Kochi:

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday granted anticipatory bail to veteran actor-cum-director Balachandra Menon in a case accusing him of outraging the modesty of a female actor in 2007 during a film shoot, saying that men too have “pride and dignity” and not just women.

The order and observation by Justice PV Kunhikrishnan came while allowing the anticipatory bail plea moved by the actor against whom the case was lodged in September this year after the release of the Justice Hema Committee report.

In his plea, Mr Menon had contended that the complaint was made after a gap of 17 years from the date of the alleged incident in 2007 and the intention was to malign his image.

The court said there was “force” in his arguments as it was an admitted fact that the alleged incident happened in 2007.

“It is an admitted fact that the victim filed the complaint after 17 years of the alleged incident. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner (Mr Menon) is a known cine artist. He directed about 40 films and he obtained two National Awards. He was honoured by the nation by giving Padma Shri also.

“Based on the statement of a lady, that also after 17 years, the present case is registered. It is true that the investigation is going on. But, everybody must remember that the pride and dignity is not only to women, but to men also. I leave it there,” Justice Kunhikrishnan said.

The court further said that it was a fit case to grant bail to the petitioner “in the interest of justice”.

It directed Mr Menon to appear before the investigating officer within two weeks from Wednesday to undergo interrogation.

“After interrogation, if the Investigating Officer (IO) proposes to arrest the petitioner (Mr Menon), he shall be released on bail on executing a bond for a sum of Rs 50,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to the satisfaction of the arresting officer concerned,” the court said.

It further directed that Mr Menon shall appear before the IO for interrogation as and when required, shall cooperate with the investigation and “shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer”.

The complainant had made the allegations against Mr Menon in the wake of the Justice Hema Committee’s report being released.

Based on the complaint, an FIR under sections 354 (assault of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 509 (word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC was registered against Mr Menon.

The actor was given interim protection from arrest by the court on October 30 and it was extended from time to time till Wednesday when his plea was allowed.

The Justice Hema Committee was constituted by the Kerala government after the 2017 actress assault case.

The complete report of the committee was placed before the Kerala High Court which directed that it be handed over to the special investigation team (SIT) that was constituted to probe complaints of sexual abuse in the film industry.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kochi:

In a setback for the Left government in Kerala, the High Court here has said that waving of black flags at the Chief Minister’s convoy was not an illegal act and does not amount to defamation.

The ruling by Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas assumes significance as many Youth Congress activists faced police action for waving black flags at Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan during the Nava Kerala Sadas, the state government’s outreach programme, last year.

“Though signs and visible representations can be a mode of defaming a person, still, showing or waving a black flag to a person cannot amount to defamation nor is it an illegal act,” Justice Thomas said.

The ruling came while quashing the final report against three persons for waving black flags at Mr Vijayan’s convoy in 2017 as it passed through North Paravur near here.

The court said that, generally, a black flag is shown as a mark of protest and as long as there is no law which prohibits it, such conduct cannot attract the offence of defamation.

It further said that in the instant case, the offence of defamation was alleged and cognisance was taken on the basis of a police report which were without any legal validity as such action can be initiated only on the basis of a private complaint.

The court further noted that a reading of the final report indicated that “no obstruction was caused to the Chief Minister’s convoy even temporarily, as the police party had blocked and removed the protesters immediately”.

“There is, hence, nothing to indicate that any obstruction was caused by the petitioners even temporarily to any person. Thus, the offence under section 283 (danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation) of IPC is not attracted from the allegations in the final report,” it said in its order of November 20.

The court also noted that according to the final report, when the accused were protesting, the police prevented them from obstructing the Chief Minsiter’s convoy, and in that process, the accused allegedly pushed and pulled at the officers’ uniform.

“Minimal push and pull is only natural while preventing a person from causing obstructions. The allegations do not indicate any obstruction caused in the discharge of the police duty. The allegations in the final report only indicate a trivial instance of push and pull by the petitioners.

“… this court is of the view that having regard to the nature of allegations and in the absence of any assault or injury on the police officers and since the duty of the police officers was not deterred, section 95 (act causing slight harm) IPC can be applied to quash the offence under section 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty) IPC,” the court said.

