This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal from the Kerala High Court (MACA 1581/2015) challenging an award in O.P.(MV) No.366/2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The petitioners—parents and younger brother of Steaphen Gomas—seek higher compensation for a death arising from a January 27, 2010 collision between a car (owned by the first respondent, driven by the second, insured by the third) and a lorry (driven by the fifth respondent). The Tribunal held the car driver negligent and awarded Rs. 27,43,000 with 9% interest and costs, after deducting several heads. The appellants contend the Tribunal erred in applying a multiplier of 9 based on the mother’s age; Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corp. requires using the deceased’s age, here 26, yielding a multiplier of 17. They argue the deceased’s income was understated; Annexure A1 shows a salary of Rs. 3,700 USD per month (about Rs. 1.8 lakh); future prospects at 40% should be added; and the heads for loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate should be adjusted per Pranay Sethi and related authorities. The High Court re‑assessed income, applied the age‑based multiplier, included future prospects, and revised several heads in light of Pranay Sethi. It enhanced the compensation to Rs. 45.10 lakhs with 9% interest from filing and costs, directing deposit within two months, while the overall revised award totals Rs. 72.53 lakhs.
This is a Kerala High Court Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 3097 of 2020) arising from CC 1563/2013 pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Hosdurg, connected with Bekal Police Station Crime No. 802/2012. The 2nd accused, Muhammed Kunhi, moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings on the ground of lack of involvement in the alleged cheating under Section 420 IPC, arguing he had no role in the transaction, did not receive money, and was not a party to the agreement between the principal accused and the complainant. The prosecution relies on Annexure-A3, an agreement concerning the sale of a lorry (KL-14-E-4158) by the 2nd respondent to the 1st accused for Rs. 2,32,000 with an advance of Rs. 50,000 and a deadline of 31.10.2012; the 2nd accused is said to have been present but not to have participated as buyer or promoter. The 2nd accused urged that Annexure-A3 shows no involvement by him, and that the case resembles a civil deal rather than a criminal cheating case; he relied on a prior order (Crl.M.C. 2226/2016) to show that the 3rd accused’s proceedings were quashed for similar reasons. The High Court, after noting the lack of essential ingredients of cheating and the absence of a proven role by the petitioner, allowed the quashing, holding the proceedings against him to be nullified and the petitioner exonerated.
Samuel, the appellant, challenged an award of Rs.68,200 with 7.5% interest under O.P.(MV) No.65 of 2010 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta, relating to a 30.08.2009 accident in which he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle hit by jeep TN 22C/6514. The jeep owner was the 1st respondent; the 2nd respondent owned the vehicle; the insurer (3rd respondent) contested only the quantum and negligence, while admitting policy coverage. The Tribunal held the jeep driver negligent and the insurer liable, with fixed compensation. On appeal, the High Court re-examined quantum: it acknowledged absence of explicit income evidence but treated the FIR in Ext.A1 describing the appellant as a carpenter as relevant evidence of avocation. Relying on Ramachandrappa v. Manager and Syed Sadiq v. Divisional Manager (as per 2011 and 2014 SCC judgments), the court accepted a monthly income of Rs.7,800 for a skilled labourer in 2009. It also adopted a 16% functional disability from Ext.C1 (NI0H scale) for loss of earning capacity, recalculated the disability head to Rs.2,24,640, and added Rs.1,86,840 to the existing award after accounting for heads such as loss of amenities and pain/suffering (increased to Rs.20,000 each). Loss of earnings for four months at Rs.7,800/month added Rs.22,200. The result was total additional compensation of Rs.2,36,040, and the appeal was allowed; the insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced amount with interest and costs within three months. The decision exemplifies a liberal use of established Supreme Court principles to determine income and disability.
