Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
Top Stories

Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-154]

Hannah M Varghese
12 Jun 2022 7:41 AM GMT
Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: January To March 2022 [Citations 1-154]
x

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 - 154]Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1Rajeswary vs State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5Vijayakumar V. & Anr....

Nominal Index [Citations 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 - 154]

Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1

Rajeswary vs State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3

Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7

V. G. Thankamani & Ors & National Highway Authority of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9

Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 10

Dr PC Beenakumari v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 11

S.K. Pavithran & Ors. v. Laisy Santhosh & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

Sanju Simon & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

Thomas P. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

Subramaniyan N.N. v. Anwar C.K. & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 17

 Sumith V. Kumar & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

Riyasudheen K. & Ors v. Inspector General of Registration & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

Union of India v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 21

Akhil & Ors v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

Mohammed Rafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

 Aroon Purie v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

Suo Motu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

Mannam Sugar Mills Cooperative Ltd v. Deputy Superintendant of Police, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37

V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

Arif v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

Mohammed Suhail v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors,  2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47

State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50

State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 51

Dr. George Thomas & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 52

Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 53

M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 54

Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

K. Jayarajan & Ors v. Sambasivan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

P.A. Noushad v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 57

Dr. Jibin C.P & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

T.K.Sundaresan v. District Police Chief, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 60

Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 61

Jyothsana A v Kerala Public Service Commission & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

Devarajan v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

Smitha v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

Abhijith v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

Teena v State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

Suo motu case, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

X v. Y, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91

Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

Mangala v. Union of India & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93

Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94

Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

Manual v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97

P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98

Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99

Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101

Suo motu case 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

State of Kerala & Nowfal, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

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

Panjal Grama Panchayat & Anr. v. Aneesh P, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

P.G. Mathew v. Airport Director, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

Chandra Choodan Nair S. v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

M.V. Chackochan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors. & connected matters., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 150

Sulaiman v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 151

Suo motu v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 152

Sunil N.S v. State of Kerala, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 153

Nair Service Society v. State of Kerala & Ors, 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 154

Judgments: 

Kerala High Court Upholds 10% EWS Reservation For Veterinary & Dental Courses Under KEAM

Case Title: Vinay Shankar v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 1

The Court upheld the 10% reservation earmarked for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) for Veterinary and Dental Courses under Kerala Engineering Architecture ad Medical (KEAM).

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan closed the writ petition upon noticing that a Government Order dated 20.03.2020 had established the said reservation, and after the Government Pleader endorsed that it was a policy decision of the State. The Director of Medical Education also submitted an affidavit stating that as per the said Government Order, 10% of seats are set apart for candidates belonging to EWS.

Section 138 NI Act - Cheque Bounce Case Can Be Closed If Convict Pays Fine Directly To Complainant: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rajeswary vs State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

The Court observed that a convict in a cheque bounce case can pay the fine amount directly to the complainant. It is not necessary to deposit the fine amount in court. In this case, while disposing of the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the accused, the High Court had affirmed the conviction but modified the sentence of simple imprisonment as a sentence to pay fine of Rs.7,17,000/-. The accused was granted a period of six months to remit the amount of fine in the trial court.

District Court Can Only Appoint Guardian For Minor's 'Property', Not 'Person'

Case Title: K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 3

The Court ruled that while District Courts are empowered to appoint a guardian for a minor's property, only Family Court can appoint a guardian for the person of a minor. While partly allowing an appeal, a Division Bench comprising Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas set aside the proceedings of the District Court to the extent of appointing a guardian for the person of the minor.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

The Court ordered the Devaswom Commissioner to institute disciplinary action against employees of the Travancore Devaswom Board who failed to report for special duty at Sabarimala, Pampa and Nilakkal. While issuing the directive, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar recorded that it is the surplus income from the Sabarimala Temple that aids the functioning of over a thousand other temples under the Board. The Court also directed the Devaswom Commissioner to obtain the names and take action against the staff in the establishment wing and class-4 employees who failed to report for special duty, except on genuine medical grounds.

Law Student's Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Husband, Releases His Parents

Case Title: Mohammed Suhail & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

The Court refused bail to the accused husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. However, his parents, who are co-accused in the case, were granted bail. During the proceedings, the de facto complainant (Mofiya's father) also brought to the fore that the accused husband was diagnosed with sexual perversion and personality disorders during a counselling session he had attended with the deceased. In her complaint, she had also mentioned her ordeals of having been forced to perform unnatural sexual acts by the accused husband.

Case Title: Vijayakumar V. & Anr. v. Kannur University & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

The Court observed that it is prima facie of the view that the notification issued by the Registrar in charge appointing a new board of studies at the Kannur University was not in consonance with the statutory provisions. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly also issued notice to the Registrar and Board Members on the appeal filed against a Single Bench's order. The Single Judge had dismissed their writ petition challenging the reconstitution of the board of studies.

Case Title: Biju Kumar v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 7

While acquitting a man accused of murder on the ground of negligent evidence collection, the Court ruled that the satisfaction of the Court cannot be substituted by expert opinion. In the criminal appeal, the preliminary question before the Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was whether there was sufficient material before the trial court to find the accused guilty.

It was noted that the case against the accused was largely based on fingerprints and chemical evidence. However, the Court noted that there wasn't sufficient reliable evidence for the trial court to have found the accused guilty of the crime.

Case Title: V. G. Thankamani & Ors & National Highway Authority of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

The Court has ruled that non-compliance with principles of natural justice is a good ground to set aside an arbitral award. A Division Bench of Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha, while allowing an appeal, set aside the order of the Additional District Court and the impugned award. The Court also added that only an adjudicator not favouring one party more than another, unprejudiced, disinterested, equitable and just, can be said to be an impartial adjudicator.

NEET PG: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Seeking To Quash State Circular Granting 27% Reservation To SEBC

Case Title: Dr. Sreeparvathy & Ors. v Commissioner of Entrance Examinations & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 9

The Court dismissed a plea moved by MBBS graduates challenging a circular issued by the State government increasing reservation for the socially and economically backward classes (SEBC) from 9% to 27% in medical postgraduate courses. After having elaborately heard the matter over the course of the past couple of months, Justice N Nagaresh dismissed the plea.

Walayar Rape-Death Case: Kerala High Court Dismisses Bail Pleas Moved By Three Accused, Asks Them To Approach Trial Court

Case Title: Madhu Alias Valiya Madhu v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 10

The Court dismissed the bail applications moved by the prime accused in the infamous Walayar case that had built up public outrage in the State. Noting that the final report had already been filed before the trial court, Justice P. Gopinath asked the applicants to approach the trial court with their bail applications since that would be the appropriate forum to consider the same:

"Having regard to the fact that the final report has already been filed and the fact that the petitioner in one of the bail applications also faces allegations of having committed offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 I am of the view it is for the petitioners to approach the jurisdictional court for bail."

Kerala High Court Directs Treasury To Hand Over KR Gouri's Savings To Her Niece

Case Title: Dr PC Beenakumari v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 11

Coming to the rescue of K.R Gouri's niece, who was her caretaker till her death, the Court ordered the Department of Treasuries to release her entire treasury savings amounting to over Rs 30 lakh. KR Gauri was the first women minister of Kerala.

Justice N Nagaresh issued the order on a petition filed by Beenakumari, the daughter of Gouri's younger sister, challenging the treasury secretary's order rejecting the request to release the money deposited in the Pension Treasury savings account in two District Sub-treasury savings accounts.

No Violation Of Right To Privacy Just Because Peaceful Residence Is Affected : Kerala HC On Toddy Shops In Residential Areas

Case Title: S.K. Pavithran & Ors. v. Laisy Santhosh & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

The Court reversed a Single Bench judgment that held that establishing a toddy shop in a residential locality would be in derogation of right to privacy. A Division Bench comprising Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the view taken by the Single Judge is that "anything and everything that affects the peaceful residence of a person would affect its privacy rights". Disagreeing with this view, the Division Bench recorded in its judgment.

Private Medical Colleges Collecting Annual Fees In Advance Before Completion Of Current Academic Year 'Profiteering' : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sanju Simon & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

While restraining private medical colleges in the State from collecting fees for any academic year other than the one currently being taught, the Court has held that collecting annual fees from students for the next year in advance when the previous year's studies have not been completed by an institution would amount to "profiteering".

A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. justified its stand observing that conceptually a fee was remuneration for a service already rendered.

Temporary Shift Of Residence By Itself Not A Valid Ground For Transfer Of Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Meria Joseph v. Anoop S. Ponnattu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

While considering a series of transfer petitions moved by a woman, the Court ruled that shifting from permanent residence to a temporary residence by itself is not a ground to transfer cases pending within the jurisdiction of the permanent residence of both parties. Justice A. Badharudheen dismissed the transfer petitions observing that allowing such pleas would result in cases being transferred frequently.

Family Court With Territorial Jurisdiction Is The Competent Authority To Give A Child In Adoption : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Thomas P. & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

The Court recently laid down that the Family Court with the respective territorial jurisdiction is empowered to give a child in adoption. After perusing the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, the 2014 Rules framed thereunder and the Adoption Regulations 2017, Justice M.R. Anitha observed: "In the said circumstance, the finding of the learned District Judge that the court is not a proper forum and they have to approach the Child Welfare Committee is illegal and perverse."

Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Against Interim Order Staying GO Fixing Bottled Water Prices At ₹13

Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

The Court dismissed the appeal challenging a Single Judge decision that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. During the previous hearing of the case, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly had refused to stay the single bench decision while issuing notice to the respondents.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Challenge Appointment Of Arbitrator: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Subramaniyan N.N. v. Anwar C.K. & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 17

The Court has held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge the appointment of an arbitrator since such grievances could be redressed as per the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Ruling that there should not be any judicial interference in the course of the arbitral proceedings for redressal of such grievances, Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar recalled that Section 5 of the Act which begins with a non-obstante clause provides that in matters governed by Part I of the Act, there shall not be any judicial interference except where so provided in the said Part.

Persons With Disability Form A Homogenous Class By Themselves, Not Similar To SC/ST Community: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sumith V. Kumar & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

The Court ruled that the State government was authorised to recognise classes of persons with distinct attributes and treat them differently under law while upholding that the different quantum of reservation for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST) and persons with disability in the NEET-2021 do not violate their right to equality. While dismissing a petition, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that persons with disabilities constituted a separate homogenous class by themselves and that their disability was physical rather than pertaining to social backwardness.

