Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 6- May 12, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 282 To 2024 Livelaw (Ker) 287Nominal Index XXXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282XXX v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283Chekkutty v State of Kerala. 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284 Sindhu B S v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286R K Ramakrishnan v PC Moosa Haji, 2024 LiveLaw Ker 287Judgment/Orders This WeekForcing Rape Victim To Give Birth To Child Of Man Who Assaulted Her Violates Right To Dignity Under Article 21: Kerala High CourtCase Title: XXXX v Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 282The Kerala High Court has held that a rape victim cannot be forced to give birth to a child of a man who sexually assaulted her. The Court thus permitted a sixteen-year-old rape victim, studying in standard 11th to medically terminate the pregnancy which reached 28 weeks of gestation.Justice Kauser Edappagath held that denying permission to terminate an unwanted pregnancy would equate to imposing forced motherhood and deprivation of the right to life with dignity, constituting a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.Kerala High Court Permits Termination Of 27 Weeks Pregnancy Citing Foetal Abnormalities But Says Parents Will Be Responsible If Child Born AliveCase Title: XXX v Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 283The Kerala High Court has permitted a married couple to undergo medical termination of pregnancy that reached 27 weeks of gestation due to substantial abnormalities of the foetus.Justice Kauser Edappagath relying upon the report of the Medical Board observed that even though the foetus does not have a life-threatening condition, it has multiple major congenital abnormalities to the brain and spinal cord, indicating a high risk of neurodevelopment impairment, health complications and mortality.“It is further opined that even though this is not a life-threatening condition, the child is likely to have permanent and significant neurological disabilities and handicaps. Hence, the Board recommended termination of pregnancy. It is a case squarely falling within the exception carved out by clause (2B) to sub-section (2) of Section 3 inasmuch as the Medical Board diagnosed substantial abnormalities in the foetus.”Accused Can't Plead Guilty To Get Lesser Sentence, Court's Should Not Give Concessions Or Adopt Liberal Approach Due To Guilty Plea: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Chekkutty v State of KeralaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 284The Kerala High Court held that an accused cannot be imposed with a lesser sentence merely because he appeared before the Court through his counsel and pleaded guilty. The Court stated that punishment imposed upon the accused should find a balance between the offence committed and the injury suffered by the victim. Justice P Somarajan set aside the Trial Court's order by which a sentence of fine was imposed upon the accused. The Court remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh consideration of the matter for ordering a substantive sentence.Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked To Check Correctness Of 'Answer Key', Purely Academic Matter: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sindhu B S v Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 285The Kerala High Court has held that the correctness of an answer key cannot be considered under the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the India since it is a purely academic matter.Justice T R Ravi stated that the High Court would not sit over in an appeal against the decision of an expert committee that evaluated the correctness of an answer key prepared by the University Grants Commission (UGC).“The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. t is thereafter that Ext.P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body.”Employee's Right To Seek Treatment From Hospital Of Choice Cannot Be Curtailed By Circulars Issued By Employer: Kerela High CourtCase Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. RajeevanCitation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286A single judge bench of the Kerela High Court comprising of Justice G. Girish in the case of Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan has held that the right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by employer. The court further observed since the ECA, 1923 is a social welfare legislation, its purpose cannot be defeated by circulars or internal orders passed by officers of the Appellant. The court further observed that there was no...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 6- May 12, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags