Tag Archives: #keralahighcourt

Case Title: Ambika B. v. State of Kerala & Ors.

Bench : P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE

C.S.SUDHA, JUDGE.

Date : 3RD DAY OF July, 2023.

Facts:

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to produce her son, Ajeesh, who was detained under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007.
The detention order (Ext.P1) stated that Ajeesh, a known rowdy, needed to be detained to prevent him from committing further anti-social activities.
Ext.P1 order mentioned Ajeesh’s involvement in Crime No.360 of 2022 and stated that he was released on bail on 24.08.2022.
The sponsoring authority recommended Ajeesh’s detention under the Act on 22.09.2022, and after obtaining additional particulars, the detention order was issued on 07.01.2023. The detention was confirmed by the government on 02.03.2023 for a period of six months from the date of detention.
The petitioner raised several grounds to challenge the detention order, including unreasonable delay, non-compliance of procedural requirements, and failure to consider the detenu’s representations.

Judgement:

The court examined the arguments and perused the files presented by the parties.
The court found that a copy of the detention order and supporting documents were forwarded to the State Government and the State Police Chief on the date of the order itself, refuting the petitioner’s claim of non-compliance with reporting requirements.
The court observed that the detenu had submitted representations to the government and the Advisory Board, and there was no mention of illegible documents hindering his right to effective representation.
The court further noted that the representations submitted by the detenu were considered by the government and the Advisory Board before confirming the detention order.
Regarding the delay in issuing the detention order, the court acknowledged the need for a live and proximate link between the detenu’s prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention.
The court found that the delay from the date of Ajeesh’s release on bail until the recommendation for detention (24.08.2022 to 22.09.2022) was reasonable.
However, the court held that the delay from 24.08.2022 to 07.01.2023, during which additional particulars were sought, was unreasonable and raised doubts about the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority.
The court quashed the detention order and directed Ajeesh’s immediate release from the Central Prison, Viyur, unless his detention was required for other reasons. Overall, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the detention order.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

6 Jul

The Kerala High Court warns prison officials against unnecessary delays and detention of lawyers visiting clients in jail.

Case Title: Thushar Nirmal Sarathy v. State of Kerala

Bench : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE

Date : 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

Facts:

A lawyer filed a writ petition regarding the denial of permission to meet his client, a convicted prisoner undergoing life imprisonment at Central Prison, Poojappura.
The lawyer sought permission to meet the client for the purpose of signing legal documents.
The court acknowledged the importance of lawyers in the judicial process and their role as officers of the court.

Analysis:

The court recognized the significance of lawyers in the judicial system, as they assist in reaching the correct conclusions and ensuring a fair trial.
The court expressed concern over any unnecessary delays or restrictions faced by lawyers when visiting prisons to meet their clients.
The court emphasised the constitutional right of prisoners to legal assistance and stated that prisoners’ fundamental rights are not completely extinguished and are subject to judicial oversight.
The court referred to previous judgments highlighting the importance of prisoners’ rights to consult legal advisers and the duty of prison authorities to provide reasonable facilities for interviews, communication, and legal aid.
The court cited relevant sections and rules of the Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Act, 2010, and the Kerala Prisons Rules, 1958, affirming prisoners’ rights to access legal assistance and engage in correspondence.

Judgement:

The court directed the prison authority (third respondent) to ensure that the client’s papers are signed if the client is willing to do so.
The third respondent submitted an affidavit expressing regret for any inconvenience caused to the petitioner lawyer, stating that the incident was not intentional.
The court accepted the affidavit and noted that the petitioner’s grievance had been redressed, leading to the closure of the writ petition.
The court emphasised that prison authorities should assist prisoners in meeting their lawyers and ensure that lawyers are given due respect without unnecessary detention.
The court suggested the issuance of a circular by the concerned authority to all jails in the state, reinforcing the rights of lawyers visiting prisons for professional purposes.

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

6 Jul

Gold Smuggling Cumulative Value of Illegal Import by Persons With Common Intention To Determine Whether Offence Bailable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pulikkippoyil Sharafudheen & Anr. v. Superintendent of Customs

Bench : BECHU KURIAN THOMAS JUDGE

Date : 27.06.2023

Facts:

The petitioners, a husband and wife, were indicted under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1952, for allegedly importing gold with a market price exceeding Rupees One Crore. They were taken into custody on 18.05.2023 and filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

According to the information received by the Air Intelligence Unit of the Air Customs, International Airport, Calicut, the petitioners were intercepted at Calicut Airport on 16-05-2023. After a thorough search, the customs officers seized 950 gms of gold from the first petitioner and 1198 gms of gold from the second petitioner. The total value of the seized gold was Rs. 1,20,90,456/- in the domestic market. The petitioners were arrested, and their bail applications were rejected by the Magistrate Court and the Sessions Court.

The petitioners argued that the offences under the Act are generally bailable, except for those specified as non-bailable. They contended that individually, the quantity of gold seized from each petitioner falls below Rupees One Crore, making the offence bailable. They also mentioned their family responsibilities, the absence of previous criminal records, and the period of detention already undergone as reasons for granting bail.

