Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
President appoints Karunakaran Nair Haripal, to be an Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court, with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office till 8th May, 2022.
Access the notification here: NOTIFICATION
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 21-05-2020]
President after consultation with Chief Justice of India Orders the transfer of Justice Ananta Manohar Badar, Judge of Bombay High Court as Judge of Kerala High Court and direct him to assume charge of his office in the Kerala High Court.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 19-05-2020]
Supreme Court Collegium recommends transfer of Justice A.M. Badar, Judge, Bombay High Court to Kerala High Court.
Collegium Resolutions
[Statement dt. 27-04-2020]
Appointment Order
President is pleased to appoint S/Shri (i) Thirumuppath Raghavan Ravi, (ii) Bechu Kurian Thomas, (iii) Gopinath Puzhankara and (iv) Smt. Mudalikulam Raman Anitha, to be Additional Judges of the Kerala High Court, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 04-03-2020]
President appoints Shri Pulleri Vadhyarillath Kunhikrishnan, to be an Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court, for a period of two years with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 10-02-2020]
Collegium Resolution
The Supreme Court Collegium approved the proposal for elevation of the following persons as Judges of the Kerala High Court:
ADVOCATES:
JUDICIAL OFFICER:
4. Smt. M.R. Anitha.
Supreme Court of India
[Collegium Resolution dt. 30-01-2020]
President with the consultation of Chief Justice of India, transfers Justice Amit Rawal, Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court as Judge of Kerala High Court.
He has been directed to assume the charge of the office on 13-11-2019.
Ministry of Law and Justice
[Notification dt. 30-10-2019]
Reconsideration of the proposal of transfer of Justice Amit Rawal, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court.
Collegium, vide Minutes dated 28-08-2019 recommended transfer of Justice Amit Rawal, Judge, Punjab & Haryana High Court, in the interest of better administration of justice, to Kerala High Court.
Upon being requested to send his response in terms of the Memorandum of Procedure, Justice Amit Rawal vide representation dated 2-09-2019, for reasons stated therein, has requested for reconsideration of his proposed transfer to Kerala High Court.
On reconsideration, the Collegium is of the considered view that it is not possible to accede to his request. The Collegium, accordingly, reiterates its recommendation dated 28-09-2019 for transfer of Justice Amit Rawal to Kerala High Court.
[Collegium Resolution dt. 03-09-2019]
Supreme Court of India
President appoints the following 3 Additional Judges to be the Judges of Kerala High Court:
[Notification dt. 21-08-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
Proposal for the appointment of Shri Viju Abraham, Advocate as a Judge of the Kerala High Court.
“For purpose of assessing merit and suitability of Shri Viju Abraham we have carefully scrutinized the material already on record as well as the further information received from Kerala High Court. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that Shri Viju Abraham is suitable for elevation to the High Court.”
Collegium resolves to recommend that Shri Viju Abraham, Advocate, be appointed as a Judge of the Kerala High Court.
[Notification dt. 06-05-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends for the appointment of following three Advocates, as Judges of the Kerala High Court:
1. Conrad Stansilaus Dias
2. Mohammed Nias C.P.
3. Paul K.K.
Collegium stated in regard to the above names stated that,
“For purpose of assessing merit and suitability of the above-named recommendees for elevation to the High Court, we have carefully scrutinized the material placed in the file including the observations made by the Department of Justice therein. Apart from this, we considered it appropriate to have interaction with all the recommendees. On the basis of interaction and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium is of the considered view that S/Shri (1) Conrad Stansilaus Dias, (2) Mohammed Nias C.P., and (3) Paul K.K., are suitable for being appointed as Judges of the Kerala High Court.”
In view of the above, the Collegium resolves to recommend that S/Shri (1) Conrad Stansilaus Dias, (2) Mohammed Nias C.P., and (3) Paul K.K., Advocates, be appointed as Judges of the Kerala High Court. Their inter se seniority be fixed as per the existing practice.
[Dated 25-03-2019]
Collegium Resolution
The President, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, is pleased to transfer Shri Justice Sarasa Venkatanarayana Bhatti, Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, as a Judge of the Kerala High Court and to direct him to assume charge of his office in the Kerala High Court on or before 19th March, 2019.
[Notification dt. 05-03-2019]
Ministry of Law and Justice
The Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and A.K. Sikri, S.A. Bobde, N.V. Ramana and Arun Mishra, JJ., reiterates its recommendation dated 15th January, 2019 for transfer of Mr Justice S. Venkatanarayana Bhatti of Andhra Pradesh High Court to Kerala High Court.
[Dated: 19-02-2019]
Supreme Court of India
Supreme Court: Kurian Joseph, J. delivered the judgment for himself and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J. wherein it was held that forfeiture of gratuity, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is not automatic on dismissal from service.
The respondent, an employee of the appellant bank, was dismissed on account of proved misconduct involving moral turpitude Consequently, the respondent was issued a show-cause notice as to why the gratuity amount payable to him should not be forfeited. Subsequently, an explanation of the respondent was rejected and the gratuity was forfeited. The respondent challenged the said forfeiture before the Kerala High Court which held that the gratuity was payable. Aggrieved thus, the appellant filed the instant appeal.
The question that arose for consideration before the Supreme Court was ‘whether forfeiture of gratuity is automatic on dismissal form service?’ The Supreme Court referred to Section 4 of the Act along with its earlier judgments in Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 8 SCC 514; Y.K. Singla v. PNB, (2013) 3 SCC 472 and Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., (2007) 1 SCC 663. The Court observed that forfeiture of gratuity, either wholly and partially is permissible under Section 6(b)(ii) only in the event that termination is on the account of riotous or disorderly conduct or any other act of violence or on account of an act constituting an offence involving moral turpitude, when he is convicted. In the present case, there was no conviction of the respondent for the misconduct which according to the bank was offence involving moral turpitude. The Court finally observed that forfeiture of gratuity is not automatic on dismissal from service, it is subject to sub-sections (5) and (6) of Section 4 of Payment of Gratuity Act. The Court found that the there was no infirmity in the order impugned. Thus, the appeal was dismissed holding it to be sans merit. [Union Bank of India v. C.G. Ajay Babu,2018 SCC OnLine SC 962, dated 14-08-2018]
The President in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 223 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice Hrishikesh Roy, senior-most Judge of Kerala High Court, to perform the duties of the office of the Chief Justice of that High Court with effect from 30th May, 2018 consequent upon the retirement of Shri Justice Antony Dominic, Chief Justice, Kerala High Court.
Ministry of Law and Justice
The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed S/Shri Justices (1) Sathish Ninan, (2) Devan Ramachandran, (3) Somarajan P., (4) Smt. Shirey Y., and (5) Aettupanku Mohammedkhan Babu, Additional Judges of the Kerala High Court, to be Judges of the Kerala High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their offices.
Ministry of Law and Justice
The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 217 of the Constitution of India, appointed Shri Justice Antony Dominic, Judge of the Kerala High Court, to be the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court with effect from the date he assumes charge of his office.
Ministry of Law and Justice
(Department of Justice)
Supreme Court: In the case where Kerala High Court annulled the marriage of a Hindu Girl to a Muslim Boy after her conversion to Islam calling it a case of Love Jihad, the Supreme Court ordered a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the supervision of Retired Supreme Court judge Justice RV Raveendran. State had said that it had no objection to the National Investigation Agency carrying out the investigation, subject to this Court’s ensuring that the investigation is fair.
The Court also directed that Justice R.V. Raveendran be paid a consolidated fee of Rs.1,00,000/- for a sitting with National Investigation Agency at Bangalore, and Rs.2,00,000/ per day for travelling outside Bangalore, apart from reimbursement of all travelling, boarding, lodging and secretarial expenses, while discharging the responsibility entrusted to him.
