Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 18 - December 24, 2023
Navya Benny
26 Dec 2023 5:29 AM GMT
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738- 759] Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740X v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 741Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v. Umaimath 2023 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738- 759]
Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
X v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v. Umaimath 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
Rahul Subhash v. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
Indira v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
Mathew P J v M/S. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co. Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
XXX v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
Sundar v. Director General of Police 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
V.Unnikrishnan v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Connected Case 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
N. Basurangan v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
XXX v Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
Zamra Endeavours Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors. 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
Archana Pius v. Shine 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
Abedur Shekh v State Of Kerala 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
Judgments/Orders
GST Evasion Prosecution Does Not Depend Upon Completion Of Assessment: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Badha Ram v. Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 738
The Kerala High Court has held that prosecution for offences under Section 132 of the CGST Act does not depend upon the completion of the assessment.
The bench of Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to grant bail on the grounds that there is an alleged evasion of more than Rs. 6.5 crore against the petitioner. A serious allegation is made, which warrants a thorough investigation. When the investigation is going on, no bail can be granted to the petitioner.
Case Title: Ramachandran Potty & Anr. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 739
The Kerala High Court recently elaborated the ambit and scope of 'partial restraint' against the institution of suits within the period of advance notice in writing, envisaged under Section 55 of the Travancore-Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 ('Act, 1950').
Section 55 (1) of the Act, 1950 stipulates that "no suit shall be instituted against the board or the executive officer of the Sri Padmanabhaswarny Temple until the expiration of two months after a notice in writting has been delivered or left at the office of the Board, or of the Executive Officer, as the case may be, stating the cause of action, the relief sought, and the name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left".
Clause (2) of Section 55 states that, "notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, suits or other proceedings by or against the Executive Office of the Sri Padmanabhaswamy Temple or the Travancore Devaswom Board shall be instituted in the District Court having local jurisdiction."
Justice P. Somarajan observed that the normal principle is that there cannot be any restraint against the institution of litigation before a civil court.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India & Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 740
The Kerala High Court recently laid down that Indian Courts are vested with the jurisdiction to protect the best interest or welfare of a child or an incapable adult, if so warranted, in circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that the party who approached it has no legal remedy before the Court beyond Indian territory.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas observed that the Court, on invoking its writ jurisdiction, would have the power to adjudicate and that the parens patriae and nationality rules would also apply to protect the best interest of the child, or the welfare of the incapable adult.
It however cautioned that the Court ought to be circumspect to exercise its jurisdiction when it finds that the law of the foreign country can be invoked to protect the welfare or best interest of the child or incapable adult.
"There may be different circumstances related to the cases. If parties are ordinarily residing in a foreign country and can avail legal remedy in that foreign country, the courts in India shall not invoke such jurisdiction to regulate the affairs of its citizens living beyond territorial jurisdiction of the country. The Court steps into the shoes of a parent invoking parens patriae jurisdiction, only in those circumstances where the Court forms an opinion that jurisdiction of the foreign country cannot be availed by the party concerned, due to lack of laws or incapability of having legal remedy, or if one party is deprived of availing legal remedy due to issues of domicile or residentiary rights. When an efficacious alternate remedy is available, the Court shall refrain from invoking its jurisdiction over the affairs of its citizens who are living outside its territorial jurisdiction," the Bench observed.
Case Title: X v. Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 741
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order transferring a senior scientist at the Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC) whose son faces 65% permanent locomotor disability. The Court held that the transfer order violated the legal right of the disabled son to be taken care of by his father.
Relying upon the UN Conventions and Rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Act 2016, the Court observed that a child with a disability has a right to live in a family environment of their choice and cannot be deprived of the presence of his father in a way it affects his life.
“Thus, the question arises whether absence of the petitioner would deprive the child, the environment he enjoyed in equal measures with others. Considering the age and other factors, it cannot be said that his wife would be able to adequately maintain the child. If any of the rights of the disabled child is denied by his absence, going by Section 5 of Chapter II of PWD Act, the transfer order passed, without adverting to such right of the child, becomes illegal. In the normal routine of matter, an organisation is not expected to have a consideration of the personal matters of an employee. However, when such personal matters are intertwined with the rights conferred under law, the organisation is bound to address such matters and make sure that the transfer would not affect the child's best interest.”
Quashing the transfer order as illegal, Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held thus:
“If a person with disability is affected by such transfer, and in no way the best interest of the child can be protected consequent upon implementing such transfer order, that transfer order will be considered illegal.”
