The Kerala High Court, in Crl.M.C. No. 1997 of 2025, concerns four accused challenging FIR No. 28/2017 of Pothukal Police Station and its connected CC No. 220/2017 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nilambur, for offences under Sections 498A, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners seek quashment of the entire proceedings on the ground that the parties have amicably settled the dispute. The defacto complainant (3rd respondent) states that she and the 1st petitioner are divorced, she has remarried, and has no grievance against the petitioners; an accompanying affidavit corroborates the bona fides of the settlement. The court records the statement and is satisfied that the settlement is genuine. Relying on the principles in B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana and Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, as well as State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy Veerappa, the court emphasizes the inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of BNSS, 2023) to quash non-compoundable offences where there is a bona fide settlement and little likelihood of conviction, and warns against abuse of process. It notes that 406 is a compoundable offence and the settlement further supports quashing. Accordingly, the court allows the Crl.M.C., quashing FIR No. 28/2017, the final report, and the proceedings in CC No. 220/2017 as an ends-justify-the-means exercise in the interests of justice. The bench closes the matter with quashment ordered.
The writ petition challenges the freezing of the petitioner Vyshakh Unnikrishnan’s bank account No. 53210001103946 by ESAF Small Finance Bank in pursuance of a police requisition. The petitioner contends that the debit-freeze is arbitrary and that the entire balance has been blocked, depriving him of the ability to operate his funds, though he is not an accused in any case. The bank submitted that the account is totally debit-freeze in line with the police directive. In considering a similar matter, this Court relied on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826), which directed banks to confine freezes to the amount mentioned in the order and to obtain timely information from the police about continuation. The Court also cites Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC Online 768), which concurred with Dr. Sajeer and emphasized Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. Accordingly, the Court disposes the petition with directions: confine the freeze to the specified amount; require police information on continuation; banks to act; and if no information is received, the petitioner may approach this Court again. The judgment also requires service of the judgment on the concerned authorities.
This is a Kerala High Court challenge under Article 227 to an order of a Commercial Court that referred disputes arising from a joint venture agreement to arbitration under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The petitioners, Mineetha C. and Manjusha C., contend that the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 is a complete code for speedy disposal of commercial disputes and that Section 21 creates a non-obstante override, such that arbitration should not be invoked for commercial disputes. They advocate that Section 10(3) of the Commercial Courts Act requires that where the subject matter is a commercial dispute, all Arbitration Act applications be heard by the Commercial Court, and they challenge relegating the plaint for arbitration as contrary to statutory provisions. The respondents argue that the Arbitration Act is a special statute and the Commercial Courts Act is a general statute; harmonious construction allows the two to operate with arbitration where there is a valid arbitration clause. The judgment discusses several authorities, notably BGS SGS Soma JV v NHPC Limited and Kandla Export Corporation v OCI Corporation, to reconcile both statutes and affirm that arbitration remains viable where a valid arbitration agreement exists. The court ultimately upholds the trial court’s order and dismisses the original petition, thereby allowing the arbitration reference to proceed where appropriate.
This writ petition challenges a freezing order on the petitioner’s bank account No. 9747919262, allegedly imposed by the 2nd respondent (Kotak Mahindra Bank) on the basis of a police requisition. The petitioner, Trendz Exports, contends that the freezing is illegal and arbitrary and seeks its lifting. The court notes that Ext. P3 details the disputed amount as Rs. 5,00,000 and relies on jurisprudence from Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) to urge that freezes should be confined to the amounts specified in police requisitions, so as to enable petitioners to transact beyond that limit. It cites Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768) to reinforce the principle that banks must cooperate with police reporting requirements under S.102 Cr.P.C. (now S.106 BNSS, 2023) and stresses that delay in reporting seizures can adversely affect seizure validity. Following an in-depth discussion of case law (including Maharashtra v. Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen), the court issues a structured set of directions aimed at balancing the petitioner’s access to funds with police-investigative needs. The writ petition is accordingly disposed with monitoring directions to banks and police, and a two-month window for compliance or lifting the debit freeze.
The petitioner, Muhammed Shinas K.K., seeks a directive to lift the debit freeze imposed by the 3rd respondent IndusInd Bank on his account No. 189605276772, which was froze following a police requisition by the 2nd respondent. The petitioner asserts that the freezing action is arbitrary and unjustified since he is not named as an accused and the account freeze adversely affects his ability to conduct ordinary transactions and livelihood. The 3rd respondent bank states the disputed amount is Rs. 9,999 and that the freeze is a lawful response to the police requisition. In considering the matter, the Kerala High Court places reliance on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, endorsing a calibrated, time-bound approach that confines the freeze to the amount specified and requires police information about whether the freeze should continue and for how long, within a defined period. Further, the court references the interpretation of Section 102 Cr.P.C (now Section 106 BNSS 2023) as laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen, to emphasize that delay or failure to report seizure can affect validity. The judgment directs the bank to limit the freeze to the specified amount, directs police to inform the bank about continuation, and permits the petitioner to approach the court again if compliance is not achieved, while ensuring service of the judgment to the relevant authorities.
The writ petition challenges the debit freeze imposed on petitioners’ bank account no. 30003100861, allegedly following a requisition from the 4th respondent, police authorities. Petitioners, an elderly couple, contend the bank's action is illegal and arbitrary as it freezes funds essential for their routine transactions, livelihood, and medical needs. The court situates the matter within a broader jurisprudential framework that emphasizes proportionality and prompt judicial oversight in freeze-and-seizure contexts. Relying on Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024 (1) KLT 826) and later precedents, the court endorses a principle that freezing orders should be confined to the amount specified in police requisitions, enabling petitioners to transact beyond that limit. The court also requires police authorities to inform banks whether continued freezing is necessary and, if so, for what duration. Additional guidance from Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd, and references to State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen further justify timely reporting to magistrates and limiting bank seizures. After aligning with these precedents, the judge directs the banks to adjust freezes accordingly, requests information from authorities within specified timelines, and retains the petitioners’ right to seek further relief if necessary.