The respondent, the Customs Department, opposed the bail application. They argued that the offence becomes non-bailable if the market price of the illegally imported goods exceeds Rupees One Crore. Since the petitioners, being husband and wife, collectively imported gold worth more than Rupees One Crore, they should not be granted bail. The respondent also highlighted the petitioners’ admission of their involvement in smuggling, the recovery of incriminating documents, and the alleged lack of cooperation in the investigation.

Judgement:

The court examined the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and concluded that if goods that are misdeclared, duty evaded, or imported illegally have a market price exceeding Rupees One Crore, the offence becomes non-bailable. In this case, the gold seized collectively from the petitioners had a value exceeding Rupees One Crore, even though individually, the value of gold recovered from each petitioner was below the threshold.

The court acknowledged the respondent’s argument that smugglers are using family members as carriers to split the gold into quantities below Rupees One Crore, evading the non-bailable offence provision. Considering the intent behind the amendment to the Customs Act, which aimed to curb smuggling and the economic impact, the court emphasised that innovative attempts to bypass the law should not be overlooked.

The court also held that if more than one person acts in concert to evade customs duty, the combined value of the goods can be attributed to each person individually. The definition of “person” in the General Clauses Act includes a body of persons, such as a family, thereby supporting the interpretation that the offence can apply collectively to the petitioners.

Based on these considerations, the court denied the bail application, noting that the offences alleged against the petitioners were non-bailable due to the cumulative value of the gold seized collectively from them. The court highlighted the importance of curbing smuggling and avoiding interpretations that defeat the purpose of the law.

WRITTEN BY- ANVITHA RAO

5 Jul

Kerala High Court orders the state to take action against municipal corporations that fail to implement a stray dog action plan.

Bench : A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. & GOPINATH P., J.

Case Title: In Re Bruno v. Union of India

Date : 27th day of June, 2023

Facts –

Several applications (I.A.Nos.37, 38, 39, and 40) have been filed in connection with a legal case (W.P.(C).No.13204 of 2021).
The applications sought that certain people be added as extra parties to the lawsuit and that additional documents be accepted as evidence.
Because the court granted these motions, the sought individuals were added as extra parties, and the additional papers were accepted as evidence.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation rescinded a circular that previously prevented EPFO Staff quarters occupants from keeping dogs.
The court’s order included the Kerala State Electricity Board as an extra party to the dispute.
The court demanded an affidavit from the Additional Advocate General regarding Municipal Corporations’ efforts to establish stray dog shelters and conduct mass vaccination initiatives, as mandated by a government directive.
A Committee of Experts was formed to explore and report on the potential of releasing elephants kidnapped from the wild and held in captivity.

Analysis:

The court granted the different petitions for impleadment and acceptance of new documents, therefore broadening the scope of the writ petition.
The Employees Provident Fund Organisation’s deletion of the circular signals a shift in their stance regarding dogs in EPFO staff apartments.
The inclusion of the Kerala State Electricity Board on its own initiative implies their involvement or relevance to the issues made in the writ suit.
The court has taken note of media reports on dog bite incidences and has asked an affidavit from the Additional Advocate General outlining steps taken by Municipal Corporations in response to a Government Order on shelters and vaccination drives for stray dogs.
The Committee of Experts has been tasked with examining and reporting on issue.

Judgement:

Applications for inclusion and acceptance of additional documents are permitted.
The Circular barring pets in EPFO Staff quarters has been revoked.
The Kerala State Electricity Board has been added as a respondent.
The Additional Advocate General is directed to produce an affidavit on Municipal Corporations’ actions involving shelters and stray dog vaccination drives.
The Committee of Experts has been tasked with investigating and reporting on the prospect of releasing trapped elephants.

WRITTEN BY – ANVITHA RAO

5 Jul

In a contempt case, the Kerala High Court orders the administration of Lakshadweep.

Blog #animalsandbirds, #keralahighcourt, healthcare

Case Title: Dr. C.P. Abdul Kabeer v. Shashank Mani Tripathi IAS & Ors.

Bench : THE HON’BLE JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE AND JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS

Date : 27th day of June 2023

Facts:

The petitioner’s counsel points out that the Lakshadweep Administration has not taken steps to engage veterinary doctors for the healthcare of animals and birds in Lakshadweep, despite a previous court directive on March 31, 2022.
The learned Standing Counsel argues that steps are being taken, but the petitioner’s counsel disagrees.
On March 30, 2023, the court passed an order for interim arrangements to make veterinary surgeons available, but the Lakshadweep Administration has not provided any suggestions or taken action.
If the Lakshadweep Administration fails to appoint veterinary doctors within three weeks (either on a contract or permanent basis), the 1st respondent (representing the Lakshadweep Administration) will have to personally appear before the court.

Analysis:

The petitioner’s counsel raises the issue of the Lakshadweep Administration’s failure to engage veterinary doctors for animal and bird healthcare.
The court had previously issued directives in this regard, but the Lakshadweep Administration has allegedly not complied.
The learned Standing Counsel claims that steps are being taken, but the petitioner’s counsel disputes this.
The court expresses dissatisfaction with the response and lack of suggestions from the Lakshadweep Administration.
The court has set a deadline for the appointment of veterinary doctors and warns of potential consequences if the administration fails to comply.

Judgement:

If the Lakshadweep Administration does not appoint veterinary doctors within three weeks, whether on a contract or permanent basis, the 1st respondent (representing the administration) must personally appear before the court.
The matter is scheduled to be heard again on a specific date.