This writ petition questions whether an assessing officer can impose a penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after a remand order under section 263 of the same Act. Mallelil Industries Pvt. Ltd., an assessee engaged in quarrying and sale of rock aggregates for AY 2015-16, had its original assessment under 143(3) finalized on 30.12.2016. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Kottayam, invoked section 263, found the assessment erroneous or prejudicial, and remanded for a fresh assessment. Pursuant to this open remand, a fresh assessment was issued on 23.12.2019, disallowing depreciation. On 01.03.2021 a show-cause was issued proposing penalty, and Ext.P6 records the penalty under section 271(1)(c). The petitioner contends the remand cannot vest jurisdiction to initiate penalty because the original assessment did not express the necessary satisfaction, and cites decisions from Delhi and other High Courts. The respondent argues that the remand order allows the AO to pass a fresh assessment and that the Ext.P3 satisfaction justifies penalty proceedings. The Kerala High Court held that Ext.P2 was an open remand, giving the AO authority to initiate penalty upon a proper satisfaction in Ext.P3; the petitioner’s challenge fails. The petition was dismissed, with liberty to pursue statutory remedies against Ext.P6. The decision relies on the Angidi Chettiar doctrine that penalty depends on the AO’s satisfaction during assessment proceedings.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed by Saji Paul and M/s Varma Homes Pvt. Ltd. seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents, particularly the State and police authorities, to provide adequate and effective police protection for pursuit of developmental works and construction of residential apartments in the land governed by Ext.P4 decree (O.S. No. 429 of 2009, Munsiff Court, Ernakulam). The petition traces a long litigation history: a title suit culminating in a decree on 31.01.2011, delivery of possession on 11.08.2014, and continued obstruction by the 5th respondent despite various orders, including interim protection for surveying under W.P.(C) No. 8824 of 2017 and an execution petition. The petitioners contend that police protection is needed to carry out preparatory works and construction in accordance with Ext.P4 and permissions from authorities. The counter affidavit contends the petitioners lack building/permissive approvals; Ext.R5(a) shows a building permit for other properties owned by petitioners’ relatives, not Ext.P4 schedule property. The court relies on Prestige Lights Limited v. State Bank of India and Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India to emphasize that writ relief requires full, candid disclosure and clean hands. Since the petitioners have not disclosed full facts or obtained necessary permits, and their action is tainted by ulterior motive, the petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000.
MACA Nos. 1146 & 2534 of 2009 These two appeals arise from a common judgment of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV)Nos.2123 of 2004 and 457 of 2005, concerning a 10.10.2004 accident near Angamaly Junction involving a KSRTC bus and a motorcycle. The Tribunal held contributory negligence by the motorcycle rider at 20% and awarded compensation partially, with 80% recovery from KSRTC. The claimants in one appeal were the legal heirs of the deceased pillion Joy (OP(MV)2123/2004) and the rider Baby K.I. (OP(MV)457/2005) sought full and enhanced remedies in MACAs 2534/2009 and 1146/2009 respectively. On appeal, the Kerala High Court (Sophy Thomas J.) set aside the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence, holding that the evidence, including the charge sheet and AMVI reports, did not substantiate 20% negligence by the rider; the Bus driver’s fault was established. Notional income figures, disability assessment, and durations of hospitalisation were re-evaluated using Ramchandrappa and Pranay Sethi principles for future prospects and loss of dependency, and for loss of consortium. The Court enhanced compensation for the deceased Joy’s heirs and Baby K.I.’s family, directing the KSRTC to deposit enhanced amounts within two months, with interest, and clarified liability on the KSRTC (driver’s rash driving). The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated, with no costs order.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, in O.P.(MV) No.1749/2011, regarding injuries sustained by Anish S. Nair in a motor vehicle accident on 03.07.2011. The appellant contended that the accident was the sole result of rash and negligent driving by the car driver (1st respondent) and that the insurance company (2nd respondent) was liable for full compensation. The Tribunal had held the appellant contributory negligent to the extent of 50%, based on grounds including a wound certificate noting possible alcohol smell and the appellant lacking a valid driving license, along with police investigation findings implicating the car driver. The appellant argued these grounds were not sustainable indicators of contributory negligence and relied on precedents (police report findings, Pazhaniammal principle) to show that absence of contra-evidence should not automatically attribute fault to him. The respondents argued for sustained contributory negligence and contested the quantum. The High Court, per Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., reversed the Tribunal’s finding of contributory negligence, holding the accident to be solely the responsibility of the first respondent, with the insurance company liable for the full compensation. It re-determined the compensation at Rs 80,500, considering income, four months loss of earnings (instead of three), and an enhanced sum for pain and suffering, while directing deposit within three months with interest and costs.