Non-Commercial Associations Can Use 'Kerala', 'India' In Their Names : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Riyasudheen K. & Ors v. Inspector General of Registration & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

The Court recently ruled that an association formed by private individuals cannot be prevented from naming after 'Kerala' or 'Bharat' or 'India' under the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 if their activities are not related to any trade or business. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the said Act only banned the naming of commercial entities after India or Kerala: "Since the petitioners' Association is not an Association related to any trade, business, calling or profession, it is declared that the provisions of the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act, 1950 cannot be applied to the petitioners."

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) Of Municipality Rules On Property Tax Fixation

Case Title: K.P. Muhammed Ashraf v. Taliparamba Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Court has set aside Rules 9(4A) and 9(4C) of the Kerala Municipality (Property Tax, Service Tax and Surcharge) Rules which prescribe fixation of property tax at a minimum of 25% over and above the tax levied for the previous year if the property tax arrived at on computation as per the Rules is less than the tax levied for the previous year.

Justice N. Nagaresh pointed out that Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994 does not permit the fixation of a property tax over and above the upper limit fixed by the Government.

'Balance Of Convenience' To Be Considered While Deciding Interim Custody Of Seized Articles U/S 451 CrPC: Kerala High Court

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 21

Ruling that balance of convenience should be considered while deciding interim custody of seized articles under Section 451 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Cour released unaccounted cash amounting to Rs. 50 lakhs to the Income Tax Department. Allowing a petition filed by the Department, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A observed that the balance of convenience was in favour of the IT department rather than Abdul Razak, the person found possessing the cash.

The Judge noted that since the Income Tax Department was a statutory authority armed with various powers under Sections 132-A, 132-B and 153A of the Income Tax Act, preference should be given to the Department in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 3 Accused In SDPI Leader Shan's Murder

Case Title: Akhil & Ors v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

The Court granted bail to three of the accused in the shocking political murder of Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) State Secretary K.S Shan who was hacked to death in December 2021. Justice Gopinath P. released the accused on bail citing that the only offence made out against them was under section 212 (harbouring an offender) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the Court recorded that since the release of the accused on bail may result in a retaliatory attack and that the law and order situation is still volatile in Alappuzha district, where the attack took place.

Must Prove Accused Is Absconding With No Immediate Prospect For Arrest To Record Witness Deposition U/S 299 CrPC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mohammed Rafi & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr. and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

In a significant judgment, the Court ruled that before recording witness depositions under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it should be established that the accused has absconded and that there is no immediate prospect of arresting him. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran was called upon to answer an intriguing question on the interpretation of Section 299 of the CrPC. The Bench added that proof of the accused absconding is a condition precedent to record witness deposition for the purpose of Section 299; enabling its use in the subsequent trial against those absconded but later apprehended.

Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

The Court opined that prima facie, the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall was not appropriate while adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan sought a clear response from the Kalamassery Municipality on this question and posted the matter to be taken up after two weeks.

No IPC Provision For Vicarious Liability On Company Directors, Cannot Implicate Them Without Specific Averments: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aroon Purie v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

The Court ruled that Directors of a company cannot be implicated without specific averments indicating their role in the offence, particular because no provision in the Indian Penal Code provides for vicarious liability upon them. While adjudicating upon a batch of applications filed by Directors of the India Today TV news channel, Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A held that it is not possible to implicate the Directors, in the absence of specific averments indicating their role in the commission of the offence.

Actor Assault Case : Kerala High Court Allows State To Summon 5 New Witnesses; Rejects Plea To Recall 3 Witnesses

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

The Court partly allowed the application filed by the State government challenging the trial court's order in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, which had rejected the prayer to re-examine certain witnesses and summon additional witnesses. The prosecution had sought before the trial court to re-examine 6 witnesses, 1 witness cited but not examined and 9 additional witnesses who were not cited as witnesses in the final report.

Mere Chance For Occupation Of Premises Via Licence Not Sufficient To Make One Necessary/ Proper Party In Appeal Between Licensor & Licensee: Kerala HC

Case Title: Big Movers v. Reeni George & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

The Court ruled that a mere possibility of an individual occupying the premises through a licence is not adequate to make them a necessary party or a proper party in an appeal pending between the licensor and the licensee. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the application filed by the petitioner to get impleaded as an additional respondent in the appeal.

Defence Can Be Struck Off For Non-Payment Of Pendente Lite Maintenance Only As Last Resort & If Default Is Deliberate: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shyju P.K. v. Nadeera & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

The Court while allowing an appeal ruled that a party's defence can be struck off for non-compliance of an order for payment of pendente lite maintenance only as a last resort and if it is found that the default is deliberate and willful. A Division Bench of Justice A. Mohamed Mustaque and Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked so while adjudicating upon an appeal filed by a man against the Family Court's order striking off his defence for failing to pay maintenance pendente lite.

Consent Of Accused Not Necessary To Obtain Voice Sample; No Violation Of Article 20(3) Of Constitution: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mahesh Lal N.Y v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

The Court has ruled that the consent of an accused is not necessary to acquire their voice sample for the purpose of comparison since it has already been established that obtaining voice samples of the accused do not infringe Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a petition alleging that the accused was not given an opportunity of being heard before being directed to produce his voice sample, Justice R. Narayana Pisharadi held that the accused has no right of option in the matter.

Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till February 21 Amid COVID-19 Surge

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the surge in Covid-19 cases and the Test Positivity Rate in the State. As such, the Bench revived an earlier order it had passed on 19, May 2021 in which it had issued directions for the extension of interim orders.

'Refusal To Consider' Different From 'Rejection For Reasons': Kerala HC Directs State Tax Officer To Reconsider Plea Seeking Copies Of Witness Statements

Case Title: Thomas Mathew v. State Tax Officer & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

The Court has held that there is a clear distinction between refusing to consider an application and rejecting one with reasons while finding that an officer should specify reasons while denying copies of statements made to the parties in an investigation. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that since it is settled law that reasons should be reflected in the order, the Proper Officer should have given reasons for refusing to grant copies of the witness statements.

Chairperson & Members Of State Minorities Commission Can Be From Same Minority Community : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

The Court ruled that merely because the Kerala State Commission for Minorities (Amendment) Act, 2017 permits appointing Chairperson and members from the same community, it cannot be said to be conferment of unbridled power infringing rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. While dismissing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly while referring to Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act and National Commission for Minorities Act observed that such an amendment did not violate any rights under Part III of the Constitution.

Unauthorised Flagposts, Boards & Banners To Be Removed Within 30 Days : Kerala High Court Issues Further Directions

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

The Court issued a set of further directions to ensure that no new unauthorised flag posts, banners or boards are installed in the State and to remove the already existing ones within a period of 30 days. Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative to notify such guidelines after observing that people had fallen back to their lackadaisical attitude regarding the erection of illegal boards, banners and flag posts in the State within a few months after the Court issued strict orders against the same.

Maoist Threat In Locality Valid Reason To Deny NOC For Explosive Licence : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rajan K. v. Additional District Magistrate & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

Justice N. Nagaresh while dismissing a petition challenging the decision of a Magistrate held that the presence of a Maoist threat in a locality is a sound reason to deny a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for an explosive license. It was also held that the fact that there is an Anganwadi or a PWD road nearby is also sufficient for such rejection. The Court further noted that the presence of Maoist terrorists and the perceived threat posed by them is a very relevant factor in the context of public interest.

Ashamed By 6th Pregnancy, Disabled Woman Allegedly Drowns Her New-Born: Kerala High Court Allows Bail

Case Title: Nisha Suresh v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

The Court granted bail to a 33-year-old woman suffering from multiple disabilities who allegedly dropped her newborn into a bucket of water, resulting into the infant's death. The infant was her sixth child, and reportedly a consequence of unintended pregnancy. Justice Gopinath P. released the woman on bail noting that her custodial interrogation may not be necessary in the investigation of the case.

Kerala High Court Comes Down On Relaxations Allowed Ahead Of CPI(M) District Meet Amid COVID Surge; Bans Gathering Above 50 Persons In Kasargod

Case Title: Arun Raj P.N. v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

The Court barred all public gatherings exceeding 50 individuals in the Kasargod district for a week citing the increasing number of Covid-19 cases, posing a major setback to the ongoing District Meet of the ruling Communist Party of India (Marxist). The Court passed the order in a writ petition which alleged that the District Collector had revoked an earlier order that limited attendance in public meetings to facilitate the CPI(M)'s Kasargod District meet.

Case Title: Mathrubhoomi Illustrated Weekly & Ors. v. P. Gopalankutty & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 37

The Court has ruled that a complaint filed by the State Secretary of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) against a defamatory article published in a newspaper about the RSS is maintainable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Sophy Thomas noted that since the RSS is a definite and identifiable body, any individual member of RSS has the locus standi to maintain a complaint against an article defaming the organisation.

'All Members Entitled To Vote' : Kerala High Court Revokes Centre's Order Upholding Representative Voting At SNDP Yogam Elections

Case Title: V. Vijayakumar & Anr v. SNDP Yogam & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

Justice T.R. Ravi annulled the order issued by the Central Government in 1962 which upheld representation voting at the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana (SNDP) Yogam elections. Unlike the past 46 years, now all members will have the right to vote in the elections. This decision comes in the backdrop of the next election scheduled to take place on February 5.

Kerala High Court Holds First Urgent Late Night Hearing To Arrest Vessel In Admiralty Suit

Case Title: Grace Young International Co.Ltd v. Owners & Parties Interested in Vessel MV Ocean Rose

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

In a first, the Court held a late-night hearing of an admiralty suit to arrest a vessel, MV Ocean Rose, from leaving the Cochin Port Trust. Justice Devan Ramachandran convened the hearing at 11.30 pm after the plaintiff in the suit approached the Court to prevent a ship from leaving the Cochin port, which was scheduled to leave at 5 am the next morning.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Regulate Crowd Funding For Treatment Of Rare Diseases

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

The Court has issued a set of directions to the State and the Central governments in an attempt to make available adequate funds for treating patients suffering from rare diseases, particularly for those who cannot afford such expenses, to enforce the rights guaranteed to the citizens under Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar directed the Centre and State to file affidavits within a month indicating inter alia the progress of the crowdfunding scheme sought to be established in the State.

When Judgment Debtor Pleads 'No Means', Execution Court Must Conduct Enquiry Before Issuing Arrest Warrant : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dileepkumar v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

The Court has recently held that if a judgment debtor appears before the court when served with a notice and contends that he has no means to pay off the decreed debt, the Court is bound to enquire into this contention before issuing a warrant of arrest under Order XXI Rule 40 of the Civil Procedure Code. Justice A. Badharudeen was exploring the procedure to be followed before issuance of an arrest warrant in the execution of a decree for payment of money.

'NIA Recorded Inadmissible Confessions In Anxiety To Wrap Up The Case': Kerala High Court While Acquitting Accused In Twin Blast Case

Case Title: Thadiyantevida Nazeer v. State of Kerala & connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

The Court while acquitting the prime accused Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafas in the infamous Kozhikode 2006 twin bomb blast case observed that the National Investigating Agency (NIA) had failed to produce credible evidence. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman also found that had it not been for the agency's hurry to wind up the investigation, there may have been more compelling evidence to find the accused guilty.

Motor Accident Claims| Multiplier To Be Determined Based On Completed Age, Not Running Age: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.O Meera & Anr. v Ananda P Naik & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

The Court recently ruled that the multiplier to be used while computing compensation in motor accident claims has to be determined on the basis of the age attained by the deceased/injured and not based on the running age. Therefore, Justice C.S Dias observed that when a person aged 50 years and 7 months dies in a motor accident, the multiplier applicable to the age bracket of 46-50 will apply and not the one applicable to the age bracket of 51-55.

Not Taking Treatment For Mental Issues To Bring Peace In Family Amounts To Cruelty To Spouse: Kerala HC Upholds Divorce Decree

Case Title: Mary Margret v. Jos P Thomas

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

While upholding a divorce decree, the Court recently observed that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere, amounts to cruelty to the persons at the receiving end i.e., the Spouse.

A bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed the wife's appeal as it came to the conclusion that the appellant was treating her husband with cruelty both physical and mental, and in the year 2005, she had deserted him.

Prosecution Has Right To Ask Accused To Surrender Mobile Phone; No Violation Of Article 20(3) : Kerala High Court

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

The Court held that the prosecution has every right to seek that the accused should surrender mobile phones for forensic examination under Section 79A of the Information Technology Act.

Justice Gopinath P. rejected the argument that the surrender of mobile phones will infringe the fundamental right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India after referring to a couple of landmark decisions in this area.

Case Title: Mohammed Suhail v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

The Court granted bail to Suhail, the husband of a 2nd year LLB student, Mofiya Parveen, who died by suicide citing domestic abuse and dowry harassment. Justice Gopinath P. was inclined to grant bail with conditions since according to him, continued detention may not be necessary considering that he had already spent more than 65 days in jail and because the final report had been filed in the matter.

Case Title: Aishwarya Mohan v. Union of India & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 47

The Court found merits in the contentions raised by the petitioner who had sought to quash the condition mandating applicants to clear CLAT to apply to the post of Assistant Law Officer in National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC). Finding the condition prima facie discriminatory, Justice V.G. Arun observed that there was no rationale for precluding candidates like the petitioner from the post.

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

The Court granted the prosecution 10 more days from January 27 to complete the examination of witnesses before the trial court in the sensational 2017 actor sexual assault case. Earlier, the Court had partly allowed the application filed by the State, permitting it to summon 5 additional witnesses. In this order, the Court had directed a new Special Public Prosecutor be deputed to conduct the case and to complete the examination of the witnesses within ten days. Justice Kauser Edappagath was inclined to grant the extension upon being informed that out of the five witnesses, three had already been examined.

Kerala High Court Temporarily Defers Centre's Ban On News Channel MediaOne

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

The Court deferred the order issued to popular Malayalam news channel MediaOne by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting revoking its license to broadcast till the next hearing date. Justice N. Nagaresh posted the matter to be considered on Wednesday and issued notice to Planetcast Media Services Ltd, the third respondent.

Parties To Litigation Entitled To Be Informed Of Reasons For Denial Of Their Claim : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jiji C. Senan & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Anr

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 50

The Court observed that a party to litigation is entitled to be informed of the reasons behind the denial of their claims. Thus, setting aside a non-speaking order passed by the Family Court, Justice Mary Joseph observed that although there is no rule that all reliefs sought for should be allowed, a party is qualified to know why their relief was denied. The impugned order directed the respondent-husband to pay Rs.6,000/- as interim maintenance allowance to the child till disposal of the plea. However, the wife was denied any interim maintenance allowance without assigning any reasons.

Abkari Act| Notice Of Confiscation Proceedings Need Not Be Served Upon Person From Whom Property Is Seized If Already Issued To Its Owner: Kerala HC

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Navaru Swapna Reddy

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 51

The Court recently held that the authorised officer exercising power under Section 67B(2) of the Abkari Act need not issue a notice of confiscation proceedings to the person from whom the property has been seized before ordering the confiscation if he is not the owner of the property. A Division Bench of Justice P.B Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S Sudha observed that the Act does not provide for notice to the person from whom the property sought to be confiscated has been seized if he is neither the de facto nor the de jure owner of the property.

Reimbursement Of Medical Expenses By State: Kerala High Court Grants Relief To Govt Employee's Father Undergoing Treatment At Private Hospital

Case Title: Dr. George Thomas & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 52

The Court ruled that under the Kerala Government Servants Medical Attendance Rules, the State was obliged to reimburse the government servants if they or their family undergoes medical treatment in recognised hospitals, either private or government. While setting aside a Government communication rejecting the petitioner's claim for reimbursement, Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that the respondents were not permitted to reject such claims under Article 21 and the aforesaid Rules.

Temporary Shift In Residence Not A Foundation To Transfer Matters Pending Before Competent Jurisdiction : Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Silpa Shaji v. Satheesh K.S & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 53

The Court held that a mere temporary shift of residence cannot be the basis on which a matter pending before the competent jurisdiction is transferred, particularly when the petitioner's permanent residence is within the jurisdiction of the competent court. Observing so, Justice A. Badharudeen refused to entertain a transfer petition filed by a woman who had sought for a transfer of the four cases pending before the Pathanamthitta Family Court to Ernakulam merely because she was presently residing with her cousin.

Insolvency Application Must Meet Threshold As Per Amended S.4 IBC, Though Notice U/S 8 Was Issued Pre-Amendment : Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Tharakan Web Innovations Pvt. Ltd. v.National Company Law Tribunal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 54

The Court in a Bench comprising of Justice T.R. Ravi held that the litmus test is whether the default exists as defined in amended Section 4 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code w.e.f. 24.3.2020, increasing the default amount from Rs. 1 Lakh to Rs. 1 Crore, on the date of the application, and not on the date when the notice was sent to the Corporate Debtor u/s 8 of the Code.

Persons With Criminal Antecedents/Without Police Clearance Certificate Not To Run Stalls In Temples Managed By Travancore Devaswom Board: Kerala HC

Case Title: Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

The Court established that individuals with criminal antecedents or those without a Police Clearance Certificate are not allowed to run or be employed in stalls in the premises of temples managed by the Travancore Devaswom Board. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar observed so while dismissing a petition filed by a bidder whose power of attorney holder had criminal antecedents.

Case Title: K. Jayarajan & Ors v. Sambasivan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

The Court ruled that the grounds available to set aside a sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall not be available in a petition filed under Section 47 even if it is for the same relief. Dismissing a revision petition, Justice A. Badharudeen held so after referring to a few judgments on the issue and exploring the law laid down in this area. However, it was observed that where there is inherent illegality in the execution application, this is a matter arising in execution outside the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 and thus within the scope of Section 47 of the Code.

Free Food Kit Distribution: Kerala High Court Directs State To Disburse Arrears To Retail Dealers Within 2 Months

Case Title: P.A. Noushad v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 57

The Court has directed the State and the concerned authorities to disburse arrears of commission payable to Authorised Retail Distributors (ARDs) for distributing Covid-19 free food-kits at the rates specified in 2020 and 2021 Government Orders within two months. Although the State took the stand that the kit distribution was a humanitarian service to be treated as voluntary and not a paid job, Justice N. Nagaresh opined that a service becomes voluntary only when the person performs it willingly without pay.

NEET-PG| Candidates With Rural/Difficult Area Service Can't Claim Sub Quota As A Right : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dr. Jibin C.P & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

The Court recently held that NEET-PG candidates engaging in Rural Area service or Difficult Rural Area service cannot claim an exclusive sub-quota as a matter of right. Justice N. Nagaresh observed that this was more so since the Prospectus for Admission to Medical Postgraduate Degree Courses 2021-2022 provided for 2% service weightage for Rural Area service and 5% for Difficult Rural Area service.

Kerala High Court Declares Gawking Charges (Nokkukooli) Illegal; Calls For Reforms Of Headload Workers Act

Case Title: T.K.Sundaresan v. District Police Chief

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

The High Court recently pronounced a judgment declaring that the practice of demanding gawking charges, often referred to as 'nokkukooli' in Malayalam, is illegal and unconstitutional. Justice Devan Ramachandran made this observation in a plea filed by a man who was not being provided with the necessary registered headload workers for his construction work by the trade unions pursuant to a dispute between them over nokkukooli.

Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 60

The Court while dismissing an appeal challenging the Single Judge's rejection of the plea against Prime Minister's photograph being affixed on Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens, observed that an individual fundamental right is subservient to the larger public interest. However, the cost imposed on the appellant was reduced from Rs. One Lakh to Rs. 25,000. Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly maintained that inscriptions and the photograph of the Prime Minister would not interfere with the freedom of speech and expression conferred to a citizen under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

No Frustration Of Contract Due To Mere Commercial Hardships Caused By Pandemic: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suneesh K.S. v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 61

The Court has ruled that the occurrence of a commercial difficulty or hardship to perform a contract is not an excuse to back out from contractual obligations which the parties had agreed to in the first place. A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar while dismissing a petition, observed that merely because the pandemic has made the performance of a contract inconvenient, it was not a good reason for a party to retract from their obligations. The doctrine of frustration as per Section 56 of the Contract Act will not apply merely because of commercial hardships.

Caste Certificate Can't Be Denied To SC Woman On Ground That She Married A Christian: Kerala High Court

Case Title : Jyothsana A v Kerala Public Service Commission and others

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

The Court has held that the caste or community of a person is to be decided on the basis of her birth in the said community and her marriage to a person to another community has no bearing on the grant of caste certificate. The Court was deciding a writ petition filed by a woman belonging to the Hindu-Kurvan community, a Scheduled Caste, who was aggrieved by the rejection of the caste certificate to her on the ground that she had married a Christian.

Delay Fatal Only If Parties Attempt To Obtain Any Unfair Advantage : Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

The Court ruled that a delay in filing an application only becomes fatal if by allowing such application, the applicant obtains an unfair benefit or if any prejudice will be caused to the opposite party in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath while partly allowing a petition seeking to re-examine 7 witnesses and summon 9 additional witnesses observed that the delay in filing the application could be discounted since the prayer herein was only to produce the original documents which were already marked.

'Prima Facie No Material': Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Dileep In Murder Conspiracy Case

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. pronounced the highly-anticipated verdict after two weeks of elaborate hearing. "Your apprehensions regarding non-cooperation with the investigation can be addressed by conditions", the Court informed the Prosecution while dictating the order. It was also clarified that if these conditions were violated, the prosecution was entitled to apply for arrest.

Also Read: Free Speech Not A License For Persons With Half-Baked Facts Or Little Knowledge About Judiciary To Abuse Courts: Kerala HC

For Abetment By Conspiracy, Mere Agreement Not Enough; Something Must Be Done: Kerala High Court

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

The Court while granting pre-arrest bail to Malayalam actor Dileep and other accused reiterated the clear distinction between the offences of abetment by conspiracy and criminal conspiracy. Upon referring to several decisions on this issue, Justice Gopinath P. decided that while an illegal omission or act is necessary to constitute an offence of abetment by conspiracy, mere agreement is sufficient to amount to criminal conspiracy.

Excommunication Illegal Under Wakf Act, Infringes Fundamental Rights: Kerala High Court

Case Title : PV Kassim v. Kakkattiri Juma Masjid Mahallu Committee & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

In a notable judgment, the Court has held that ex-communication or externment, whether declared or undeclared, is illegal and impermissible under the Wakf Act. The Court further declared that any bye-law or scheme in relation to the administration of the Wakf Property authorising ex-communication is also illegal as it infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Justice SV Bhatti and Justice A Badharudeen were deciding a civil revision petition challenging the orders of the Wakf Tribunal and the State Wakf Tribunal.

Municipality Act | Secretary Can Issue Notice, Take Action Upon Finding Illegal Construction Being Carried Out : Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.V. Abraham v. Chengannur Municipality & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

The Court held that the Secretary of a Municipality is empowered to issue notice and initiate suitable action if a building construction is found to be proceeding illegally within their jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly observed so while dealing with a set of appeals filed under the Kerala Municipality Act and the Kerala Municipality Building Rules.

'Inputs Justify Denial Of Security Clearance' : Kerala High Court Upholds Ban On MediaOne News Channel

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

The Court upheld the order passed by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to not renew the license granted to Malayalam news channel MediaOne for broadcast. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Madhyamam Broadcasting Ltd (the company running the channel) challenging the Union's decision. Justice N. Nagaresh held that after perusing the files from the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, it has found intelligence inputs that justify the denial of security clearance to the channel.

Also Read: Natural Justice Principles Have Limited Role In Matters Of National Security : Kerala High Court In MediaOne Case

News Report Claims Devotees Made To Wash Feet Of 12 Brahmins At Temple To Atone Sins : Kerala High Court Initiates Suo Motu Case

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

The Court took suo motu cognisance of a news report alleging that in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura, devotees were made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar initiated the suo motu case. The incident came to light after a Malayalam daily Kerala Kaumudi published a report on February 4 citing that such a practice was being followed at the temples as part of 'Panthrandu Namaskaram'.

Declaration Proving 'Single' Status Of OCI Acceptable For Marriage Registration If Foreign Embassy Does Not Issue Bachelorhood Certificate: Kerala HC

Case Title: Joel K. Yoyakkim v. Sub Registrar & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

The Court has ruled that when an Indian citizen intends to solemnise their marriage with an OCI (Overseas Citizen of India) Cardholder, any declaration evidencing their single status would be sufficient to register their marriage in India if the concerned foreign embassy does not issue certificates to that effect due to prevailing laws. Justice N. Nagaresh also opined that this was deemed necessary since no one can be compelled to perform an unattainable task that hinders the registration of their marriage.

Natural Justice To Be Read Into A Statute If It Is Silent On Granting Opportunity Of Hearing To Parties : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

The Court held that even if a statute does not provide for granting an opportunity of hearing to parties, principles of natural justice have to be read into the statute. While allowing a plea moved by a woman who was terminated from service without personal hearing, Justice Murali Purushothaman held that such a termination order was violative of the principles of natural justice.

Can't Dictate Filmmakers To Use Only Decent Language In Films, They Have Artistic Discretion Limited Only By Article 19(2): Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

The Court while dismissing a plea seeking to remove Malayalam movie Churuli from OTT platform SonyLiv for its allegedly excessive use of obscene language, observed that a filmmaker has the discretion to decide what type of language should be used by the characters in his film. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan added that as long as the language used in a movie was within the contours of the reasonable restrictions imposed on freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India,

Also Read: Plea Against 'Churuli' Movie For Excessive Use Of Abusive Language Dismissed By Kerala High Court [Read Judgment]

Lawyers Should Not Criticise A Judgment Without Reading It, They Should Protect Judiciary : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

The Court while dismissing a petition filed against the Malayalam movie 'Churuli' appealed to the lawyers to refrain from making comments on mainstream or social media about a judgment before reading it. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan opined that the lawyers should act as the mouthpiece of the judiciary and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. However, it clarified that not all members of the Bar make such 'immature' comments and that the message was meant for the handful who engage in such practice.

Issuance Of Faulty Test Result From Accredited Medical Laboratory Not Cheating If There Was No 'Intention To Deceive': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sundareswaran K. & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

The Court ruled that to attract the offence of cheating, the person making the false representation should have knowledge of the fallacy and yet have proceeded to represent the same to another party with the intention of deceiving them. While partly allowing a petition, Justice Sophy Thomas observed that issuance of a faulty test result from an accredited Medical Laboratory will not amount to cheating if there was no intention to deceive. The Court also added that an act does not amount to cheating unless there was deception from the very outset of the transaction.

Long Non-Cohabitation Due To Deliberate Avoidance Not Ground For Divorce When Other Spouse Has No Fault & Is Ready To Continue Marriage: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr. Uthara v. Dr. Sivapriyan

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

In a noteworthy judgment, the Court made several important observations on matrimonial cruelty and the scope of revival of condoned matrimonial offences. A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas dismissed an appeal filed by a woman seeking to reverse the order of a Family Court which rejected her plea for divorce finding that she had failed to prove any form of matrimonial cruelty allegedly meted out on her.

Appointment Beyond Advertised Number Of Posts Amounts To Filling Up Of Future Vacancies, Impermissible Under Law : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mahin K.E v. Kalamassery Service Cooperative Bank & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

The Court ruled that filling up of vacancies over and above the notified vacancies are not permissible in law since it amounts to filling up of future vacancies. Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan noted that the impugned advertisement was only for one post and that the candidate who secured the first rank had already joined the post. Under such circumstances, the bank could not have appointed any further person by preparing a rank list.

Teacher Who Administers Moderate Force On Pupil To Enforce Discipline Without Malicious Intention Can't Be Fastened With Penal Liability: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jaya v. State of Kerala & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

The Court held that a teacher who administers a reasonable force on a pupil without any malicious intention to enforce discipline in a classroom should not be fastened with criminal liability. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath discharged a teacher against whom the trial court had framed charges, finding that there was no sufficient ground for proceeding against her.

Spouse Refusing To Accord Divorce On Mutual Consent Despite Being Convinced That Marriage Failed Amounts To Cruelty : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Beena M.S v. Shino G. Babu

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

The Court has held that if one of the spouses is refusing to accord divorce on mutual consent despite being convinced of the fact that the marriage has failed, it is nothing but cruelty to the other spouse. A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas noted that once the court is able to form an opinion that due to incompatibility, the marriage failed and one of the spouses was withholding consent for mutual separation, it can very well treat that conduct itself as cruelty.

K-Rail Silverline Project | Kerala High Court Sets Aside Single Judge Order Staying Land Survey

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Binu Sebastian & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

The Court set aside an interim order issued by a Single Judge directing the State to defer steps for the survey taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project of the writ petitioners' properties until the matters are considered again in February. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly allowed a batch of appeals filed by the State noting that Social Impact Assessment cannot be seen as an empty formality and that the public is entitled to know the adverse impact and consequences they are likely to suffer.

Kerala High Court Directs State Police, Motor Vehicle Dept. To Take Strict Action Against Overloading, Misuse Of Govt Boards On Vehicles

Case Title: Anoop K.A & Anr. v K.R Jyothylal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

The Court has directed the State Police and Enforcement Officials of the Motor Vehicles Department to initiate stringent measures against vehicle drivers/owners found disregarding the Road Safety Policy guidelines, particularly against those who overload their vehicles or use a government nameplate without the requisite authorisation. Justice Anil K Narendran issued certain directions to reinforce the strict implementation of the Road Safety Policy, Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicles (Driving) Regulations in the State as directed by the Supreme Court Committee on Road Safety.

Wife & Children Being Employed Not A Ground To Disregard Special Consideration For Compassionate Allowance : Kerala High Court

Case Title: S. Surendran v. Director General of Central Industrial Security Force & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

The Court recently ruled that a government servant who was dismissed from service may not be denied special consideration for compassionate allowance merely for the reason that his wife and children are employed. While allowing a writ petition, Justice V.G. Arun found that although a government servant removed from service is not entitled to pension/ gratuity, the competent authority can sanction compassionate allowance in cases deserving special consideration.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Be Followed By Trial Courts While Sentencing

Case Title: Devarajan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

The Court has recently issued a set of recommendations to be observed by trial courts while sentencing the accused in criminal matters. The guidelines were issued by a Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran while allowing a criminal appeal, thereby reversing the conviction and sentence imposed by a Sessions Judge on the appellant for murder.

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act | Section 68(1) Includes Inquiry Conducted By Vigilance Officer : High Court

Case Title: Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies & Anr. v. Charley Panthallookaran & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

The Court recently held that an inquiry under Section 68(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act includes the inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A of the Act, and that it does not have to be necessarily be done by the Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies himself. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha added that merely for the reason that an inquiry under Section 65 can be conducted by the Registrar directly, such a report under Section 65 cannot be placed in a better pedestal than an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Officer.

Principle Of Locus Standi Alien To Criminal Law, Magistrate Can't Return Complaint Merely Because It Was Filed By Complainant's Wife: Kerala HC

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

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

The High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate cannot return a complaint merely on the ground that it was filed by the wife of the complainant. Justice K. Haripal also emphasised that criminal law can be set in motion by anyone and that principle of locus standi does not apply in criminal jurisprudence.

Merely Keeping Tobacco Products At One's Residence Not An Offence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Abhijith v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

The Court has recently ruled that mere keeping of tobacco products at one's residence does not attract any offence per se. Holding so, Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed a petition filed by an accused who was charged for storing a collection of tobacco products at his residence, allegedly to sell to children. Since there is no prosecution case that the petitioner had given or caused to be given tobacco products to any minor child, charges under Section 77 of the JJ Act were also dropped.