Case Title: Kitex Garments Private Limited Company v Umaimath
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 742
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that as per Section 14 of the National Green Tribunal (NGT) Act, Tribunals and not Civil Courts have jurisdiction to deal with civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
It held that as per Section 29 of the NGT Act, Civil Courts are barred from granting injunctions for actions taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in civil cases on 'substantial questions relating to environment'.
In this case, the maintainability of the suit was challenged stating that the National Green Tribunal has the jurisdiction to govern 'substantial questions relating to environment' and not a Civil Court.
Justice V.G. Arun observed thus:
“…the relief of injunction is sought based on the allegation that the revision petitioners are flowing out chemical waste and contaminating the environment (padasekharam) in violation of the licence conditions and the statutory provisions. Undoubtedly, the jurisdiction over such a case is vested with the Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act. As per Section 29, no civil court can grant injunction in respect of any action taken or to be taken by the Tribunal in respect of the settlement of dispute relating to any claim for granting any relief or compensation or restitution of property damaged or environment damaged which may be adjudicated by the Tribunal.”
Case Title: Rahul Subhash v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 743
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by 28 aspirants for enlistment in the Indian army challenging the Central Government's Agnipath scheme.
Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the writ petition and held that the petitioners have not advanced any tangible reason warranting interference by this Court in the Agnipath Scheme.
The Court observed that the method of recruitment to the Indian army was a matter concerning policy decisions which should be left to the government to decide, as the same affects national security. It further held that Courts cannot interfere in policy decisions of the government as long as there was no infringement of fundamental rights.
“The issue raised by the petitioners is one concerning the method of recruitment to the Indian Armed Forces. It is a sensitive issue. In matters concerning national security, policy decision should be left to the Government. So long as the decision of the Government does not infringe fundamental rights of citizens, the Courts have no reason to interfere. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government, the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible.”
Case Title: Sindhu A.K. v. Nizar Kochery
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 744
The Kerala High Court has laid down that Section 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) shall apply to proceedings before the Rent Control Court.
Section 89 of CPC provides for 'settlement of disputes outside courts' including arbitration, conciliation, and judicial settlement including settlement through Lok Adalat, or mediation.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Johnson John took the view that Section 89 CPC does not run counter to any of the provisions of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (hereinafter, 'the Act'), including Section 23 of the Act which states that the Rent Control Court and the appellate authority shall have the powers vested in a civil court as per CPC.
Case Title: S. Sreesanth v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 745
The Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail application moved by cricketer S. Sreesanth in a cheating case.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. recorded the submission that the matter had been settled between the parties.
Case Title: Indira v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 746
The Kerala High Court granted two days' escort parole to 'Ripper Jayanandan', an infamous killer accused of seven murders committed during thirty-five robberies, for partaking in the function organized to release a book written by him. Advocate Keerthi Jayanandan had appeared as the counsel for Jayanandhan in the plea filed by his wife.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while granting the escort parole to the convict, observed,
"Here is a case where the petitioner's husband who is a convict undergoing imprisonment for about 17 years. He wrote a book...He studied only up to 9th standard. The book release is scheduled on 23.12.2023. A convict in detention for 17 years wrote a book and he wants to participate in his book release function is the situation. In such a situation, I am of the considered opinion that the constitutional court should step in, even if the Rules do not permit such release. The petitioner's husband should be given an opportunity to participate in the book release function and also on the previous day for making arrangements for the function. Therefore, the petitioner's husband should be allowed two days escort parole on 22.12.2023 and 23.12.2023".
Case Title: Mathew P J v M/S. Cholamandalam Investment And Finance Co Ltd
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 747
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that Section 5 Limitation Act has no application in condoning the delay in filing an application challenging for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act as this provision separately provides for a limitation period of maximum 4 months.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed thus:
“In so far as a challenge against arbitration award is concerned, the same is in accordance with Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, since a specific period of limitation is provided therein. Therefore, Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no application to condone delay in filing a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.”
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 748
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a Magistrate cannot be prosecuted under 228-A IPC on an inadvertent omission to anonymize the name and details of the victims based on an analysis of Section 228-A and the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985.
For context, Section 228-A IPC relates to disclosing the identity of the victim of certain offences under Section 376 IPC etc. It is an offence triable by a Magistrate and punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a fine.
Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the protection offered to judicial officers under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 was plenary and protects them from any action initiated qua an act, thing or word committed, done or spoken by him/her during the discharge of their official or judicial duties.