This is an OP (Criminal) petition filed by P.V. Mathew challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs. 10,000 per month directed by the Family Court, Thiruvalla, in MC No.113/2021 under Section 125 CrPC. The respondent, Merikkutty Mathew, had sought maintenance, alleging she worked as a staff nurse abroad for 14 years and earned not less than Rs. 2,00,000 per month, while the petitioner—aged 72 with hypertension, dementia, and mobility issues—claimed no substantial means and contended that his assets were already attached, he faced medical setbacks including angioplasty and renal problems, and had to secure permission to lift attachments. The respondent had previously pursued a money-recovery case and a domestic violence matter, underscoring her financial need. The petitioner argued that the interim maintenance order was issued without hearing and cited his poor financial position; he also invoked Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr. for mandatory procedural guidelines, including affidavits of disclosure and timely disposal. The court, citing Rajnesh and related principles, held that the respondent’s evidence indicated the petitioner had means to pay and that the Rs.10,000 interim maintenance was reasonable. The petition was dismissed, Ext P1 was upheld, and arrears were directed to be deposited within one month, with further directions to follow Rajnesh if non-compliance.
WP(C).No. 561 of 2017 (U) Environmental rights jurisprudence in India has evolved over the last few decades, and this batch of writ petitions from Kerala High Court engages the interpretation of the Environment Impact Assessment Notification 2006 as amended in 2016 to determine whether residents have a right to be heard during the environmental clearance process for granite quarrying projects. The petitioners claim to be local residents opposing quarrying activities and contend that the notification does not expressly grant a right to be heard at the stage of grant of clearance; they emphasize the need for meaningful scrutiny of data submitted by proponents and the opportunity to raise objections before the final decision is taken. The respondents, representing project proponents, argue that the notifications do not contemplate such a right and that small-scale projects (often under five hectares) do not require public consultation at this stage; remedies are available post-clearance via appeals to the National Green Tribunal, and a hearing would unduly delay the process. The court acknowledges the absence of an express hearing right but reasons that, in environmental matters where data accuracy is critical and immediate action follows clearance, a limited pre-clearance hearing can be justified to verify facts. It directs DEIAA/SEIAA to grant a personal hearing on the petitioners’ objections before finalizing any clearance, and to keep pending decisions in abeyance until the hearing is completed, while leaving other legal contentions open for resolution in appropriate fora.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MACA No. 174 of 2013) arising from a MACT order in OPMV 839/2007, Kottayam. On 22.12.2006, while the appellant, a 46-year-old agriculturist and manual labourer, was walking along the Puthenkurishu–Thiruvankulam road, a lorry (KL-17/C 8206) driven by the 1st respondent allegedly in rash and negligent manner struck him, causing fractures, bladder injury, pelvic deformity, and a long hospitalisation spanning from 22.12.2006 to 02.09.2007. He claimed compensation of Rs. 13,18,000 (capped at Rs. 10,00,000). The Tribunal partly allowed the petition and awarded Rs. 4,89,755 with 7.5% interest and costs, directing the 3rd respondent (insurer) to pay. The appellant challenged the quantum, arguing inadequate compensation given the severity of injuries and loss of earning capacity. The High Court, applying established jurisprudence on just compensation, notably Pranay Sethi for the concept of just compensation, Ramachandrappa for notional income, and Pappu Deo Yadav for future prospects, refixed notional income at Rs. 5,500 per month, affirmed 40% functional disability, and awarded additional sums for loss of earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of future prospects, culminating in a total enhanced amount of Rs. 7,44,155 and then an additional enhancement of Rs. 2,54,400 ending at Rs. 9,98,555 (overall). The insurer was directed to deposit the enhanced compensation within two months, with disbursement by the Tribunal following due process. The decision reiterates the statutory framework for just compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act and the fairness-based approach.