When Can A Co-Owner Maintain An Injunction Suit To Protect His Co-Ownership Right Over Property? Kerala High Court Enumerates

Case Title: J. Rajendran Pillai v. B. Bhasi & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

The Court has recently laid down the instances when a co-owner can maintain a suit for injunction to protect his co-ownership right over a property. Justice A. Badharudeen was adjudicating upon a matter where one co-owner was attempting to construct a building in the co-ownership property during the pendency of the final decree proceedings before a trial court. The Court found that construction could not be permitted without the knowledge or consent of other co-owners and added that such construction may cause prejudice to the right of enjoyment of the other co-owners as they wish on separation of shares.

'When A Woman Kills Her Progeny, There's More Than Meets The Eye' : Kerala HC Acquits Mother For Allegedly Killing 9 Yr Old Son

Case Title: Teena v State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

'God could not be everywhere and therefore he made mothers', quoted the High Court while reversing the trial court's conviction of a woman who was accused of killing her 9-year-old son in an attempt to avenge her disturbed marital life. A Division Bench of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that in such cases, there is often more than meets the eye, which sensitivity often the investigators lack. It was also held that the prosecution had failed to establish guilt beyond all reasonable doubt and that the trial court had erred in the marshalling of facts and scrutiny of evidence.

'Central Govt Has Shown Scant Regard To Hardships Of Litigants': Kerala High Court On Absence Of DRT Presiding Officer

Case Title: HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Debts Recovery Tribunal & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

The Court recently expressed serious concerns regarding the non-availability of the adjudicatory mechanism of Debts Recovery Tribunal in the State for over ten months despite its efforts to kick start its functioning. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that when the fundamental right to have access to justice is denied due to the absence of Presiding Officers of the forum created under a statute, the aggrieved are entitled to approach the High Court.

Duty Of Courts To Safeguard Properties Of Religious Institutions From Wrongful Claims: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

The Court held that it is the duty of courts to protect and safeguard the properties of religious and charitable institutions from wrongful claims or misappropriation. Observing so, a Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar withdrew the permission granted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to a Delhi-based trust to organise a nine-day-long 'Ramakatha' recital programme at Pamba area, encroaching upon the pilgrimage path to the Sabarimala temple.

Marital Confidence U/S 122 Of Evidence Act Jeopardises Public Interest, Requires A Revisit: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Alli Noushad v. Rasheed & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

The Court observed that Section 122 of the Evidence Act requires a revisit since it was a legal weapon used by criminals to suppress their crimes, thereby affecting public interest. The said provision recognises the age-old concept of marital confidence, where all communications between spouses during the wedlock are considered sacrosanct. While appreciating the sacrosanctity attached to communications between spouses as laid down by the English Commission of Common Law Procedure report in 1853, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran observed that perhaps it was time to reconsider the stand in the light of modern times.

Wife Making Frequent Discreet Phone Calls To Another Man At Odd Hours Despite Husband's Warning Is Matrimonial Cruelty: Kerala High Court

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 91

While granting a decree of divorce to a couple, the Court recently ruled that a wife making secret phone calls to a man ignoring her husband's warning against the same amounts to matrimonial cruelty. Justice Kauser Edappagth in his judgment also observed that mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Curb Operation Of Unauthorised Street Vendors In Kochi

Case Title: Rajesh R & Ors. v. Health Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Kochi & Ors. and connected matters

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

The Court issued a comprehensive list of directions to ensure strict implementation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 within the limits of Kochi Corporation and to ensure that only authorised vendors carry on street vending activities therein. Justice A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the directions in a batch of petitions pending before the Court since 2019 concerning the issue of regulation of street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation

Employee Permitted To 'Work From Home' As A Concession Can't Claim Change In Territorial Jurisdiction : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mangala v. Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 93

The Court recently held that mere permission to work from home is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court within whose jurisdiction the employee is working. Justice Sunil Thomas answered the question of jurisdiction for legal claims of remote employees and ruled that merely because they are permitted to work from home and the employer was aware that the employee was within a different jurisdiction was not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.

Kerala High Court Quashes Consumer Forum Proceedings Against Subramanian Swamy

Case Title: Dr Subramanian Swamy v. V.N. Narayanan & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 94

The Court allowed the petition moved by BJP Rajya Sabha MP and former Union Minister Dr Subramanian Swamy to quash the non-bailable warrant issued by the Thrissur Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (CDRF) against him citing that he had not received any notice of these proceedings. The Court has also quashed the Execution Proceedings pending as against Swamy after accepting his submission that he has neither received any notice of the proceedings nor engaged any lawyer to represent him there.

'Awarding 100% Marks To Every Student Defeats The Purpose Of Examination': Kerala HC Upholds State's Proposal To Alter Board Exam Pattern

Case Title: Denny Varghese & Anr. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

The Court refused to interfere with the State government's proposal to alter the examination pattern for State Board exam students this academic year as opposed to the last one. In the proposed examination pattern, 70% of the questions will be from the focus area and the rest 30% from the non-focus area. In addition, there will be 50% choice questions for focus area and non-focus area. Justice Amit Rawal opined that such a question pattern and evaluation can identify the most eligible from the rest.

Kerala High Court Upholds Reappointment Of Kannur University Vice Chancellor, Dismisses Appeal Against Single Judge Decision

Case Title: Dr Premachandran Keezhoth & Anr. v. The Chancellor, Kannur University & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

The Court has dismissed an appeal against a single judge order upholding the re-appointment of Dr Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. The issue has been gaining momentum in Kerala since this is the first time in the history of the State that a Vice-Chancellor was reappointed. Moreover, it is reported that he was reappointed into office hours after his send-off ceremony as the outgoing VC.

Admin Of WhatsApp Group Not Vicariously Liable For Objectionable Post By Group Member: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Manual v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 97

In a noteworthy decision, the Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that this was so because vicarious liability in criminal law can only be fastened when a statute prescribes so.

Kerala Football Association A Private Organization, Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: High Court Dismisses Plea Assailing ₹25K Entry Fee For State Tournament

Case Title: P.P. Thobiyas & Ors v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 98

The Court held that a writ petition is not maintainable against the Kerala Football Association since it was a private organisation and was not discharging public functions. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan held so in a petition challenging a circular issued by the Association mandating a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- with tax as eligibility criteria to participate in the State Championship League.

Kerala Co-operative Societies Act | Inquiry U/S 65(1) Can Be Based On Complaints Received By Competent Authority: High Court

Case Title: K. Sivasankaran v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 99

The Court ruled that what is expected from the competent authority while ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 on the basis of information gathered either on his own or received from other sources is that there shall be an independent and active application of mind as to whether there shall be an inquiry or not. Justice P.B. Suresh Kumar and Justice C.S. Sudha reiterated that the only requirement of law in the matter of ordering an inquiry under Section 65(1) is that the competent authority has to come to a conclusion on an active application of mind.

Kerala Town & Country Planning Act | Interim Development Order Prevails Over Old Master Plan If New Plan Hasn't Been Sanctioned Yet: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suseela v. Thiruvanathapuram Corporation & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

The Court has ruled that an Interim Development Order (IDO) issued under Section 63 of the Kerala Town and Country Planning Act, 2016 will prevail over the previous Master Plan of a city even if a new Master Plan has not been sanctioned yet. Justice T.R. Ravi ruled that although Section 36 says that the older Master Plan shall continue to be in operation until the new one is sanctioned, when an IDO has been issued, that shall take over the old Master Plan.

Claiming Adverse Possession After Encroachment Into Public Road Not Admissible: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mini & Ors. v. Assistant Executive Engineer & Ors

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 101

The Court has ruled that a petitioner claiming the right of adverse possession after encroaching into a public road cannot be treated as a usual plea of adverse possession. Holding so, Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking title over property by adverse possession when the petitioners had failed to present a prima facie case in their favour.

COVID-19 | Kerala High Court Extends Validity Of All Interim Orders Till March 16 In Lieu Of Fluctuating TPR

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

The Court extended the life of all interim orders passed by the High Court and all courts and tribunals falling under the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court for another month taking into consideration the fluctuation in the Test Positivity Rate in the State. A Full Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar, Justice Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shaji P. Chaly extended the validity of its previous order extending all interim orders till 21 February amid the Covid-19 surge in the State.

SC/ST Act | Victim's Request To Record Trial Proceedings Can't Be Dismissed Even If Sexual Offences Are Involved: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala & Nowfal

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

The Court has recently ruled that when a victim of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act makes a request to video record the trial proceedings, a court cannot turn it down even if sexual offences are involved. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that Section 15A(10) of the Act which permits video-recording of all proceedings is in consonance with Section 327(2) of CrPC which provides for in-camera trial in cases involving sexual offences since both of them were enacted to protect the interests of the victim.

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

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

'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.

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

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

Case Title: Union Bank of India v. K.J. Jose & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

The Court ruled that the question of maintainability of a writ petition can be raised by the respondents years after its admission and even if an interim relief has been granted on the plea. However, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan clarified that a high court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution should ensure that its decision is equitable to both the parties involved. The Court also suggested some of the relevant factors for high courts to exercise their discretionary power when a petition is admitted, despite there being an alternative remedy available

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

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.

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.

'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.

'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.

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.

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.

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].

'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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

'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 Significant Developments:

'Not Sure If All Ambulances Carry Genuine Patients' : Court Calls For Monitoring System

The Court orally commented that perhaps it was time to bring about a monitoring system to regulate ambulances cutting through traffic in the State, particularly in the city of Kochi. While hearing a bail application of a man alleged to have committed an offence in an ambulance, Justice P Gopinath remarked that this was an issue of immense gravity citing the rising number of similar cases being brought to the fore in the State:

"It is a very serious issue. But at the same time, how can the police regulate this? They cannot stop and inspect all the ambulances plying in the city; this could cost a life, leading to disciplinary action against the responsible officer. Everyone including the police will make way for an ambulance upon hearing its siren. But only God knows what is being transported in it. I am not sure if all these ambulances are transporting genuine patients in the first place."

[Actor Sexual Assault Case] Sufficient Reasons Required To Recall Witnesses : Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Sunil N.S @ Pulsar Suni

Further developments ensued in the sensational actress sexual case that involves Malayalam actor Dileep, as the Court observed that the prosecution should produce adequate justification for seeking to recall the witnesses in the case. Justice Kauser Edappagath reserved orders in the Criminal Miscellaneous case filed by the State against the trial court approving to collect a confidential statement from director Balachandra Kumar, who made some explosive disclosures, on January 12th.

'Filmmaker Has Artistic Freedom': Kerala High Court Impleads State Police Chief To Prove Statutory Violation In Publication Of Churuli

Case Title: Peggy Fen v. Central Board of Film Certification & Ors.