The petitioners were booked for the offences under sections 283, 188 (disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant), 500 (defamation) and 353 of the IPC for waving black flags at the Chief Minsiter’s convoy in 2017.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kochi:

A mother’s right to breastfeed and that of a baby to be breastfed are facets of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court said on Friday while quashing an order of a Child Welfare Committee (CWC) handing over custody of a breastfeeding infant to the father.

The CWC had handed over custody of the baby to the father as it was of the view that the infant would not be safe with its mother as she had eloped with her father-in-law.

Quashing the CWC’s decision and directing that the child be handed over to the mother, Justice V G Arun said the committee’s order reflects only the “moral bias” of its members.

The court further said that the CWC found the mother unfit “based on the predilections of its members”.

“The one and only concern of the committee should be the best interest of the child. That the mother of the child has chosen to live with a person other than her husband is not the committee’s concern.” “Judged by the moral standards of the members, the petitioner (mother) may not be a good person, but that does not make her a bad mother. Personal moral values always result in biased judgments. Unfortunately, the order reflects nothing other than the moral bias of the committee members,” the court said.

The court also expressed surprise that the CWC did not take into account the fact that the infant was being breastfed “while hastily granting custody of the child to the 3rd respondent(father)”.

“The counsel for the petitioner is correct in her submission that, severance of a one year and four month old baby from its mother violates her right to breastfeed the baby and that of the baby to be breastfed, such right being a facet of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said.

It also termed as “disheartening” the outcome of the CWC order which resulted in the infant being separated from its mother for almost a month, “denying it the care, comfort and love which is most crucial at this stage”.

The court also observed that the committee’s role would arise only when both parents of a child are not in a position to take care of him or her.

“The CWC having failed to consider these crucial factors, the impugned order cannot withstand the scrutiny of law.” “… the impugned order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby impinging upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner as well as the child,” the court said.

The order came on the mother’s plea, filed through advocate Bhanu Thilak, seeking custody of the infant and challenging the CWC order.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kolkata:

The Kerala High Court has held that having sexual intercourse or exhibiting a naked body before a minor amounts to sexual harassment of the child and is punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The ruling by Justice A Badharudeen came on a plea by a man seeking quashing of the case against him for various offences under the IPC, POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act.

The man was accused of having sexual intercourse with the minor’s mother in a lodge without locking the room and then beating up the boy, who saw the act, for questioning the same.

The accused-petitioner, in his plea, claimed that none of the offences were made out against him.

The High Court held that when a person exhibits a naked body to a child, the same is an act intending to commit sexual harassment upon a child.

Therefore, the offence punishable under sections 11(i) (sexual harassment) read with 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act would be attracted.

“In this case, the allegation is that the accused persons engaged in sexual intercourse after being naked, even without locking the room and allowed the entry of the minor in the room, so that the minor could see the same.

“Thus, prima facie, the allegation as to commission of offence punishable under sections 11(i) read with 12 of the POCSO Act, as against the petitioner (accused man) in this case is made out,” the High Court said.

It also said that since the man allegedly beat up the child and the minor’s mother did not try to stop the same, therefore, the offences under sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) and 34 (common intention) were also attracted.

The HC directed that the man face trial for the offences under the POCSO Act and sections 323 and 34 of the IPC.

It, however, partly allowed his plea and quashed the criminal proceedings against him for the offences under section 294(b) (sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place) and 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) of the IPC and section 75 of the JJ Act, saying that those offences were not made out.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kochi:

The Kerala High Court, hearing a suo-moto case on the Wayanad landslide disaster, on Friday stressed the need for a holistic approach in pursuing developmental activities, so tragedies like that which took place in the hill district could be averted.

It then appointed senior advocate Ranjith Thampan as amicus curiae and asked him to look into present policies and to suggest fresh ones on environmental issues.

The court pointed out that a landslide is a classic example of what happens when the natural environment’s balance is disrupted.

“When you are talking about the availability of a resource and you remove such things from nature, the ecological balance is disturbed. Landslide is a classic example. You create pockets of holes which then lead to such incidents. A holistic approach is very much needed to check the social, economic, and ecological impact of such activities,” it said.

The court asked the amicus curiae to do an in-depth analysis on how the environment can be protected and asked the state government to develop a comprehensive policy on developmental activities.