This writ appeal, heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, challenges a judgment dated 22 February 2021 in WP(C) No.151 of 2021. The petitioners, Ayishamol and Ambily, are kidney patients/donors who sought/directed consideration under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 for renal transplantation. Ambily volunteered to donate a kidney to Ayishamol after Ayishamol’s own transplant prospects were halted by a mismatched evaluation. The Local Level Commissioner for Renal Transplantation (3rd respondent) allegedly sought a police report (4th respondent) before forwarding to the statutory District Level Authorization Committee (2nd respondent) for decision, and the 2nd respondent rejected the joint application. The petitioners argued that the 2nd respondent acted contrary to the Act and Rules, that there was an inadvertent typographical error in a prior certificate, and that there was no commercial motive behind altruistic donation. The writ court’s analysis focused on Sections 9(3), 9(5), 9(6) of the Act and Rule 7(3) of the 2014 Rules, emphasizing that the Authorization Committee must conduct a proper inquiry and ensure no commercial transaction. The High Court ultimately quashes the authorisation certificate Ext.P8 and directs the Committee to reconsider all materials expeditiously, keeping the patient’s health in view.
This is an Article 227 petition filed by the tenant Seena Ramesh challenging an eviction order in a Rent Control matter. The landlord filed eviction under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, leading to a series of orders. The Rent Control Court directed deposit of admitted arrears; upon default, it passed Section 12(3) directing vacant possession, resulting in the stoppage of further proceedings in the Rent Control Petition. The landlord then pursued execution (E.P. 39/2020 in R.C.P. 19/2019) before the Principal Munsiff, which led to delivery of vacant possession on 24.01.2022. The tenant approached this High Court under Article 227 seeking to keep execution in abeyance for five months to remove furniture or conduct a clearance sale, and to amend the writ petition to challenge the 12(3) order as unsustainable. The Court examined the power of superintendence under Article 227, citing several precedents that emphasise restraint in interference and the need to safeguard the efficiency of justice. Ultimately, the Court held that the 12(3) order had attained finality and that the execution court was not at fault in delivering possession. The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process, though exemplary costs were not imposed due to Covid-19 conditions.
W.P.(C) Nos. 29005/2019, 29052/2019, 28006/2019, 28002/2019, 29246/2019, 26658/2019, 26583/2019, 27965/2019, 28008/2019, 26561/2019, 29043/2019, 27367/2019, 28001/2019, 27311/2019, 29864/2019, 29195/2019, 25650/2019, 32468/2019, 31982/2019, 30823/2019, 32471/2019, 29365/2019, 29938/2019, 33712/2019, 33507/2019, 33429/2019, 32826/2019, 32789/2019, 32776/2019, 33937/2019, 33968/2019, 31258/2019, 31178/2019, 33714/2019, 28853/2019, 27314/2019, 27274/2019, 29249/2019, 34530/2019, 34562/2019, 34654/2019 (I) This is a batch judgment of the Kerala High Court dated 19 December 2019 addressing multiple writ petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 29005/2019, 29052/2019, 28006/2019, 28002/2019, 29246/2019, 26658/2019, 26583/2019, 27965/2019, 28008/2019, 26561/2019, 29043/2019, 27367/2019, 28001/2019, 27311/2019, 29864/2019, 29195/2019, 25650/2019, 32468/2019, 31982/2019, 30823/2019, 32471/2019, 29365/2019, 29938/2019, 33712/2019, 33507/2019, 33429/2019, 32826/2019, 32789/2019, 32776/2019, 33937/2019, 33968/2019, 31258/2019, 31178/2019, 33714/2019, 28853/2019, 27314/2019, 27274/2019, 29249/2019, 34530/2019, 34562/2019, 34654/2019 (I).” The petitions involve oil companies (HPCL, IOC, BPCL, etc.) challenging district-cum-public-works authorities’ refusals to issue No-Objection Certificates under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002, alleging reliance on IRC Guidelines and MORTH Norms in approvals for roadside petroleum outlets. The court threads through whether IRC Guidelines have force of law, and whether MORTH Norms apply to outlets not along National Highways. It cites Mary Ulahannan, Arti Devi Dangi, Mukesh Yadav, Union of India v Dhanwanti Devi, Quinn v Leath, MCD Uphaar, and related authorities. The judgment ultimately adopts a pragmatic approach that while IRC Guidelines are not binding law, they can be considered for public-safety purposes, and MORTH Norms principally apply to National Highways; the Kerala Public Works Department Manual’s amendments in 2019 are noted but not retroactively binding on applications filed earlier. The court dismisses the petitions subject to para 21, holding that the District Authority is not precluded from relying on IRC Guidelines while evaluating No-Objection Certificates under Rule 144, and that actions premised solely on IRC Guidelines without considering public-safety norms may be unsustainable. The decision emphasizes balancing Article 19(1)(g) rights with public safety and the duty of care under public-safety legislation.