The Court suo motu impleaded the State Police Chief to file a statement to report if there was any statutory violation in exhibiting the Malayalam movie 'Churuli'. The Court passed the direction in the writ petition filed against the movie citing excessive use of abusive and obscene language. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing the matter also noted that prima facie, he was of the opinion that no statutory provision was violated by the publication of the film

Missing CPM Worker: Kerala High Court Demands Status Report On Police Investigation

Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.

The Court sought a statement from the respondents on the stage of investigation in the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran asked the respondents to file a copy of the investigation so far conducted in the matter by the next hearing date.

[K-Rail Project] All Actions Taken Preparatory, In Public Interest: Kerala Govt Submits Before High Court

Case Title: M.T Thomas v. V.P Joy

In an affidavit filed before the Court, the Chief Secretary to the Government has submitted that its actions taken in pursuance of the Semi High-Speed Railway Line Project (Silver Line Project) were only preliminary in nature and that they were all in public interest. The statement was filed in a petition seeking to initiate contempt proceedings against K-Rail for allegedly breaching its assurance not to proceed with the Silver Line project before obtaining sanction from the Centre.

Advocates Welfare Fund Scam: Kerala Bar Council Assures Cooperation With CBI Probe

The Bar Council of Kerala issued a press release disclosing that it does not plan to appeal against the High Court's decision to initiate a CBI probe into the Advocates Welfare Fund scam. In fact, it was added that the Council endorses the verdict of the Court.

Bar Council Chairman Advocate Joseph John published the press release pursuant to a recent order where the High Court directed a CBI investigation into a scam involving misappropriation of over ₹7.5 crores from the Kerala Advocates Welfare Fund. The amount was allegedly swindled through fake documents from 2007 - 2015.

State Appeals Against Single Judge Order Staying GO Fixing Bottled Water Prices; Kerala High Court Issues Notice

Case Title: State of Kerala & Ors v. Kerala Packaged Drinking Water Manufacturers Association

The Court issued notice on an appeal challenging a Single Judge order that stayed the government order fixing the price of bottled water in the State at Rs. 13 citing the State's lack of jurisdiction. However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly refused to stay the single bench decision.

The Single Judge had examined the Kerala Essential Articles Control Act 1986 and found that as per Section 3, the power to control production, supply, and distribution of essential commodities are vested with the Centre.

Kerala High Court Invites Suggestions From Lawyers To Shield Sexual Assualt Survivors From Further Trauma During Investigation

The Court reiterated its stand that survivors of sexual assault have to be thoroughly protected from further harassment or ridicule as it takes a lot of courage to come forward and say they have been attacked, and invited recommendations from all lawyers on how they can be protected from further trauma on account of the investigation process. Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked so while considering the plea of a survivor who alleged harassment from the accused as well as certain police officers.

Uthra Murder: Suraj Prefers Appeal Against His Conviction, Kerala High Court Issues Notice To State

Case Title: Suraj S. Kumar v. State of Kerala

In a further development in the Uthra murder case, the Court admitted an appeal preferred by Suraj, challenging his conviction by the Kollam Additional District and Sessions Court for throwing a starving cobra on his wife while she was asleep, to induce her death by snakebite. A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran also issued notice to the State in the matter.

Suraj was sentenced to double life imprisonment and a five lakh fine for murdering his wife by inducing a homicidal snakebite. He was also awarded 10 years and 7 years of imprisonment in two other cases for causing hurt by means of poison and destroying evidence. The sentencing was to run consecutively.

'So Much For The Kerala Model': High Court Raps State Over Lack Of Maternity Wards In A Taluk Hospital

Case Title: T.M Azad v State of Kerala & Ors.

The Court came down on the State government for the deficient infrastructure reported in a hospital, despite its highly appreciated Kerala model. Criticizing the State, Justice N Nagaresh pointed out that while it claims of the Kerala model's achievements, it was 'shameful' to see that a Taluk Headquarters hospital did not have a functional maternity ward.

The Court was adjudicating upon a petition moved through Advocate R. Rajasekharan Pillai seeking directions to the relevant State authorities to launch a maternity ward in the Taluk Headquarter Hospital in Peerumedu, equipped with an operation theatre providing all facilities and instruments.

Kerala High Court Calls For Constant Vigilance At Sabarimala After Employees Found Stealing Cash From Bhandaram

Case Title: Suo Motu v. Travancore Devaswom Board & Ors.

The Court asked the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Travancore Devaswom Board to maintain constant vigil of the entire activity in the Bhandaram at Sabarimala, after an incident of an employee stealing cash from the Bhandaram was brought to the attention of the Court.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G Ajithkumar was adjudicating upon a report filed by the Special Commissioner of Sabarimala regarding the theft of currency notes from the Bhandaram by an employee engaged in Sabarimala duty.

Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Clarify Its Stand On K-Rail SilverLine Project

Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala

The Court asked the Central government to make its stand clear regarding the K-Rail Silverline project while staying the process of laying boundary stones in violation of the Survey and Boundaries Act on the land identified for the project ahead of a social impact assessment. Justice Devan Ramachandran noted that although it is argued by the respondents that the project has been approved in principle, there was no clarity regarding the same from the Centre.

The Silver Line Project is a semi high-speed rail corridor connecting one end of the State to the other and was announced for the first time over 12 years ago by the LDF government then in power.

Development Of Roads To Be Done Considering The Future, Not Just Present Requirements : Kerala High Court

Case Title: M.P. Abu Swalih Koya Thangal v. State of Kerala

The Court suggested that the State government should consider designing roads for the future- amidst all the ongoing discussion about the future with K-Rail project SilverLine. While adjudicating upon a plea alleging that a 14 km stretch of a road development project was being done with a reduced width citing financial constraints, Justice Devan Ramachandran orally remarked:

"When you speak about the K-Rail project, you talk about the future. I am happy that someone is taking account of the future. Let's talk about the future when it comes to the roads, too."

The Court impleaded and directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the case where an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (ASI) is accused of demanding bribe for the release of two girls from a children's home to their parents. While ordering so, Justice Devan Ramachandran explained why a VACB probe was necessary in the matter and how it could serve as a lesson for other officers in the force.

Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To Former Chief Airport Officer In Sexual Assault Case

Case Title: Giri Madhusudana Rao v. State of Kerala

The Court granted anticipatory bail to former Chief Airport Officer (CAO) of the Trivandrum International Airport, Giri Madhusudana Rao in the case where he was accused of raping a lady staff working under him. Justice P. Gopinath granted the pre-arrest bail considering the age of the petitioner and his ailments. The pe-arrest bail was granted with a condition that the petitioner, although currently placed under suspension, shall not enter the workplace until the filing of the final report.

Chengara Land Agitation : Kerala High Court Condemns 20 Yrs Delay, Directs State To Notify Time Frame Required To Allot Habitable Land

Case Title: Adivasi Dalit Munneta Samiti & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors

The Court directed the State government to inform the time frame required to allot inhabitable land to the landless Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes individuals at Chengara who have been fighting for their land for two decades, which soon shaped a campaign and came to be known as the 'Chengara land agitation'. While requiring the State to disclose the name of the officer who had been entrusted with identifying and allotting such land, Justice Devan Ramachandran also reflected on the disproportionate hold up in granting benefits to those who lost their land to State acquisition:

K-Rail SilverLine Project : Kerala High Court Asks State To Explain How It Prepared Detailed Project Report Without Physical Survey

Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala

The Court directed the State government to explain its actions taken in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and to justify the manner in which the survey is conducted by its instrumentalities. Upon being informed that a survey was being conducted before a Detailed Project Report (DPR) was drafted, Justice Devan Ramachandran found it imperative for the State to explain its actions within the framework of statutory formalities.

Kerala High Court Directs State Police Chief To Enquire Into Allegations Of Media Trial In Actor Assault Case On Dileep's Plea

The Court directed the State Police Chief to enquire into the allegations raised by actor Dileep that the media was flouting the trial court's order restricting the publication of matters related to the 2017 actor assault case till the conclusion of the trial. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the allegations if found to be true, should be handled with prompt action as prescribed by law. The Judge also issued notice to ReporterTV and posted the matter to be heard after 3 weeks.

Case Title: Peter Myaliparampil v. Union of India & Anr.

The Court dismissed an appeal challenging the Single Judge order that rejected the plea challenging the photograph of Prime Minister being affixed on the Covid-19 vaccination certificates issued to citizens. The Single Judge had also imposed a whopping cost of 1 lakh on the appellant herein by the impugned order.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, while dismissing the appeal, noted that a photo is not an advertisement and that the Prime Minister has a right to give a message.

Kerala High Court Orders Dileep And Other Accused To Surrender Their Mobile Phones To Its Registrar General By 10.15 am On Monday

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

The Court directed actor Dileep and the other accused to hand over six mobile phones to its Registrar General in a sealed box by 10.15 am on Monday in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case.

Justice Gopinath P. relying on the Supreme Court decision in State of Bombay vs Kathi Kalu Oghad & Ors and a Karnataka High Court decision, observed that such surrender will not amount to an infringement of Article 20(3).

'Malls Will Start Charging For Their Lift Services Too': Kerala High Court On Lulu Mall Collecting Parking Fee

Case Title: Pauly Vadakkan v. Lulu International Shopping Mall Pvt Ltd.

The Court reiterated its prima facie view that the collection of parking fees by Lulu International shopping mall is not appropriate. It was adjudicating upon a couple of pleas alleging that the mall collecting parking fees from its customers was illegal.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while adjourning the matter to next month repeated its prime facie stand and directed the respondents to file a counter affidavit in the matter and added that if this was allowed, they will soon start charging for their lift services.

Kerala High Court Grants State 3 More Weeks To Frame Comprehensive Policy On Illegal Flag Masts

Case Title: Vishnu T.K. v. State of Kerala & Ors

The Court granted three more weeks time to the State government to draw up a comprehensive policy to deal with the menace of illegal flag masts in the State. Justice Devan Ramachandran granted the extension upon noting that it is a matter of policy and since the Additional Advocate General was not keeping well at present:

Kerala High Court Comes To The Rescue Of NEET Candidate; Holds Night Hearing To Grant Time Extension To Submit A Document

The Court held yet another night hearing at 9 pm to attend a matter where a NEET candidate sought an extension of time to file his documents. This is the second night hearing this week.

Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan granted an interim order in favour of the petitioner noting that the student is a meritorious candidate and that he was at the risk of losing a seat merely because he had failed to produce the original of a document.

'No Report That Cinema Halls Facilitated Covid-19 Clusters': Kerala High Court To Consider Plea Seeking Reopening Of Movie Theatres

Case Title: Film Exhibitors United Organisation of Kerala v. State of Kerala & Ors.

