Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Kerala High Court held that in cases involving child victims, expressions used to describe the act of sexual assault must be interpreted in the factual context rather than through strict anatomical distinctions.
The Kerala High Court held that foreign lawyers cannot examine witnesses before an Advocate Commissioner appointed for execution of a letter of request issued by a foreign court under the Hague Convention. The recording evidence before a Commissioner is a litigious function forming part of the practice of law in India and falls within an area reserved exclusively for advocates enrolled under the Advocates Act, 1961.
Kerala HC stated that the duty of the Court is to uphold the democracy and ensure that the democratic procedures are strictly followed. However, in extraordinary situation, Court must take extraordinary decision to protect the democratic principles and people’s mandate.
The proceedings arose out of a public speech delivered by Congress MP Kumbakudi Sudhakaran on 3 August 2019. During the speech, he made remarks concerning the Judges who had rendered the judgment.
In a writ petition challenging an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission directing payment of balance gratuity to a retired employee, the Court held that disputes relating to gratuity and other service benefits arise out of an employer-employee relationship and do not give rise to a consumer dispute under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Kerala High Court emphasised that the welfare of the child is paramount consideration. While courts may impose safeguards when permitting a child to be taken abroad, such conditions must be reasonable and capable of compliance. Onerous financial conditions that effectively deny the child better care and educational opportunities cannot be sustained.
In the present case, an alleged promise of marriage made was by a man who was already married. The Court examined whether such a promise could amount to “deceitful means” and the applicability of the bar contained under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
“An incapacity for a second marriage for a certain period does not have the effect of treating the former marriage as subsisting. This settled position in law would suffice to reject the argument of the husband that the second marriage was void since it was bigamous in nature.”
The Court observed that a citizen cannot claim an unrestricted right to engage in any activity merely because it is not expressly prohibited by law; Constitutional freedoms must be balanced against societal interests and corresponding civic obligations.
The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction of a Madrassa teacher for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC, and Juvenile Justice Act, holding that a child survivor’s reliable and consistent testimony can independently sustain a conviction.
A party that initially chose a retired Judge as sole arbitrator cannot later insist that only a technical expert can adjudicate because the dispute is factual in nature — the Kerala High Court directed the KHHAC to nominate a former Judge as presiding arbitrator, leaving it open to the tribunal to seek expert assistance on technical issues.
Addressing the grave allegations in the Balaramapuram child murder case, the Kerala High Court held that despite the brutal nature of the offence, the absence of direct evidence linking the mother to the act and her delayed implication warranted her release on bail.
Observing that a birth certificate is a person’s first public identity document and that leaving the father’s name blank could inflict lasting psychological and social harm upon the child, the Kerala High Court directed the inclusion of the biological father’s name in the birth certificate.
Keral High Court viewed that even if the Travancore Devaswom Manual provides for the issuance of special orders, such provision cannot be construed as granting a blanket exemption from compliance with financial control mechanism.
Kerala High Court, exercising habeas corpus jurisdiction, intervened in a custody dispute involving unlawful removal of a minor child in violation of a Family Court decree, and ultimately directed restoration of custody to the mother, emphasising that such decrees cannot be circumvented except through due process of law.
The Kerala High Court upheld Section 104(1-A) of the Industrial Relations Code as a valid transitory provision, holding that allowing existing Labour Tribunals to continue until new bodies are constituted is neither manifestly arbitrary nor unconstitutional.
“Relying on earlier precedent, the High Court directed authorities to process the marriage immediately after the statutory notice period.”
Justice Bhatti served as Chief Justice of Kerala High Court for 1 month before being elevated to the Supreme Court on 14 July 2023.
The Court clarified that Section 104(1-A), IR Code starts with a non-obstante clause, thereby enabling it to operate even if there is any contrary or inconsistent provision contained in the same statute.
It was argued before the Court that the offences alleged against the appellants were very serious, and they can even be sentenced to imprisonment for life if the charges are proved.