This trio of writ petitions challenges the Union Government’s rejection of the Swatantrata Sainik Samman (SSS) Pension under the Central SSS Pension Scheme, 1980, despite state-level letters of recommendation and a Non-availability of Records Certificate (NARC). The petitioner in WP(C) 13863/2013 is a claimed freedom fighter; the other two petitions involve widows seeking pension for their late husbands. The petitions rely on Personal Knowledge Certificates (PKCs) issued by certifiers who themselves endured imprisonment during the freedom struggle, and argue that the PKCs, in the prescribed format, along with the State Government’s recommendation and NARC, establish eligibility for underground or jail suffering under the scheme. PKCs of Narayanan Ramankutty and Kunjan Sukumaran are cited; PKC by H.K. Chakrapani is relied upon less or avoided for credibility reasons. The Union contends that PKCs cannot be treated as conclusive proof and that the NARC, premised on these PKCs, lacks reliability; primary records are unavailable, and evidence does not meet the scheme’s evidentiary requirements. The court, relying on earlier similar cases and judgments, criticizes the rejection orders as arbitrary and contrary to the aim of the Central scheme. It quashes the contested orders, directs grant of the pension with arrears, and directs release within three months, recognizing that the petitioners should be compensated for the past hardship and sacrifice of freedom fighters.
This appeal arises from OPMV 445/2008 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vatakara, where the petitioners claimed Rs 20,00,000 as compensation for the death of Raveendran after being hit by a bus on 26.11.2007. The deceased, aged 53, was a Sanitation Worker and also a Theyyam artist, with a combined monthly income of around Rs 15,618. The Tribunal awarded Rs 11,76,700 as compensation with 7.5% interest, and Rs 12,000 costs; the insurer challenged the quantum, urging adoption of the split multiplier method (2:9) to reflect post-retirement earnings, relying on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Valsa and Kumaran v. Roy Mathew. The respondents argued that the deceased’s dual vocation continued after retirement and that conventional heads and future prospects were not adequately provided. The High Court, applying the doctrine from Puttamma v. Narayana Reddy that split multiplier should not be used without cogent reasons, held that the peculiar facts—especially the Theyyam income and anticipated post-retirement earnings—did not justify applying a split multiplier. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal’s award, and left the compensation intact at Rs 11,76,700 with interest and costs.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.MC No. 5704 of 2017) filed by the petitioner, accused no.4, challenging proceedings in CC No. 168/2017 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Piravom, arising from Crime No. 955/2015. The offences alleged are under Sections 417, 420 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The case traces to Annexure-A1, a complaint submitted by the 3rd respondent, naming the 2nd and 3rd accused and describing a chit fund operation run by Eminent Chits Private Limited; the 3rd respondent claimed he was cheated and funds were misappropriated. Annexure-A2 registered as FIR named A2 and A3; Annexure-A3 final report implicates five accused including the petitioner and includes offences under Sections 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioner contends that Annexure-A1 does not name him and Annexure-A3 lacks allegations against him, warranting invocation of Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court examines whether prima facie case exists; it notes the allegations show common intention among directors, managers, and others in the company’s main business of collecting funds, and that even in the absence of specific acts, the allegations indicate culpability. The High Court ultimately dismisses the Cr.M.C., holding that quashing at this stage is not warranted, and permits the trial to proceed, while clarifying observations are limited to the question of invoking 482 Cr.P.C.