NIA had told the Court that there is a possibility of this being a case of Love Jihad as many cases have come up where the Muslim boys have converted Hindu girls and have married them. The Court directed NIA to look into the matter in order to facilitate the Court in determining the extent of the ramifications of the issue and said that it will take a decision only after considering all the aspects i.e. NIA report, Kerala Police report and the views of the girl. The Court said that it will speak to the girl ‘Akhila’ in camera before taking a final decision.
The bench of JS Khehar, CJ and Dr. DY Chandrachud, J said that it was entrusting the task to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as a neutral agency to get a “whole picture” and ascertain whether the particular instance was limited to a “small pocket” or was there “something wider” to the issue.
The issue reached the apex court as Kerala-native Shafin Jahan challenged the annulment of his marriage by the Kerala High Court which ordered the State police to probe such cases. It was alleged that the girl, a Hindu, who had converted to Islam and later married Jahan, was recruited by Islamic State’s mission in Syria and Jahan was only a stooge. The NIA has recently conducted probe into some cases of ‘love jihad’ in which women were allegedly being sent to Syria to join the ISIS. [Shafin Jahan v. Asokan KM, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5777/2017, order dated 16.08.2017]
Kerala High Court: In the writ petition filed by Prasanth Sugathan, legal director of the SFLC, the Court passed an interim order allowing the petitioner to file his Income Tax Return manually without quoting the Aadhaar number.
The petitioner had challenged the mandatory requirement to quote Aadhaar number or enrollment ID for filing Income tax returns as per Section 139AA of the amended Income Tax Act, 1961. He had argued that the partial stay granted by the Supreme Court in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 647, in compulsory linking of PAN and Aadhaar would be futile if assesses were forced to quote their Aadhaar number while filing IT returns.
On 09.06.2017, the bench of Dr. A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ had in Binoy Viswam v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 647, upheld the validity of Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 that makes the linking of Aadhaar Card to the Permanent Account Number (PAN) mandatory and said that the provision is neither discriminatory nor it offends equality clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. As per the order of the Court, those who have already enrolled themselves under Aadhaar scheme would comply with the requirement of sub-section (2) of Section 139AA of the Act. Those who still want to enrol are free to do so. However, those assessees who are not Aadhaar card holders and do not comply with the provision of Section 139(2), their PAN cards be not treated as invalid for the time being.
Source: CNN-News18
Kerala High Court: Taking suo moto cognizance of the recent events, the Division Bench of Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, Ag. C J. and Anu Sivaram J. directed State Government and State Police that no assembly or demonstration would be allowed in the court premises or on the roads surrounding them.
The Court held that access to justice is an indefeasible component of any society and it can in no manner be belittled by any individual or collective act, impairing or tending to impair the proper functioning of the Courts. Therefore, it is imperative that every seat of judiciary be insulated from any intrusion, as the intrusion would adversely affect the constitutional and societal goals to be achieved in an orderly society by the existence of judicial system. It was held that it is one of the primary duties of the Police wing of the State to maintain law and order and extend support by way of governance, in case where the access to justice is being challenged. The Police had public duty in terms of the Constitution and the statutes, to ensure that there is no impairment whatsoever in the conduct of court proceedings and the facilities for access to justice.
In the light of these observations, the Court directed the Government of Kerala, the State Police Chief and the Police officers under his command to ensure that no assembly or demonstration or collective expression of opinion is carried out within the premises of the High Court and also in the roads and streets surrounding them. It is directed that the restrictions imposed would extend to the use of public announcement system as well. All the restrictions imposed shall operate in regard of all road which surround the buildings of the High Court of Kerala and all leading roads to a distance of 200 meters from the roads that encircle the High Court buildings. The Court also directed that the gist of the order be published in at least two English newspapers and six vernacular dailies, having circulation throughout the State of Kerala. [Court on its own Motion v. State of Kerala, 2016 SCC OnLine Ker 10398, decided on 25 July, 2016.]