“In the case at hand, it is indubitable that the learned Magistrate was acting in performance of judicial duties and the error committed by her, or her office, is that the order was not anonymised qua the petitioner. This Court cannot, therefore, find the request of the petitioner, for initiation of action against the learned Magistrate under Section 228 A of the IPC, to be worthy of grant, specifically within the ambit of the said Section, read with the provisions of the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985. “, the Court stated.
Case Title: Sundar v Director General of Police
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 749
The Kerala High Court granted police protection to the relatives of Arjun, who was acquitted in the rape and murder of a five-and-a-half-year-old minor girl at Vandiperiyar town in the Idukki district in 2021.
Justice Basant Balaji directed the District Police Chief, Idukki and the Station House Officer of Vandiperiyar Police Station to ensure that there was no threat to life of the relatives of Arjun.
“Taking into consideration the seriousness of the issue that an child aged 5 1⁄2 half years was brutally murdered and the accused was exonerated of all the charges, the local people along with the respondents 4 to 6 very much agitated by the same and therefore the situation is very much tense. Therefore there will be direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondent to see that there is no threat to the life of the petitioners 1 to 7 at the hand of respondents 4 to 6 or their associates.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 750
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a father who had been accused of sexually abusing his minor daughter, on doubting the veracity of the allegations raised against him.
Justice Gopinath P. stated that although the allegations that were raised against the petitioner appeared to be serious, some of the factual circumstances indicated the possibility of the same being false.
"While it may not be proper for this Court to make any conclusion regarding the matter. While considering the bail application of the petitioner, the same can be taken note of for considering whether the petitioner can be granted bail. Since investigation has been completed and final report has been filed, continued detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation," the Court observed.
Case Title: V.Unnikrishnan v Kozhikode Municipal Corporation & Connected Case
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 751
The Kerala High Court recently upheld orders issued by the Kozhikode Municipal Corporation rejecting commercial building permits for areas earmarked as residential zones as per the Detailed Town Planning (DTP) Scheme, 1987.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that rampant constructions without heeding to zoning regulations will affect the planned development of a town. The Court stated that the planned development of a town based on the DTP Scheme and Master Plans was essential for the future development and growth of an area.
“The micro-level plans for development are made in the DTP Schemes, while the Master Plans provide for schemes to a larger extent. If the private interest of an individual is given predominance over the public interest, the same would cause prejudice to the development of the State itself. It is taking into reckoning these aspects that the detailed town planning schemes and the Master Plans are prepared”, the Court stated.
Case Title: N. Basurangan v. State of Kerala & Connected Cases
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 752
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail application moved by the President and Secretary of the Kandala Co-operative Bank noting that granting anticipatory bail in economic offences would hamper effective investigation in the casw.
The allegation against the accused persons was that they cheated and deceived depositors and misappropriated crores of rupees. A crime was registered against them under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 409 (criminal breach of trust) and Section 34 (criminal act in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC.
Justice Mohammed Nias C P stated that economic offences have to be treated separately as they involve deep-rooted conspiracies including huge loss of money. It also held that there was an apprehension that the accused persons would try to intimidate or influence the depositors.
“The grant of anticipatory bail will frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and collecting useful information and materials that might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would delude the accused knows that an order of court protects him. Grant of anticipatory bail, therefore, in such economic offences would certainly hamper an effective investigation. The charges being multiple, I do not think that this is a case where section 438 Cr.p.c can be invoked.”,
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 753
Reiterating the importance of masking the identity of parties in sexual offences, the Kerala High Court has held that no person shall print or publish details revealing the identity of 'parties' including their name and address without the permission of the court.
The High Court, on analysing previous judgments of the Court and the mandate of Sections 327 CrPC, 228-A IPC, made it clear that the protection of confidentiality is extended to all parties of litigation, including the accused.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed thus:
“Hence, the law as it stands now clearly provides that it shall not be lawful for a person to print and publish any matter in relation to the inquiry or trial of rape or an offence under Sections 376, 376A, 376B, 376C, 376D or 376E of IPC except with the previous permission of the Court, that too subject to maintaining confidentiality of name and address of the parties, both the victim and the accused.”
Case Title: Zamra Endeavours Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Police & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 754
The Kerala High Court directed the handover of Zamra Convention Centre, where bomb blasts had occurred, to its Managing Director.
On October 29, 2023, bomb blasts had occurred at the Convention Centre during a Jehovah's Witness meeting. The explosion killed 8 persons and injured several others.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that the Convention Centre could not be put to prejudice 'ad infinitum', particularly considering that it had been over 60 days since the incident occurred.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Anticipatory Bail Plea Of Former Senior Government Pleader In Rape Case
Case Title: P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 755
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea moved by former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu in the case pertaining to alleged sexual assault of a female client in the guise of providing legal assistance for her.
Justice Gopinath P. however added that if the petitioner were to surrender within 10 days from today, he shall be produced before the Magistrate and that his bail application ought to be considered without undue delay.
Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 756
The Kerala High Court allowed the bail plea moved by Dr. Ruvais, who had been accused of abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana.
Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, died by suicide due to financial constraints faced by her family, and their failure to meet the alleged demands for exorbitant dowry sought by Ruwais.
It is alleged that Ruwais' family had demanded 150 sovereigns of gold, 15 acres of land, and a BMW car from Shahana's family, which the latter could not meet. When the incident came to light, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had suspended Ruwais' medical license for abetting Dr. Shahana's suicide.
Ruwais was thereafter charged with the offences under Section 306 IPC ('Abetment of Suicide') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('Penalty for demanding dowry').
Taking note that Ruvais has been in custody since December 7, 2023, Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered opinion that the continued detention of the petitioner was not necessary for the purposes of investigation, and that he could be granted bail.
"The allegations against the petitioner are no doubt serious. I had also observed while granting bail to the 2nd accused in the case (Ruvais' father), that there are clear allegations against the petitioner in the suicide note recovered from the apartment where the deceased was staying. However, as rightly pointed out by the Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, a condition under Section 306 IPC can be sustained only if there are clear indications that the petitioner had the mens rea to drive the deceased to suicide, and the actions of the petitioner had left the deceased with no option but to commit suicide," the Court observed.
Case Title: Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 757
The Kerala High Court closed the plea moved by story and screenplay writer Deepu K. Unni, against the release of the Mohanlal-starrer Mollywood film, 'Neru'.
Justice Devan Ramachandran today allowed the request made by the petitioner and granted him liberty to approach the competent civil court with appropriate suit or other remedy.
"In the afore circumstances, the writ petition is closed with the afore requested liberty being reserved to the petitioners," the Court said, adding that it had not entered into the merits of any of the rival contentions.
Case Title: Archana Pius v. Shine
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 758
The Kerala High Court recently held that an anti-suit injunction by a wife against her husband who had instituted a suit in a Canadian court, would only be maintainable with respect to properties held in India.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C.S. Sudha observed:
"Canadian court would not have jurisdiction with regard to the property/properties located in Kerala. Either of the parties have to seek relief by filing a suit in court having proper jurisdiction...we modify the order of the trial court and injunct respondent No.1 not to stake the claim in respect of properties in joint ownership or in individual names situated in India...with regard to the property in Canada, there shall be no such injunction."
Case Title: Abedur Shekh v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 759
“ There is no Keralite alone or Bengali alone or Kannadiga alone or Tamilian alone. All are brothers and sisters”, observed the Kerala High Court while holding that Courts cannot insist that surety should be from a particular state. It stated that such bail conditions would be unmindful of the fact that we are all Indians.
Aggrieved by the bail condition that one surety should be from the Idukki district itself, the petitioner who was a native of West Bengal has approached the Court.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that all persons are citizens of this country and Courts cannot insist that surety should belong to a particular area.
“If a Keralite unfortunately became an accused in West Bengal, he would find it extremely difficult to get a surety at West Bengal as he is not a resident of that State. He can produce a surety from his native place where his kith and kin are residing. Similar is the case if a native of West Bengal becomes accused of an offence in Kerala. All are citizens of this country. The sureties are executing the bond to produce the accused as and when required. It cannot be insisted that the sureties residing within the jurisdiction of the Court should execute a bond in all situations.”
Other Significant Developments This Week
Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 11024 of 2023
A bail application has been moved in the Kerala High Court by Dr. Ruwais, who had been booked for abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana.
Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, had committed suicide due to financial constraints faced by her family, and their failure to meet the alleged demands for exorbitant dowry sought by Ruwais.
Lawyer Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Serious Fraud Investigation In Business Affairs Of CMRL
Case Title: Shone George v. Ministry of Corporate Affairs & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) No. 42092 of 2023
A lawyer has moved a plea before the Kerala High Court seeking a Serious Fraud Investigation in the conduct of business affairs of the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL).
