Tags