June 27 To July 3, 2022
Case Title: Anu Mathew v. state of kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
Judge PV Kunhikrishnan departed from the law established by the High Court Coordinating Bench last week that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has no restrictive mandate that a person outside of India cannot apply for early bail. While granting advance bail to actor-producer Vijay Babu in a rape case, Judge Bechu Kurian Thomas had ruled that a person who is outside India can very well file an application for advance bail, as long as that before the final hearing, the accused is in India. .
Courts should strive to settle a case on merits rather than default: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Zerita Ashlen Rocha & Anr v. Ann Mary Varghese
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
The High Court has ruled that courts should attempt to decide cases on the merits rather than by default and avoid using a hypertechnical approach when hearing a case. Judge CS Dias ruled after observing that a trial court had failed to timely submit a written statement in a lawsuit simply because it contained certain formal defects.
Magistrate courts should issue speaking orders in main case and counter-case, refrain from dismissing counter-cases on flimsy grounds: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Amir & Anr v. state of kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
The High Court has set out the procedure to be followed when there is a case and a counter case and the trial court is of the opinion that the counter case should be dismissed. Judge PV Kunhikrishnan opined that trial courts should refrain from taking shortcuts by dismissing the counter case on flimsy grounds through silent orders.
Arnesh Kumar Arrested in Violation: Kerala High Court Requests Explanation from Judicial Magistrate for Accused’s Pre-trial Detention
Case Title: Gopika Jayan & Anr v Faisal MA
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
The Court recently demanded an explanation from a judicial magistrate for dismissing a defendant without ensuring that the arrest was carried out in accordance with the principles set out by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. A divisional bench of Judge Alexander Thomas and Judge Shoba Annamma Eapen also issued a contempt notice to the arresting officer while condemning his lack of response in the proceedings.
The right to worship is a civil right subject to restrictions imposed by the management committee of the temple: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Suo Motu v. The Managing Committee & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
The High Court recently ordered the Management Committee of Guruvayur Devaswom to ensure that any entry restrictions imposed at the Nalambalam Temple of Guruvayur Sree Krishna are strictly adhered to and not flouted by any individual including its members, trustees or former officers. The Divisional Bench of Judge Anil K. Narendran and Judge PG Ajithkumar also ruled that a worshiper was bound to exercise his right to worship subject to prevailing traditions and restrictions.
Non-compliance with S.279, 281 CrPC only irregularity but not license to violate it: Kerala High Court
Case Title: KB Rasheed v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
The High Court has ruled that failure to interpret the evidence against the accused in the language he knows, as required by sections 279 and 281 of the CrPC, may be a mere impropriety, but the prosecution no is not authorized to violate these provisions. Judge PG Ajithkumar observed this in the light of the precedents which establish that failure to comply with sections 279(1), 279(2) or 281(4) is a mere irregularity, and that unless a prejudice be caused to the accused, such irregularity shall not completely vitiate the trial.
Young minds develop negative notions of justice delivery system: Kerala HC suggests introducing child friendly chambers in family courts
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
The Kerala High Court has suggested introducing child friendly rooms in all family courts in the state after finding that they were operating with inadequate infrastructure and facilities. The Court thus ordered the Clerk of the District Judicial Office to submit a report on the number of POCSO courts operating in close proximity to all family courts and to explore the possibility of dedicating a separate room in all family courts. . A justice division bench A Muhamed Mustaque and Judge CS Dias observed that cluttered and overcrowded premises often frighten young children who are forced to come to court with a poor idea of the justice delivery system in the country .
Kerala High Court Requests Board of Censorship to Decide Objection Filed Against Prithviraj-Starrer ‘Kaduva’
Case Title: Jose Kuruvinakkunnel v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
The High Court has asked the Central Board of Film Certification to rule on the objection filed before it challenging the proposed theatrical release of Prithviraj’s Malayalam film starring ‘Kaduva’. Judge VG Arun also asked the authority to make an independent decision on this after personally hearing the parties, apart from the civil court’s findings on the film’s release.
Potential Cabinet documents are yet to be presented to Council of Ministers exempt from disclosure under RTI Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jayachandran v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
The High Court has ruled that potential cabinet documents which have not yet been presented to Cabinet are exempt from disclosure under the Right to Information Act. Section 8(1)(i) of the RTI Act exempts disclosure of cabinet documents, including records of deliberations of Cabinet, secretaries and other officials. Judge Murali Purushothaman held that such an exemption also applies to “potential” cabinet documents since, if disclosure of information is permitted before it reaches the Council, the exemption provision under section 8(1)(i) of the law will be rejected.
Plea alleging infringement of rights conferred under Industrial Colony Maintainable U/Art 226 only if traceable to common law: High Court of Kerala
Case Title: Bharat Petroleum Corporation & Anr v. Saju AR & Ors.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The High Court has held that a written application in cases where an employee actually seeks to enforce rights conferred by virtue of an industrial settlement is not admissible in a High Court if the rights in question can only be awarded to the colony and not to a commune or civil law. A divisional bench of Judge AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Judge Mohammed Nias CP ruled that in labor matters the origin of the right allegedly violated decides whether a High Court should exercise its discretionary remedy under Section 226 of the Constitution to hear a petition filed by an employee alleging a violation of his rights by the employer.
Cannot refer a dispute to arbitration unless there is a clear and unequivocal denial of a right: Kerala High Court