Know Thy Judge | Justice Chudalayil Thevan Ravikumar

“Law is long but life is short”

Justice C.T. Ravikumar

P.A. Sidhartha Menon v. Deputy Superintendence of Police,

2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24286


Justice C.T. Ravikumar was born on January 06, 1960 in Peermadu, Kerala. He Graduated in Zoology from Bishop Moore College, Mavelikara and obtained his LL.B degree from Government Law College, Calicut. He was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala on July 12, 1986, and commenced his practice at Mavelikara Courts, and later shifted to Kerala High Court.

♦Did You Know? Justice Ravikumar shifted his practice from Mavelikkara to Ernakulam on the advice of former Supreme Court Chief Justice, Justice K G Balakrishnan.[1]

Justice Ravikumar served as Government Pleader and was then appointed as Senior Government Pleader and later appointed as Special Government Pleader in the High Court of Kerala.

He was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Kerala on January 5, 2009 and as a permanent judge on December 15, 2010. He took oath as a judge, Supreme Court of India on August 31, 2021 after serving as High Court judge for over 12 years.[2]

 


Notable Judgments


♦Did You Know? Justice C T Ravikumar had refused to hear 50 petitions relating to renewal of licenses of 418 bars in different parts of the state after an advocate visited him at his residence to talk about the case.[3]


Union of India v. Alapan Bandyopadhyay, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 16

Setting aside a Calcutta High Court verdict which had quashed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) transferring a case filed by former West Bengal Chief Secretary Alapan Bandyopadhyay from Kolkata to Delhi, a Division Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., held that the Calcutta High Court did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the plea by Bandyopadhyay.


Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Ankita Sinha, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 897

The Bench of A.M. Khanwilkar, Hrishikesh Roy* and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ., considered the question, Whether the National Green Tribunal has the power to exercise Suo Motu jurisdiction in the discharge of its functions under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010?

“NGT, with the distinct role envisaged for it, can hardly afford to remain a mute spectator when no-one knocks its door.”

“…adopt an interpretation which sustains the spirit of public good and not render the environmental watchdog of our country toothless and ineffective.”

Read More…


V.M. Mathew v. National Highway Authority of India, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 387

The Division Bench of C. T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal*, JJ., partly allowed the instant petition filed under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and held that even in the absence of specific plea or proof, the appellant would be entitled to get solatium and interest on solatium as provided in Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest in terms of proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act.

Read More…


Eliyamma v. Deputy Collector, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 80

Partially allowing the instant appeal challenging the correctness of the orders of the District Judge whereby the District Judge had declined to interfere with the arbitral award, a Division Bench comprising of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal*, JJ., held that even in the absence of specific plea or proof, the appellants were entitled to claim solatium and interest on solatium under Section 23(1A) and (2) and interest in terms of the proviso to Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act and the respondents were directed to quantify the amounts of solatium accordingly.

Read More…


Travancore Devaswom Board Employees Front v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 23869 of  2020(G)

A Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and K. Haripal, JJ., allowed various petitions in connection with Sabrimala pilgrimage and held that in view of the surge of Covid-19 positive cases, number of pilgrims was rightly decided to be limited and that it could be safely fixed as 5000.

Read More…


State of Kerala v. Krishnan, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 3542

Partly allowing the appeal by setting aside the Single Bench order to the extent it quashed the charge sheet filed by the Special Investigation Team, the Division Bench comprising of S. Manikumar, C.J. and C.T. Ravikumar*, J., held that a lot of prima facie evidence had been missed out due to the slackness and incomplete investigation of the Kerala Crime Branch that may possibly result in the miscarriage of justice.


Suo motu Writ Petition – COVID-19 – taken up by the High Court, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1229

A Full Court comprising of S. Manikumar*, C.J., and C.K. Abdul Rehim and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. issued certain directions taking suo motu cognizance of the public announcement of imposing a total lockdown in the wake of COVID-19 outbreak resulting in immobilization of public at large.

Read More…


Kerala Public Service Commission v. Radha S., 2019 SCC OnLine Ker 13812

In a case of disqualification of teaching candidates on the ground that they had not submitted their NET qualification certificates on time, a Division Bench of C.T. Ravikumar and V.G .Arun*, JJ., observed that the incomplete applications were due to technical glitches in the Public Service Commission’s website and not the fault of the candidates and held this to be a “hostile discrimination” violating Article 14.


L. Mini v. Gireeshkumar, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 16781

In a path-breaking decision a Division Bench comprising of   C .T. Ravikumar and K. P. Jyothindranath, JJ.,while answering a vital question related to State’s liability to indemnify in motor vehicle accident claim cases held that the government is under a welfare State liability to compensate for the death or injury caused to a vehicle owner during an accident as the road tax is levied by the government.

Read More…


P.A. Sidhartha Menon v. Deputy Superintendence of Police, 2013 SCC OnLine Ker 24286

Highlighting the importance of speedy trial while allowing the splitting of trial against an accused, Justice Ravikumar held that there is no need to wait for the absconding accused to appear or be caught to conduct the trial.

“Nobody can dispute the position that courts have a duty to proceed criminal cases with a reasonable pace…”


†Ritu Singh, Editorial Assistant, EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd. 


* Judge who has penned the judgment.

[1] https://english.mathrubhumi.com/news/good-news/from-humble-origins-to-supreme-court-judge-justice-c-t-ravikumar-former-high-court-judge-1.5951012

[2] https://main.sci.gov.in/chief-justice-judges

[3] https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/judges-recuse-from-hearing-cases-relating-to-renewal-of-bar-114052200602_1.html

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.