A plea has been moved in the Court seeking approval to run cinema halls in the State with 20% intake and strict adherence to Covid-19 protocol citing that other sectors are still functioning without any interdictions. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Government Pleader to get instructions and posted the matter for consideration on January 27.

The petition was filed by an organisation of film exhibitors in the State challenging the recent Government Orders dated 20th and 24th January 2022 which imposed restrictions on the functioning of movie theatres in the State in the wake of rising Covid-19 cases.

[Missing CPM Worker] 'Investigation Is Progressing': Kerala High Court Closes Wife's Habeas Corpus Plea

Case Title: Sajitha Sajeevan v. Station House Officer & Ors.

The Court disposed of the habeas corpus plea moved by a CPM worker's wife alleging that her missing husband was abducted for reasons associated with the upcoming CPM branch election, recording that the investigation was progressing in the matter.

A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran closed the writ petition after the respondents submitted a report indicating that they are carrying on with the investigation and that a man missing case was registered in the matter.

Plea Alleges Illegality In Mahindra Thar Auction At Guruvayoor: Kerala High Court Seeks Details From Devaswom Board

Case Title: Hindu Seva Kendram v. State of Kerala

The Court heard a plea alleging that the State auctioned a Mahindra Thar vehicle dedicated to the deity of Sree Krishna in Guruvayoor Temple in total violation of the provisions of the Gururvayoor Devaswom Act and the general principles of auction.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Board to produce the details of the Mahindra Thar including its price by the next hearing date.

Dileep Accuses Director Balachandrakumar Of Extortion In His Pre-Arrest Bail Plea Before Kerala High Court

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

In the application seeking anticipatory bail from the Court, Malayalam cinema actor Dileep has made several allegations against director Balachandrakumar. In his reply to a recent statement filed by the Crime Branch before the Kerala High Court, Dileep alleges that the director assured that he was close to the Bishop of Neyyattinkara, who was quite influential and had strong associations with the Chief Minister and senior police officers.

Vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Rape Case

Case Title: Sreekanth Vettiyar v. State of Kerala

Popular content creator and vlogger Sreekanth Vettiyar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail after a woman filed an official complaint accusing him of rape. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions and posted the matter to be taken up again on February 2.

Vettiyar, known in the State for his 'woke humour', was accused of having raped a woman on the pretext of marrying her. He was thereby booked under Section 376 (2)(n) of IPC.

Dileep Case : Kerala High Court Directs Handing Over Of Surrendered Mobile Phones To JFCM Aluva

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

The Court ordered that the mobile phones surrendered by the actor Dileep and other accused before the Registrar-General of the HC shall be handed over to the jurisdictional magistrate (Aluva). The accused were also directed to provide the JFCM with the unlocking pattern/number of the respective phones.

Murder Conspiracy | Kerala High Court To Pronounce Order On Dileep's Pre-Arrest Bail Plea On Monday

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

The Court will pronounce its verdict on Monday, in the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Gopinath P. heard the prosecution and the accused at length on Friday before reserving its orders.

Sabarimala Corruption: Kerala High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance Of Alleged Fake Bills, Disbanding Of Devaswom Vigilance Wing

The Court took suo motu cognizance of a news report which alleged massive corruption behind fake food bills submitted by the Travancore Devaswom Board and the disbanding of the Devaswom Vigilance Wing that immediately followed. Malayalam daily Mathrubhumi had recently reported that top officials were responsible for dissolving the Vigilance Wing apprehending arrest in case the fake bills and other irregularities are brought to light.

Decision To Shut Down Movie Theatres Taken In Public Interest, After Consultation With Experts: State Submits Before Kerala High Court

Case Title: Film Exhibitors United Organisation of Kerala v. State of Kerala & Ors.

The Kerala government in its statement filed before the High Court has attacked the maintainability of the plea seeking approval to run cinema halls with 20% intake in the State. The petition was filed by an organisation of film exhibitors in the State challenging the recent Government Orders dated 20th and 24th January 2022 which imposed restrictions on the functioning of movie theatres in the State in the wake of rising Covid-19 cases.

Kerala High Court Admits Plea Alleging Unauthorised Lab Conducting Covid Tests At Calicut Airport

Case Title: Muzammil Varikkottil v. Ministry of Civil Aviation & Others

The Court has admitted a plea alleging that an unauthorised lab is conducting Rapid-PCR Covid tests at the Calicut International Airport. The plea also challenged the airport's denial to accept the passenger's recent RT-PCR test results. Justice N. Nagaresh directed the respondents to file a counter-affidavit in the matter within 4 weeks.

MediaOne Case: Kerala High Court Calls For MHA Files Which Cited Security Reasons; Allows Channel Telecast Till Feb 7

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

The Court extended the interim order deferring the Union Government's decision to cancel the permission to telecast Malayalam news channel MediaOne till next Monday. Justice N. Nagaresh also directed the Union Government to produce before the Court the relevant files of the Ministry of Home Affairs which recommended the cancellation of the license of the channel citing national security reasons.

'Requested Govt To Implement Justice Hema Committee Report' : Kerala Women's Commission Tells High Court In WCC's Plea

Case Title: Women in Cinema Collective & Anr v. State of Kerala & Ors

The Kerala Women's Commission has filed an impleading application in the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) moved by Women in Cinema Collective (WCC) before the High Court. The plea by WCC was filed in 2018 seeking the establishment of a grievance redressal mechanism in the Association of Malayalam Movie Artists (AMMA), a body of Malayalam actors.

"Calculated Attempt To Sabotage Trial' : Dileep Moves Kerala High Court Against Further Probe Into Murder Conspiracy Case

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

Actor Dileep has moved another plea before the High Court seeking to suspend further investigation into the recent report filed by the Investigating Officer accusing the actor of conspiring to kill the officers investigating the 2017 sexual assault case. In the petition filed before the Court, he has alleged that furtherance of this 'sham investigation' infringes the right of a fair trial and added that it is an abuse of the process of law.

The Court heard the petitioners in the anticipatory bail plea moved by actor Dileep and other accused in the alleged criminal conspiracy to kill police officers investigating the sensational 2017 sexual assault case. Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai appearing for Dileep in the matter elaborately argued his case before the Court today, primarily pointing out that most of the allegations put forth by the prosecution in this case, were concocted efforts to frame the actor.

Monson Mavunkal Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case

Case Title: Monson Mavunkal v. State of Kerala & Anr.

Infamous fake antique dealer Monson Mavunkal has approached the Court seeking bail in the case where a woman has accused him of sexually abusing her. Justice Gopinath P. directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions in the matter and posted it on February 15. According to Mavunkal, the woman was anxious of being implicated as a co-accused in various financial crimes and this prompted her to turn against him.

[MediaOne Ban] Kerala High Court Reserves Order On Appeal

Case Title: Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited v. Union of India

The Court reserved its orders in 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. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly heard the matter at length. The Court prima facie opined that from a bare reading of the provisions it seemed that revocation was a penalty.

Also Read: 'Victimised For Fair & Genuine News Reporting': MediaOne Moves Appeal Before Kerala High Court Against Centre's Ban

Plea Against Lokayukta Ordinance: Kerala High Court Seeks State Response

Case Title: R.S. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

The Court admitted a plea assailing the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Lokayukta Act for allegedly diluting the judicial powers of the Lokayukta introduced by way of an ordinance and sought a response from the State government. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S Manikumar and Justice Shaji P Chaly also passed an interim order declaring that any decision taken by the authority constituted by way of the impugned ordinance during the proceedings will be subject to the outcome of the petition.

Also Read: Amendment To S.14 Of Kerala Lokayukta Act Unconstitutional, Dilutes Separation Of Powers: Plea Before High Court

Kerala High Court Directs To Implead Central Govt As Party To Plea For Compensating Families Of Those Who Died Of Covid-19 Abroad

Case Title: Pravasi Legal Cell v. State of Kerala

The Court asked the State to produce on record the letter penned by Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan addressed to the Prime Minister apparently seeking permission to disburse amounts from the State Disaster Funds to families of those Indians, who died abroad of Covid-19. Justice N Nagaresh also directed the petitioner to implead the Central government and the National Disaster Management Authority in their plea seeking a declaration that the family members of a non-resident of the State, who died abroad due to COVID-19, are entitled to ex-gratia relief of Rs. 50,000.

Plea Before Kerala High Court Accuses State Electricity Board Of Illegally Creating Massive Financial Liabilities On Consumers

Case Title: Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association v. State of Kerala

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has reached the Court alleging that the Kerala State Electricity Board is running on heavy loss due to its unjustified salary structure which is thereby causing the liability to be passed on to the consumers. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly admitted the PIL filed by Kerala High Tension & Extra High Tension Industrial Electricity Consumers' Association.

Actor Dileep Approaches Kerala High Court Seeking To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case

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

Malayalam actor Dileep has approached the Court yet again, seeking to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for allegedly conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. The plea filed through Advocate Philip T. Varghese has accused the filing of the impugned FIR as a vindictive, ill-motivated, pre-determined and malafide act executed with oblique motives.

Public Prosecutor, DGP Write To Kerala HC Registrar General Accusing Counsel Of Submitting Forged Printout Of Case Status

Additional Public Prosecutor P Narayanan along with the DGP has penned a letter to the Registrar General of Kerala High Court accusing a counsel of the Court of forging a case status. On the day the accused was arrested, his counsel approached the Station House Officer alleging that there was an interim order passed by the Court prohibiting coercive steps in the matter. It is alleged that upon enquiry through the Registry, it was confirmed that no such interim order had been issued by the High Court in the said bail application.

Actor Assault Case: Survivor Seeks To Be Heard In Dileep's Plea Before Kerala High Court Against Further Probe

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

The plot thickens in the 2017 sexual assault case as developments ensued before the Court as the survivor in the case filed an impleading petition in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 case. Upon the actress seeking to be heard in the matter, Justice Kauser Edappagath adjourned the case to be called on February 21.

Kerala High Court Lawyers Stage Protest Against Proposal To Amend Civil Rules Of Practice, Limit Advocates' Fees

In a major setback for the legal fraternity in Kerala, the Additional Chief Secretary to Government has recently addressed a letter to the Chairman of Kerala Bar Council with a proposal to amend the Rules regarding fees payable to Advocates in the State. Members of the State Bar Council and the Kerala High Court Advocates Association had declared an All Kerala Protest Day on 17th February to mark their protest against the proposed amendments by wearing protest badges while appearing before the court.

COVID-19 | Kerala High Court To Continue Virtual Hearings For One Month Or Till TPR Drops To 10%

Through a notice issued by the Registrar General, the Court has notified its decision to continue virtual hearing of cases amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. The notice further declared that the earlier arrangements of online hearing will continue for a month or until the Test Positivity Rate drops below 10 per cent, whichever is earlier. At present, the TPR in the State is over 15%.