It also impleaded agencies including the National Centre for Earth Science Studies, the Geological Survey of India, the Union of India, the Ministry of Defence, the Ministry of Science and Technology, the Kerala State Disaster Management, the State Environmental Impact Assessment, and the Coastal Zone Management Authority, and posted the next hearing for August 16.

Meanwhile, the over 1,000-strong rescue team comprising personnel from all the defence forces, the NDRF, the SDRF, police, fire service and volunteers began searches early on Friday morning in the four worst-affected areas of Churalmala, Velarimala, Mundakayil, and Punchirimadom. The death toll has touched 413 while 152 people are still missing.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi is arriving on Saturday to visit the affected areas and will also interact with the victims presently housed in relief camps.

(This story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Kochi:

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 is applicable to every citizen of this country irrespective of his or her religion as every Indian is a citizen first and then becomes a member of a religion.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan in a recent order on a petition to quash a case registered in 2012 in Palakkad against a child marriage, said irrespective of religion, whether a person is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi etc., the Act is applicable to all.

The petitioners, including the father of the then-minor girl, contended before the court that being a Muslim she enjoys the religious right to marry after attaining puberty, i.e., at the age of 15.

“A person should be a citizen of India first, and thereafter only his religion comes. Religion is secondary and citizenship should come first. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that, irrespective of religion, whether a person is Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi etc., Act 2006 is applicable to all,” the court said in its July 15 order.

It observed that child marriages deny children their basic human rights, including the right to education, health and protection from exploitation and early marriages and pregnancy can lead to health problems such as infant mortality, maternal mortality and sexually transmitted infections.

“Child marriage often forces girls to drop out of school, limiting their education and future opportunities. Child brides are more vulnerable to domestic violence and abuse. Child marriage can perpetuate poverty and limit economic opportunities for individuals and communities.

“Child marriage can lead to emotional and psychological trauma, including depression and anxiety to the children. Child marriage can lead to social isolation and disconnection from the family and community. Moreover, child marriage is a violation of international human rights law and conventions as well,” the court said in its 37-page order.

An Integrated Child Development Scheme Officer (ICDS Officer) had lodged a complaint to the Vadakkencherry police about a child marriage that took place on December 30, 2012.

The court said it was sad to hear that even after the enactment of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act decades ago, there are allegations of Child Marriage in Kerala.

“The saddest thing is that the petitioners herein are trying to justify the alleged child marriage stating that as per Mohammedan Law, a Muslim girl enjoys a religious right to marry after attaining puberty irrespective of age, even though the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act apply to all the citizens of India without and beyond India,” the judge said.

The high court urged the society to let the children study, travel and enjoy their life according to their wishes and when they attained maturity, let them decide about their marriage.

“In the modern society, there cannot be any compulsion for marriage. The majority of the girls are interested in studies. Let them study and let them enjoy their life, of course with the blessings of their parents. When they attain majority and decide that a partner is necessary for their life, let it happen at the appropriate stage so that child marriage can be eradicated from society,” the court said.

It also suggested that the print and the visual media can play a significant role in raising awareness and prohibiting child marriages.

“It is the duty of the print and visual media to publish articles highlighting the evils of child marriage, sharing stories of survivors and victims, creating awareness about the loss and consequences of child marriage, promoting education and empowerment of girls and exposing perpetrators and their actions,” the order read.

The court also noted that the complaint against the child marriage was filed by a person from the Muslim community itself.

“The same will show that every citizen of this country is aware of the evil of child marriage irrespective of their religion,” it said.

However, the court asked the petitioners to approach the appropriate court on their contention that the date of birth of the child was wrongly mentioned in the concerned school register.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kochi:

The Kerala high court has ruled that courts cannot allow DNA testing in all cases, but only in those matters where a strong prima facie case is made out in favour of the person who seeks the test.

“The court finds that one cannot seek DNA test to be done only in his/her attempt to fish out evidence in support of his/her case. Unless and until the applicant makes out a strong prima facie case, such an application is not liable to be allowed,” it said while allowing a petition challenging a trial court’s decision to allow a DNA test to be conducted in a property dispute.

The trial court order came on a petition filed by a woman before a trial court in 2017, staking claim to land belonging to a man who died in the 1980s on the grounds that the dead man was her father, and that he had been married to her mother before he wedded another woman. She claimed that she was born out of the man’s first marriage and hence, she and her mother were entitled to a part of his property.

