Important Judgments of Kerala High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

Legal Bites brings you a roundup of Important decisions of the Kerala High Court (2024), which played a significant role. It will help the readers to remember all legal and current updates of 2024 pertaining to the Kerala High Court in the most efficient and easy way.

Important Judgments of Kerala High Court (2024) - Legal Bites Year Update

1) Misuse of PIL Jurisdiction Highlighted in Fund Collection Dispute

In the case C. Shukkur v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2024), the Kerala High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a public-spirited citizen seeking to restrict independent fundraising efforts by organizations for Wayanad landslide victims. The petitioner argued that such collections should be centralized by the government to ensure effective fund utilization.

However, the Court found the petition devoid of evidence regarding fund misuse or complaints to authorities, deeming it a frivolous attempt for publicity. Emphasizing the importance of judicial time for genuine causes, the Court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, payable to the Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund. Failure to comply would result in recovery under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act.

2) Role of Enforcement Directorate in Money Laundering Cases: Judicial Perspective

In the case Vinod Mathew Wilson v. Union of India & Ors. (2024), the Kerala High Court dismissed a public interest litigation filed by Vinod Mathew Wilson, the State President of the Aam Aadmi Party in Kerala, seeking directions to initiate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, regarding an alleged hawala money heist in Kodakara (Crime No. 146/2021). The Court held that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as he had no direct connection to the crime, and his petitions appeared politically motivated. It further clarified that criminal matters require caution in entertaining PILs and highlighted the Enforcement Directorate's limited scope as a non-investigative body under the 2002 Act.

The Court emphasized that the appropriate investigative steps were already underway and refused to direct consideration of the petitioner's representations.

3) Land Assignment in Cardamom Hill Reserve

In the case of Bijimon K.R. v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2024), the petitioner, Bijimon K.R., applied for the assignment of 4 acres of land in the Cardamom Hill Reserve, Idukki District, under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularisation of Occupation of Forest Lands Before 1-1-1977) Special Rules, 1993. The petitioner claimed that his predecessor-in-interest had occupied the land before January 1, 1977, and relied on various documents to substantiate his case. However, the Special Tahsildar rejected the application, stating that the land was not included in the assignable land list as per the Special Rules, and its assignment would adversely affect the Cardamom Hill Reserve.

The court upheld this decision, observing that the Special Rules were a one-time measure aimed at regularizing occupation before 1977, and the petitioner failed to establish any claim under the prescribed procedures. The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was directed to vacate the land within one month.

4) Illegal Patta and Revenue Land Encroachment

In Jiji Zacharia & Anr. v. The Commissioner, Land Revenue & Ors. (2024), the case involved the cancellation of the patta and registry transfer of 2.62 acres in Chinnakanal Village, Idukki District, which was used for a resort, Green Jungle Resort, contrary to its agricultural purpose. The patta, initially issued to Joy Thomas in 1978, was found to be fabricated and illegally obtained, as it violated eligibility criteria under the Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964, including income limits, land ownership restrictions, and procedural requirements. Investigations revealed the land to be part of the Cardamom Hill Reserve, making it ineligible for assignment.

Subsequent transfers to Jiji Zacharia and Anitha Jiji did not rectify the illegalities. The Kerala High Court upheld the cancellation, dismissed related petitions, and mandated the restoration of the land to the revenue while calling for a criminal investigation into the alleged fraud.

5) Legal Scrutiny of Nursing Qualifications

In the case Fayazkhan H.K. & Anr. v. The Director of Medical & Health Services & Ors. (2024), the Kerala High Court addressed a petition challenging the selection process for staff nurse positions under the Lakshadweep Administration. The petitioners alleged irregularities in the appointments of respondents 3 and 4, questioning the genuineness of their nursing qualifications and registration with statutory councils. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially dismissed the case due to delay but was directed by the High Court to reconsider the merits.

Upon reevaluation, CAT upheld the validity of the registrations issued by the Kerala and Tamil Nadu Nurses and Midwives Councils, noting it lacked jurisdiction to directly question their genuineness. The High Court affirmed CAT's decision, ruling that statutory registrations are presumed valid unless proven otherwise, and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that challenges to qualifications unrelated to service matters fall outside CAT’s jurisdiction.

6) Media Access and Accommodation Guidelines During Mandala-Makaravilakku Festival

In the matter, Travancore Devaswom Board – Sabarimala Special Commissioner Report, the Kerala High Court addressed a suo motu proceeding concerning media accommodation and access during the Sabarimala Mandala-Makaravilakku festival. The court reviewed a report by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner, based on the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer’s suggestions, and directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to issue identity cards to accredited media persons based on recommendations from the Chief Vigilance and Security Officer.

It was mandated that only those holding valid identity cards could stay in designated accommodations and access Sannidhanam, adhering to strict security and regulated entry protocols. The court emphasized ensuring a secure and orderly pilgrimage experience under the Kerala Police Act, 2011.

7) Judicial Non-Interference in Police Investigation

In Abdu Rahman v. State of Kerala & Ors. (2024), the Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the police investigation into the death of the appellant's son, who was found in a well after allegedly fleeing from police during a raid. The appellant claimed his son was murdered and sought an independent investigation, dissatisfied with the police's conclusion of accidental death due to drowning. The Division Bench, after reviewing the case diary and evidence, held that the investigation was thorough, with no procedural lapses or indications of foul play.

The Court emphasized that judicial interference in police investigations is limited to rare cases of abuse of power or mala fide actions, which were absent in this case. Accordingly, the Court upheld the Single Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.

8) Purposive Interpretation of the Provisions under the SC/ST Act

In the case of X v. State of Kerala (2024), the Kerala High Court allowed the anticipatory bail plea of a teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 13-year-old student, invoking provisions under the IPC, POCSO Act, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court held that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act does not apply since the allegations do not prima facie establish intent to humiliate the victim based on caste.

Noting the petitioner’s role as a teacher and the absence of necessity for custodial detention, the court directed the appellant to surrender for interrogation within two weeks, granting bail on a bond of ₹50,000 with conditions to ensure cooperation with the investigation and preventing witness tampering or reoffending.