RSA No.331/2020 & RSA No.78/2021 This Regular Second Appeal consolidates RSA No.331/2020 and RSA No.78/2021, arising from a dispute over the allocation and conversion of parking spaces in the Skyline Topaz complex at Kadavanthra, Kochi. The plaintiff in the suit, Paulachan Maniamkott, sought permanent prohibitory and mandatory injunctions to restrain the defendants from converting and selling common free space shown in the approved plan and to restore any spaces converted into parking. The trial court held that the free spaces on the ground and first floors could not be established as common free space and concluded that shifting parking spaces did not violate the building permit, thereby dismissing the mandatory injunction but restraining sale beyond the approved 123 parking slots. On appeal, the District Court (1st Appellate Court) found that yellow-shaded areas in Exts.C1(a) and C1(b) represented common spaces illegally converted into parking and directed restoration of those spaces, while confirming the overall 123-slot limit. The High Court, with Justice M.R. Anitha, upheld the appellate decree to the extent that there was deviation from the approved plan, holding that additional parking beyond 123 cannot be created without compliance with building rules, and directed regularization via Rule 143 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 within a month. The matter is disposed of with costs to be borne by the parties; if regularization fails, the decree may be executed.
The Kerala High Court, in a Division Bench consisting of Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., hears CRL.A No. 546 of 2017 against the judgment dated 6 May 2017 in S.C. No. 846 of 2012 from the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Pathanamthitta. The appellants are accused nos. 1 and 3, with the 2nd accused having died during trial; the State is the respondent. The prosecution case is that Sasidharan Pillai was stabbed to death by the accused during a confrontation in his courtyard on 19 March 2011 after the deceased reportedly disturbed the accused’s daughter by singing devotional songs. The Sessions Court convicted the 1st and 3rd accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, imposing life imprisonment and a fine of Rs 1 lakh each, with a default term of one year’s rigorous imprisonment. On appeal, the appellants argued that the prosecution failed to prove guilt, pointing to discrepancies in PW2 (the deceased’s wife and sole eyewitness), lack of motive, non-production of dress and fingerprints, and failure to prove common intention for the 3rd accused. The Public Prosecutor contended that PW2’s testimony was credible and corroborated by PW1 and PW6, with post-mortem evidence sharply aligning with the eyewitness account. The High Court accepts the conviction against the 1st accused and reverses as to the 3rd accused, holding no proven common intention linking them jointly to the murder; the appeal is allowed in part, with the 3rd accused acquitted and the 1st accused’s conviction and sentence upheld.
The petitioners are residents of Chalakudy taluk who challenge encroachments on 5.03 acres of temple land belonging to Mannupuram Mahadeva Temple in Pariyaram Village, recorded as Devaswom property. They filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to remove encroachments and to protect the temple’s assets, under the Kerala Land Conservancy Act, 1957. They also urged the District Judge to consider Ext.P5 (dated 30.11.2021), in light of the Supreme Court’s directions in W.P.(C)649/2018, and to file a report. The petition relies on the property’s recording as temple land in the Settlement Register and BTR, and cites a prior petition (W.P.(C)8131/2017) where revenue authorities refused taxation due to temple land status, noting inaction in identifying encroachers. The court invokes jurisprudence from A.A. Gopalakrishnan v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Travancore Devaswom Board v. Mohanan Nair, emphasizing temple property protection and the Court’s parens patriae jurisdiction. It also references Achuthan Pillai, Mrinalini Padhi, and Nandakumar to justify judicial oversight and possible government involvement in safeguarding endowments. Ultimately, the court disposes the petition by directing the Additional District Judge to consider Ext.P5 per Apex Court directions and report within four months, with notice to relevant parties, without expressing a merits ruling on Ext.P5.
This writ petition challenges an order of the State Information Commission directing disclosure of information relating to corruption and human rights violations by Kerala Police officers under the RTI Act. The petitioners, i.e., the State Public Information Officer and the Appellate Authority, argue that certain information about police officers is exempt from disclosure under Section 24(4) and that government notifications restrict disclosure for intelligence/security bodies; they rely on the RTI framework to shield such information. The 2nd respondent, an interested public, sought details on steps taken to comply with an SIC order, names and posts of officers alleged to be corrupt, withdrawn cases after 25.5.2016, and absconding political activists. The State Information Commission earlier held that information relating to corruption and human rights violations should be disclosed, categorizing cases into four types and directing publication on the Kerala Police website, with limited exclusion for ongoing or inconclusive investigations. The High Court emphasises RTI’s aim of transparency and accountability, citing UP v. Raj Narain, S.P. Gupta, Namit Sharma and other authorities to support open governance, while acknowledging exemptions under Sections 4, 8 and 24. The petition is disposed with directions to publish the relevant information, save where a conclusive court finding has not been reached, within 30 days from 20.3.2021.