CMRL is presently entangled in a slew of bribery allegations.
It is alleged that the Company indulged in corruption, and handed bribes to Veena Thaikandiyil (Veena Vijayan), daughter of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, and her company Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., as well as other public servants in order to facilitate illegal objectives.
Justice Devan Ramachandran has sought the response of the opposite parties in the matter.
Case Title: P.V. Prakashan & Anr. v. Karandi Valley Adventure & Agro Tourism Resort, Pune & Anr.
Case Number: C.C. No. 192/2022
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam on Saturday directed Karandi Valley Adventure and Agro Tourism Resort, Pune to pay a compensation of Rs. 1.99 Crore to the parents of two employed youngsters who drowned in a pool at the resort in 2020.
The Bench comprising President D.B. Binu, and Members V. Ramachandran and Sreevidhia T.N. found that the resort had failed to provide critical safety measures and also did not fulfil its obligations to ensure the safety and well-being of their guests, which constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
"The Commission deeply understands that no compensation can ever heal the profound wounds of parents who have endured the heartbreaking loss of their beloved children in a tragic incident at such a tender age. However, collecting compensation from those accountable for this devastating loss serves as a gesture of remorse a way to acknowledge and share in the immense sorrow that weighs upon the hearts of these grieving parents. It is also a crucial step in ensuring that such heart-wrenching tragedies do not repeat themselves in the future, thereby offering a glimmer of hope amidst the darkness of their grief," it observed while awarding the compensation.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.MC 5136/ 2023
Amicus Curiae Advocate A. Parvathi Menon informed the Court that subjecting the children of rape or POCSO victims, who had thereafter been given in adoption, to DNA tests would tantamount to defeating the purpose of 'the divine concept of adoption'.
"An adopted child cannot be at any point of his/her/their growth be violated of his/her/their privacy. There are instances where blood samples for DNA tests are ordered to be collected from adopted children who have attained an age of reasonable comprehension. In some cases, adopted parents would not have even divulged the fact of adoption to the child. The child would have blended so well with the adopted family that a sudden revelation that he/she/they is an adopted child and that too of a rape victim can imbalance their emotional status and can result in them exhibiting behavioural disorders and aberrations. This exercise of subjecting the child to DNA tests will only defeat the purpose of the divine concept of adoption especially when Law protects the rights of the rape survivor otherwise," Advocate Menon averred.
The development arises in the suo motu case initiated based on a report submitted by Advocate Menon highlighting the legality and the adverse impact on the adopted children and the respective families following the issuance of orders by competent courts to collect the DNA samples of children born to rape victims (POCSO or otherwise) on applications preferred by the prosecution to strengthen the case of rape.
Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Babu had earlier stayed various lower court orders which permitted such collection of blood samples of children of rape and POCSO survivors for DNA Testing.
Kerala High Court Reserves Orders In Former Govt Pleader's Anticipatory Bail Plea In Rape Case
Case Title: P.G. Manu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 10796/ 2023
The Kerala High Court reserved for orders the anticipatory bail plea moved by former Senior Government Pleader P.G. Manu in the case pertaining to alleged sexual assault of a female client in the guise of providing legal assistance for her.
Justice Gopinath P. is set to pronounce the verdict in the case on Friday (December 22, 2023).
Case Title: Deepu K. Unni v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: W.P. (C) No. 41359 of 2023
The Kerala High Court refused to stay the release of the film 'Neru', starring Mohanlal and directed by Jeethu Joseph.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran today issued notice on a writ petition filed by a person alleging that the script of the movie has been plagiarised. The bench issued notice by special messenger to the respondents. The Court however refused to stay the release of the movie tomorrow.
Case Title: Dr. Ruvais E.A. v. State of Kerala
Case Number: Bail Appl. 11024 of 2023
The Kerala High Court orally noted that the only aspect in favour of Dr. Ruvais, who had been booked for abetting the suicide of his girlfriend, Dr. Shahana, was that he is a student.
Dr. Shahana, who was a Postgraduate surgery student at Government Medical College, Thiruvananthapuram, died by suicide, allegedly due to Ruvais backing out of marriage since the dowry demands were not met.
It is alleged that Ruvais' family had demanded 150 sovereigns of gold, 15 acres of land, and a BMW car from Shahana's family, which the latter could not meet. When the incident came to light, the Indian Medical Association (IMA) had suspended Ruwais' medical license for abetting Dr. Shahana's suicide.
