Landmark Judgments by the High Court of Kerala
The article discusses a few of the Landmark Judgments by the High Court of Kerala. Jaison V. George v. State of Kerala (2019)[1] Facts: The petitioner was accused of commission of an offence under section Sec 20.b(ii)B of the NDPS act. He contents to be a child in conflict with the law. He moved an application before the… Read More »
The article discusses a few of the Landmark Judgments by the High Court of Kerala. Jaison V. George v. State of Kerala (2019)[1] Facts: The petitioner was accused of commission of an offence under section Sec 20.b(ii)B of the NDPS act. He contents to be a child in conflict with the law. He moved an application before the court to forward the case to the juvenile justice board for holding the enquiry. The petitioner argued that a person comes eighteen years of age only on the midnight of...
The article discusses a few of the Landmark Judgments by the High Court of Kerala.
Jaison V. George v. State of Kerala (2019)[1]
Facts: The petitioner was accused of commission of an offence under section Sec 20.b(ii)B of the NDPS act. He contents to be a child in conflict with the law. He moved an application before the court to forward the case to the juvenile justice board for holding the enquiry.
The petitioner argued that a person comes eighteen years of age only on the midnight of his nineteenth birthday, therefore urged the court to consider him a child in conflict with the law.
Judgement: The court rejected the arguments made by the petitioner as it was violative of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 and the Majority Act. The court made a clear distinction between minor and major to prevent taking advantage of the term ‘child in conflict with law’ and the revision was dismissed.
Faheema Shirin R. K v. State of Kerala (2019)[2]
Facts: A third-semester student of B.A(English) of Sree Narayana College, Kozhikode challenged her expulsion from the college hostel for violating the restrictions on using the mobile phone from 6 pm to 10 pm every day.
The petitioner challenged the restriction on the ground that it was adversely impacting her access to information and study materials.
Judgement: Justice P V Asha of the Kerala High Court said that the right to access internet using a mobile phone is a fundamental right under the Constitution and also it is the right to privacy and the right to education under Article 21 A and Article 21 of the Constitution of India respectively. Internet Access not only enhances the opportunities of students to acquire knowledge but also enhances the quality of education.
Muhammed Riyad v. State Police Chief, Trivandrum (2018)[3]
Facts: A writ petition has been filed to produce the body of the detenue, Rifana Riyad aged 19 years by her father under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the issue of a writ of habeas corpus.
The allegation is that the detenue is under the illegal custody of the fourth respondent by the name of Hanize aged 18 years. The detenue and the fourth respondent submitted before the court that they have been in relation since school days.
The petitioner argued that the fourth respondent had not completed 21 years of age and hence a ‘child’ as defined under Section 2(a) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 and there can be no valid marriage between the detenue and the fourth respondent and any offspring born to them can only be an illegitimate child in the eye of law.
Judgement: The court held that partners in a live-in relationship cannot be separated by the issue of Hebeas Corpus. The court also stated that it respects such arrangements though the same may not be palatable to the orthodox section of the society. The couple was allowed to stay together as they had attained the age of majority and the court protected their right to choose.
Jiju Lukose v. State of Kerala (2015)[4]
Facts: A PIL was filled to upload the FIR on the website of the local police station and copies to be made available to the accused immediately. The petitioner got the copy only after two months till then he and his family members were in the dark of the nature of allegations being been imposed on him. He contended that under RTI Act all officers were obliged to furnish him the information.
Judgement: The court held that the FIR is a public document but under 8(1) of the RTI act it may not be disclosed till the investigation is complete. But it can be claimed by the Informant and the accused as per legal provisions under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as it is their legal right.
P.A. Jacob v. The Superintendent of Police, Kottayam and Anr (1992)[5]
Facts: Petitioner belongs to a denomination of Christianity, known as ‘Knanaya’ Christians. To propagate his views in this regard, the petitioner sought permission to hold meetings and to use sound amplifiers.
The second respondent, Sub-Inspector of Police, granted permission, but withdrew the permission later, apprehending those views of the petitioner may incite violence in the Church.
Incidentally, this apprehension or misapprehension has been proved wrong, as a meeting could be held pursuant to interim orders of this Court, admittedly without any disturbance. The question is whether the Constitution guarantees a right to use a sound-amplifying device, or whether the use of such a device is part of the right to freedom of speech.
Judgement: The Kerala High Court held that the right to speak freely under article 19 (1)(a) does exclude the opportunity to utilize loudspeakers or sound enhancers. Subsequently, commotion contamination brought about by the noisy speakers can be controlled under article 19 (1) (a) of the constitution and was not considered as a fundamental right.
Leela v. State of Kerala (2004)[6]
Facts: On June 20, 1997, Mr. K. Prabhakaran Pillai, the third respondent, was given charge of the post of Supervisor (Binding). The petitioner alleges that she is senior to the third respondent. She was entitled to be promoted as a supervisor.
It is on account of the provision embodied in Section 66(1)(b) of the Factories Act 1948, which provides that “no woman shall be required or allowed to work in any factory except between the hours of 6 a.m. and 7 p.m.” that she has been denied promotion to the post of Supervisor.
The petitioner alleges that the provision suffers from the vice of discrimination. It violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution. Thus, the provision should be declared unconstitutional.
Judgement: It was held in this case that any statute which makes special provisions for women to endorse social welfare, cannot be violative of rights enshrined in Part III. Court recognised the familial commitments of a woman by ordering that lady constables and waitresses not be allotted duties for the night shift. The government should work towards the creation of strong public opinion by advocacy, awareness and seminars to give women the spot they deserve.
[1] 2019 5 KHC 115
[2] 2019(2) KHC 220
[3] 2018 (2) KLT 914
[4] 2016 (334) ELT 504 (Ker)
[5] AIR 1993 KER 1
[6] 2004 (2) KLT 220