This was contested by the dead man’s son, who contended that his father was never married to anyone else other than his mother. Hence to prove her parentage, she filed an application for conducting a sibling DNA test, which a magistrate’s court allowed.

The man’s son subsequently filed an original petition before the high court and after going through the facts of the entire case, it said: “It’s already held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the existence of a strong prima facie case is a sine qua non to seek conduct of the DNA test. Here, the plaintiff/ applicant herself admits that there exists no evidence, except the aspect sought to be proved by DNA analysis …”

“DNA analysis, even if allowed, will not establish the marriage between (the deceased man and the plaintiff’s mother). At best, it may prove that the plaintiff is the daughter (of the deceased man). The proof of the same, by itself, would not carry the plaintiff anywhere. The prayer is one for partition,” the high court said as it set aside the order allowing the conduct of a DNA test.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Kochi:

In a blow to Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, the High Court here on Tuesday cancelled the nominations made by him as Chancellor of Universities to the senate of the University of Kerala and directed him to select fresh nominees within a period of six weeks.

The court, however, did not interfere with the nominations of the state government to the senate of the same university.

While quashing the nominations made by Mr Khan, the court observed that “there is no unbridled power vested with the Chancellor while making the nominations in terms of the statutory provisions”.

Justice Mohammed Nias CP said that if a nomination made is contrary to the statutory requirement or if irrelevant factors were considered in making the decision, “the nominations will have to be interfered with by the constitutional courts”.

The court said that any arbitrary use of power violates not only the rule of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India but also the rule of discrimination inbuilt in Article 16.

“An unguided, unfettered and unbridled power is foreign to the exercise of any power, constitutional or statutory. It is trite that even in the exercise of discretionary power, the requirements of reasonableness, rationality, impartiality, fairness and equity are inherent to such exercise and can never be according to any private opinion.

“Under such circumstances, the nominations made (by the Chancellor) are to be interfered with and accordingly, they are quashed,” the court said.

The order came on the two separate pleas by four students of the university challenging the nominations to the senate made by Mr Khan in the categories of Fine Arts, Sports, Humanities and Science.

The petitioners had alleged that the normal procedures were not followed by the Chancellor and persons with no merit, as compared to them, were nominated to the senate.

They also sought directions to the Chancellor to nominate them to the senate.

The court directed Mr Khan to “make fresh nominations considering the claims of the writ petitioners as well” and in tune with the provisions of the Kerala University Act, 1974.

“This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,” it said allowing the two petitions challenging the Chancellor’s nominations.

The court, in its order, observed that even though no procedure as such was stated in the statute, it compels the persons nominated to be of outstanding academic ability when it comes to Humanities and outstanding ability when it comes to the other three categories.

“The term outstanding ability certainly denotes a superior ability or performance. No credentials of the respondents (nominated students) are shown which makes them superior to the writ petitioners. No single factor of the nominated students is shown superior to the abilities of the writ petitioners.

“True, it is only a nomination and there is an element of discretion involved while making choices. Even for that, eligibility criteria fixed in the statute cannot be forgotten even though it is only a nomination and not a selection,” the court said.

In the third petition challenging the nominations to the senate by the state government, the petitioner had claimed that the nominees did not have any experience in the field of higher education and that they had several crimes registered against them, thus making them ineligible to hold the post of government representatives.

Dismissing the petition, the court said that on examining the credentials of the government representatives, “it is difficult to hold that they are not from the field of higher education”.

It also said that the criminal cases against the nominees were registered “as part of their activities in public life”.

“That apart, they are all cases pending investigation and no court of law has found respondents 4 to 6 (government representatives) guilty of the offences alleged and therefore, mere pendency of cases cannot be treated as a disqualification making respondents 4 to 6 ineligible for nomination.

“Given my findings that they cannot be said to be persons not connected with the field of higher education, I do not find any merit to interfere with the nomination and accordingly the said writ petition is dismissed,” the court said.

The High Court’s decision was welcomed by the ruling Left government in Kerala, and the CPI(M).

State Law Minister P Rajeev said that the Chancellor of Universities cannot be seen as a “sovereign republic”.