'Counterblast To Disclosure Against Dileep' : Director Balachadrakumar Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Pre-Arrest Bail In Rape Case

Case Title: P. Balachandrakumar alias Balu v. State of Kerala

Malayalam film director Balachandrakumar has moved the Court seeking anticipatory bail apprehending arrest in a case where he has been accused of raping a woman in 2010 and recording the incident on his cellphone. The director has been charged under Section 376 (i) of IPC (sexual assault) and Section 66 E of the Information Technology Act (violation of privacy).

'Advocate Clerks Reduced To Marginal Players In Legal System': Plea Before Kerala High Court Seeks Their Involvement In E-Filing Procedure

Case Title: Prathap P. v. State of Kerala

A plea has been moved in the Court seeking the inclusion of advocate clerks in the new regime of Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021 and digitalised procedures. Justice N. Nagaresh on Friday admitted the case. The petitioner, who is an advocate clerk himself, has alleged that the introduction of e-filing procedure in the Courts across the State has brought in an adverse impact on the fundamental rights of the clerks guaranteed under Article 14, 19 (1) g and 21 of the Constitution.

Kerala High Court Asks State To Put A Hold On Its Proposal To Amend Advocate Fee Rule

The Court has decided to request the State government hold off on its proposal to amend the Kerala Advocate Fee Rule till the Court's Rule Committee comes to a conclusion on the same. The intimation was made through a notice issued by the Registrar General of the High Court on Friday, which came as a huge relief to the lawyering community in the State. The notice stated that the Rule Committee had now fixed its meeting on 22 February to consider the matter after consultation with the representatives of the Bar.

Kerala High Court To Resume Physical Hearing From Monday, February 28

The Court has issued a notice communicating its decision to resume physical sitting from Monday, February 28, 2022. This comes days after it issued a notice announcing that virtual hearing of cases shall continue till mid-March amid the steady hike of Covid-19 cases in the State. However, it was clarified that physical sitting will resume once the Test Positivity Rate in the State drops below 10%.

'Cheap Publicity Stunt, Judges Are Not Puppets': Kerala High Court Pulls Up Petitioner Who Filed A Second Plea Alleging Violation Of Covid-19 Curbs By Political Parties

Case Title: Arun Raj P v. State of Kerala & Ors

The Court lashed out at an advocate clerk for filing a second Public Interest Litigation (PIL) alleging violation of the order issued by Chairperson of State Disaster Management Authority imposing restrictions on political gatherings in the State. Calling it a 'cheap publicity stunt', a Division Bench of Justice Vinod Chandran and Justice C. Jayachandran pulled up the petitioner and warned him of dire consequences if this was repeated in future.

TDS Collection U/S 194N Income Tax Act Sub Judice: Kerala High Court Stays Demand Notice Issued To State Co-operative Bank

Case Title: Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr.

The Court stayed the demand notice issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax asking the State Co-operative Bank to pay the outstanding amount for the financial year 2019-20 in a plea moved by the said Bank. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the interim order considering that the matter relating to the collection of Tax Deduction at Source (TDS) on interests by the Co-operative Banks is sub-judice before the Court.

Kerala High Court Allows Two More Parties To Be Impleaded Into Matter Where Devotees Allegedly Made To Wash Feet Of 12 Brahmins At Temple

The Court impleaded two more parties to the suo motu matter where devotees were allegedly made to wash the feet of 12 brahmins for the atonement of their sins in Sree Poornathrayeesa Temple, Tripunithura. A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.G. Ajithkumar allowed the impleading applications filed by an NGO and Akhila Kerala Thantri Mandalam and directed them to file their affidavits by the next posting date.

'There Can't Be Two Laws; One For The Powerful, Another For The Ordinary' : Kerala HC Pulls Up State Over Illegal Flag Posts By Political Parties

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

The Court lashed out at the State government for its incapability to prevent unauthorised flag masts being erected at different parts of the State by political parties, despite its specific and repeated orders against the same. Justice Devan Ramachandran reiterated that every flag post put up without the requisite permission is illegal and that influential people should not be allowed to get away with it.

Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case

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

The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by actor Dileep seeking to suspend further investigation into the 2017 sexual assault case. Justice Kauser Edappagath extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The case made headlines once again in 2022 when film director Balachandrakumar made shocking disclosures against the actor bringing out new allegations against him.

Also Read: "Heinous Crime Committed Against Me, Have Right To Seek Truth": Survivor Before Kerala HC In Dileep's Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Sexual Assault Case

Also Read: 'Every Accused Has Right To Fair Trial': Dileep Before Kerala High Court In His Plea To Suspend Further Probe In Actor Assault Case

Virtual Hearing | Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Raises Complaints About Entry Restrictions To Chief Justice's Bench

The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has addressed a letter to the Registrar General complaining about the prevailing entry restrictions to the virtual hearings happening at the Chief Justice's court. It has been mentioned in the letter that the Association has been receiving several complaints from advocates, frequently encountering difficulties entering the Virtual Court proceedings of Court 1. This is the Court of Chief Justice S Manikumar, where he presides with Justice Shaji P Chaly.

Kerala Police Notice To Senior Advocate B Raman Pillai Evokes Protest By Lawyers

The Executive Committee of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association conducted a protest meeting against the notice issued by the Crime Branch to Senior Advocate B. Raman Pillai at the portico of the Court. This comes after the Crime Branch issued a notice under Section 160 CrPC (requiring attendance of witness) to the senior advocate notifying him to be prepared to give a statement in a crime related to witness tampering in the 2017 actor sexual assault case.

Russia-Ukraine Conflict | Plea In Kerala High Court Alleges Discrimination Against Stranded Indian Students, Seeks Steps For Repatriation

Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocate's Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Kerala High Court Advocate's Association (KHCAA) has moved the High Court seeking the repatriation of students from Kerala stuck in Ukraine amid the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Justice N. Nagaresh permitted the petitioners to pass on whatever information they have regarding the students to the Assistant Solicitor General to do whatever possible to facilitate their expeditious repatriation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Case Title: Roy J. Vayalat v. State of Kerala

The Court dismissed the anticipatory bail applications moved by No.18 hotel owner Roy J Vayalat and his friend Syju M.Thankachan in a POCSO case where they have been accused of sexually assaulting a minor girl at the hotel. However, the third accused Anjali has been granted pre-arrest bail. Justice Gopinath P granted pre-arrest to the third accused subject to conditions considering the fact that she is a woman aged 24 years.

Petition Listed After Prolonged Delay Despite Repeated Requests By Counsel; Kerala High Court Seeks Response From Registry

Case Title: Mathew Z Pulikunnel v Chief Justice of India

The Court directed its Registrar (Judicial) to explain why a couple of writ petitions were not listed before a Bench on time despite all the defects being cured and recurring requests from the counsel for the petitioner. A Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P sought a response from the Registry having found force in the submission of the petitioner that such delay could be fatal to the litigant's right to access to justice.

'Don't Employ A Hypertechical Approach' : Kerala High Court Directs State To Re-Consider INA Veteran's Application For Pension

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.

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.

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.

Twenty20 Worker's Murder: Kerala High Court Allows Father's Plea To Transfer Case From Ernakulam Sessions Court

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

'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.

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

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

'Can't Ignore Sentiments Of General Public' : Kerala High Court Asks If Survey Stones Engraved With 'K-Rail' Are Authorised

Case Title: Muralikrishnan v. State of Kerala & connected matters

The Court reprimanded the State government over how it was progressing with the survey in furtherance of its K-Rail Silver Line project and directed it to justify the manner in which the survey stones were being installed by its instrumentalities. Justice Devan Ramachandran raised concern over the ongoing Social Impact Assessment that the authorities were conducting in many parts of the State by installing yellow boundary stones marked K-Rail on them.

Also Read: 'Why Concrete Poles Engraved With 'K-Rail' Used Instead Of Ordinary Survey Stones?' Kerala High Court Raises Further Queries On SilverLine

High Court Refuses To Grant Interim Stay On Operation Of Kerala Maritime Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022

Case Title: M.K. Uthaman v. State of Kerala

The Court has declined to grant interim relief in the plea challenging the constitutionality of the Kerala Maritime Board (Amendment) Ordinance, 2022. Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that since only one of the Board members had raised a grievance, the matter could be decided after the vacation while adding that a stay was not necessary for the meantime since the Board was not in existence yet.

Municipality Secretary Arrested & Produced Before Kerala High Court For Repeatedly Failing To Appear In Contempt Case

Case Title: Suma Devi v. S. Sherla Beegam

Pathanamthitta Municipal Corporation Secretary Sherla Beegam was arrested and produced before the Court in a contempt case for her failure to appear before the court despite being summoned several times. After she was produced, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan asked her not to repeat this behaviour in the future and to seek an appeal or review if she was not content with the order passed in the case instead of refusing to cooperate with the Court proceedings.

Kerala High Court Reserves Order In Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder Conspiracy Case

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

The Court reserved orders in the plea moved by Dileep to quash the FIR filed by the Crime Branch of Kerala Police against him and five others for conspiring to murder the investigation officials in the 2017 actor rape case, in which Dileep is facing trial as the chief conspirator. Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A extensively heard all the parties in detail over a period of three days before reserving verdict in the case. The Judge said that the order will be delivered within a week. The prosecution has undertaken not to file the final report in this case before that.

Also Read: 'Atleast Transfer Case To CBI For Fair Investigation': Dileep Before Kerala HC In Plea To Quash FIR In Murder-Conspiracy Case

Also Read: Can Mere Utterances Qualify As Conspiracy? Kerala High Court Asks State In Dileep's Plea To Quash FIR In Murder-Conspiracy Case

Nun Rape Case : State Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Bishop Franco Mulakkal's Acquittal

Case Title: State of Kerala v. Bishop Franco Mulakkal

In a much-anticipated move, the State has filed an appeal against the decision of the Additional District and Sessions Court acquitting Bishop Franco Mulakkal of the Catholic Church in the nun rape case. The Additional District and Sessions Court in Kottayam had in January acquitted Mulakkal in the case finding the survivor's testimony to be unreliable.

Pink Police Harassment: State Urges Kerala High Court To Let Concerned Officer Pay The Compensation Ordered By Single Judge

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

The State government argued before the Court that the concerned pink police officer who harassed a minor girl and her father last year should pay the compensation ordered by the Single Judge. (Pink police is a special women protection squad of Kerala police). The said officer was found guilty of having harassed them in public gaze casting accusations of theft on the duo and the video of the incident had also garnered public attention.

Next Story