Ruvais has been charged with the offences under Section 306 IPC ('Abetment of Suicide') and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act ('Penalty for demanding dowry').
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Gopinath P. was of the considered view that certain aspects were clear from the suicide note left by Dr. Shahana, including that of Ruvais being aware of her financial background.
"Reading the suicide note, certain things are clear.. one - you were aware of her financial position. There are eyewitnesses to suggest that when your parents had gone to the house, there were talks regarding financial background. Brother and mother says that. She also tried to contact you on day she committed suicide. You deleted that message.. The only thing in your favour now is that you are a student. For granting bail… your case is that your career should not be destroyed," the Court orally observed.
Case Title: Seba P.A. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) 43275 of 2023
A plea has been moved in the Kerala High Court by a 24-year old suffering from Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), against the overpricing of the life-saving medicine, Risdiplam.
Justice Devan Ramachandran issued notice to the concerned Government authorities in the matter
The petitioner averred that the medicine she had been adviced to take, namely, Risdiplam, costs around Rupees Six Lakhs per bottle. She added that for a patient weighing more than 20 kg, a bottle of Risdiplam would last only for 12 days and that the said person would require 31 bottles per year.
Case Title: Mariyakutty v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) 42861/ 2023
The Kerala High Court directed the State Government to inform the Court as to the time within which five months of arrears of widow pension due to 78-year-old (named Mariyakutty) could be disbursed.
Taking note of the submission of Government Pleader Vidya Kuriakose that the State was undergoing a financial crisis and was unable to pay Mariyakutty and other similarly situated persons, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran orally noted,
"I accept your problem that Govt has no money to pay. My question is this – who will take care of this citizen?.....On one side is the Government which can garner resources and I see that the Government is spending resources for various other things. And on the other side is a person who says she has nothing else to live. How do I weigh the scales? How do I get that scale equal? Sitting here, this is the problem I face. I am expected and enjoined by the Constitution to stand with our citizens. Simple. Please pay her. There is no other way. She has to live. Or you take care of her medical bills and food so that she can survive this Christmas".
Case Title: Mrs. Sindhu Suryakumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.34989/2023
The Kerala High Court granted one week time to Facebook-India to permit former sub-court judge S Sudeep to access his account to delete the offensive post created by him against Executive Editor of Asianet News Network Sindhu Sooryakumar.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP has directed Facebook-India to permit the Ex-Judge to access his Facebook account to delete the post.
“Accordingly, a week is granted to the 4th respondent to permit access to the 5th respondent, so as to enable him to remove the post in question. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent shall intimate the learned counsel for the 5th respondent, who in turn will intimate the 5th respondent to remove the post in question, once access is given by the 4th respondent.”
Case Title: Ayshakutty M. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case Number: WP(C) NO. 34770 OF 2023 (U)
The Kerala High Court recently permitted husbands aged 55 or 56 years and wives aged 50 years or below to avail of Assisted Reproductive Techniques (ART) services.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran observed that Section 21(g) of the ART Act which provides that such services could be availed by women below 50 years of age, and men below 55 years of age, did not 'prima facie' reveal that both the conditions ought to apply simultaneously.
"In the cases at hand, the women are below 50 years, therefore, fully within the ambit of the afore provision, to apply for the ART services; though their husbands may not be. But, as long as the statute does not, prima facie, maintain that both the man and woman should be able to apply for the services together, the women are entitled to relief," the Court said.
Case Title: Mariyakutty v. Union of India
Case Number: WP(C) 42861/ 2023
The Kerala High Court granted liberty to the 78-year-old Mariyakutty who is waging a legal battle for disbursal of five months of her widow pension arrears, to approach the District Legal Services Authority or other such authorities, in case she required any urgent financial assistance.
Mariyakutty had approached the Court stating that she was a beneficiary under the Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension Scheme and that she had no land in her name, and was also unable to work due to her advanced age and related ailments. She added that her only source of income was the monthly widow pension of Rs. 1,600/- which had not been disbursed to her for the past five months now, and which she depended upon for buying medicines, food, and other essentials.
Special Government Pleader T.B. Hood informed the Single Judge Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran today that the present financial condition of the State Government was not conducive to honour its financial commitments under the Indira Gandhi National Widow Pension, under which Mariyakutty was seeking relief.