CPI(M) State Secretary MV Govindan termed the court decision as a setback for the “political games” of the Governor.

He said that despite the state government submitting a panel of students who excelled in their respective fields, Mr Khan, in alleged violation of the norms, nominated Sangh Parivar members to the senate for political reasons.

Mr Govindan contended the court’s order makes it clear that the government’s approach in the field of higher education is correct and that of the Governor was wrong.

The CPI(M) state secretary said that the order also exposed the Sangh Parivar’s alleged interventions using the Governor to create a crisis in the state and it was also a blow to the UDF and BJP leadership that supported Mr Khan’s actions and stood against the government.

He said the verdict would also affect the alleged wrongful nominations made by Mr Khan in other universities.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

K.B. Ganesh Kumar
| Photo Credit: S. MAHINSHA

The Kerala High Court on October 27, 2023 (Friday) dismissed a petition filed by K.B. Ganesh Kumar, MLA, seeking to quash a criminal case registered against him in connection with the alleged conspiracy to name the late Congress leader and former Chief Minister Oommen Chandy in a sexual assault case.

The case was registered against the MLA on a private complaint filed by Congress activist and advocate Sudheer Jacob before the Kottarakara First Class Judicial Magistrate Court. In his complaint, Mr. Jacob had alleged that Mr. Ganesh Kumar and others had produced a forged letter before the Solar Enquiry Commission purportedly written on July 19, 2013 by the prime accused in the solar cheating case, levelling sexual assault charges against Oommen Chandy.

He pointed out that the letter produced before the commission was a fabricated one. It was fabricated as part of a criminal conspiracy hatched by them against the then Chief Minister, other Ministers and political leaders, Mr. Jacob alleged.

The magistrate court while admitting the complaint had held that there was prima facie evidence to take cognizance of the complaint against Mr. Ganesh Kumar and others under Section 193 (giving or fabricating false evidence), 182 (false information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person), 469 (forgery), 471 (using as genuine a forged document) and 120 B (criminal conspiracy).

‘Abuse of process of court’

Mr. Ganesh Kumar said in his petition that the proceedings against the petitioner were an abuse of the process of the court. The Solar Enquiry Commission had not found that the letter was a forged one and the Magistrate could not decide whether the letter was genuine or not as per law. The proceedings before the Magistrate amounted to appealing against a report submitted by the Solar Enquiry Commission which is not permitted as per law. Besides, the complaint did not make out any offences against him, he contended.

Hence, he sought to quash the proceedings pending before the magistrate court.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on October 20 quashed the show-cause notice issued by the Kerala government to Ciza Thomas, former Principal, Government Engineering College, Thiruvananthapuram, for taking over the additional charge of Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) without the permission of the government, on the instruction of Chancellor (Governor) Arif Mohammed Khan.

The Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen passed the verdict while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Thomas against the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) order in the case.

In her petition, she had alleged that the action of the Kerala government was selective and biased and an abuse of the law. In fact, she was given the additional charge of the V-C while working as senior joint director, Technical Education. Though she had sought permission of the government through e-mail by sending an application through the Director of Technical Education, the government kept mum and did not issue any order or acted on her request till her retirement on March 31, 2023. Her application for prior sanction had been kept in cold storage till the date of her retirement. She said that her appointment as additional V-C was upheld by the Kerala High Court.

Removed from post

She pointed out that since she took over the additional charge of V-C, the government started to “harass” her. She was later removed from the post of senior joint director. However, the KAT directed the government to accommodate her in a suitable post in Thiruvananthapuram when she challenged the government action. It was close on the heels of the tribunal’s directive that she had been issued the show-cause notice.

She also pointed out that when she had challenged the show-case notice, the KAT had only directed the government to consider her explanation with an open mind and to provide an opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. She had also been served with a memo of charge as a sequel to the show-cause notice. It was vague and does not even have a date. The charges against her were that she had not properly discharged her duties as the joint director of Technical Education and had delayed the finalisation of files.

She pointed out that the KAT had failed to consider her challenge strictly in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Had the tribunal considered her challenge against the show-cause notice, the government would not have obtained an opportunity to proceed against the petitioner even after her retirement. The government’s entire action is “pre-meditated to penalise the petitioner and is punitive in nature,” she argued.