The Kerala High Court hears a writ petition (WP(C) 9177/2025) challenging debit freeze on the petitioner’s bank account no. 9517000100001790. The petitioner claims the bank froze the account pursuant to requisitions from police authorities (Respondents 2–5) and argues that the action is illegal and arbitrary, impeding access to funds. The bank defends its action by stating that, in two requisitions, no amount was specified, but a lien for Rs. 1,75,00,000 was indicated in the requisition from Respondent 5, and a lien for Rs. 40,00,000 in the requisition from Respondent 3. The Court recalls Dr. Sajeer v. RBI (2024 (1) KLT 826), and Nazeer K.T. v. Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC Online 768), endorsing the principle that freezes should be confined to amounts specified in police orders and that banks must respond to police intimations within set timeframes. It also cites frameworks from State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize timely reporting of seizures under CrPC S.102 (now S.106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) and related jurisprudence. The Court ultimately directs: (i) confine the freeze to the specified amounts; (ii) police to inform banks whether freezes should continue and for how long; (iii) banks to comply; (iv) if no information is received, petitioner may approach the Court again; (v) police to inform if seizure has been reported to the Magistrate; (vi) serve the judgment on relevant officers. The petition is ordered accordingly.
This Kerala High Court, in Crl.M.C. No.1039 of 2025, deals with quashing of a criminal proceeding arising from Crime No.17/2024 of Palakkad Vanitha Police Station, now pending as CC No.172/2024 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Palakkad. The petitioners, Arshadh Ahammed, Jasmine and Shamsudheen N, challenge the FIR under Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, on the basis of a settlement between the parties. The respondents include the State of Kerala (represented by the Public Prosecutor) and the defacto complainant, who is the second respondent. The court records the defacto complainant’s affidavit confirming that disputes have been amicably settled and that she has no objection to quashing. The court cites established precedents (B.S. Joshi, State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy, and Gian Singh) to consider whether ends of justice justify quashing a non‑compoundable offence where there is settlement and no likely likelihood of conviction. The judge notes that, in such circumstances, continued prosecution would be futile and may amount to abuse of process, and hence the quashing would secure the ends of justice. The petition is allowed; FIR, final report, and further proceedings are quashed. This decision reiterates that an inherent power under the Cr.P.C. can be exercised to quash non‑compoundable offences when bona fide settlements exist.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, relating to the death of Muhammed in a road accident on 12.09.2007. The petitioners (mother and siblings of the deceased) contended that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal was inadequate. The Tribunal held the vehicle negligent and awarded Rs. 1,06,500. The appellants challenged the quantum, arguing that the Tribunal erred in determining the deceased’s income and accordingly the dependency loss. The core dispute concerns the notional income of the deceased as a coolie. While the Tribunal fixed Rs. 2,000 per month, the appellants urged Rs. 6,000 per month in line with Ramachandrappa. The court applied established Supreme Court doctrine: notional income for a coolie (Ramachandrappa), future prospects at 25% (Pranay Sethi) with a 13-year multiplier (Sarla Verma), and a 1/2 deduction for personal living expenses. The outcome yields a loss of dependency of Rs. 5,85,000; funeral and loss of estate adjustments; loss of love and affection at Rs. 48,400; and pain and suffering raised to Rs. 25,000. The final consolidated award becomes Rs. 6,96,700. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is directed to deposit this amount with interest at 8% from the petition date, within two months, for disbursement to the petitioners as per the tribunal’s rules.
This is a writ petition challenging the freezing of the petitioner’s bank account by the 3rd respondent bank pursuant to a police requisition. The petitioner contends the debit freeze is illegal and arbitrary, hindering ordinary banking and daily needs, especially since the disputed amount is shown as Rs 5,000 (Ext. P2) and the account number is 001720391071049. The court records that in a nearly identical matter, it relied on Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) to direct banks to confine the freeze to the precise amount mentioned in police orders and to enable the petitioner to transact beyond that limit. The judgment also invokes Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd and cites decisions like State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize that delay in reporting seizures under S.102 Cr.P.C. undermines seizure validity and should guide future action. The court directs the 3rd respondent bank to limit the freeze, requires police to inform banks about continuation periods, and imposes a time-bound framework (two months for compliance with S.102) to facilitate lifting the debit freeze if no timely intimation is given.
This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (Crl.A No.734 of 2007) arising from S.C No.7/2005 of the Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track-III (Ad hoc), Manjeri. The three appellants were originally charged for offences including 323, 326 and 307 read with 34 IPC in connection with an incident on 30.09.1998, where the victim sustained a depressed fracture. The Trial Court convicted Appellant No.1 for offences under 307 and 326 IPC, and Appellants 2 and 3 for 323 IPC; sentences were imposed accordingly. In the appeal, the appellants sought to quash further proceedings and challenge convictions. During hearing, PW4 (the victim) supported a settlement between the parties and an affidavit was filed asserting no grievance against the appellants. The Public Prosecutor stated the dispute had been amicably settled. Relying on constitutional and criminal‑procedure precedents (Gian Singh; Narinder Singh; Lakshmi Narayan; Kapil Gupta; Bitan Sengupta; Soban; etc.), the High Court exercised its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash non‑compoundable offences where a comprehensive settlement exists and continuation would cause oppression or injustice. The court found that the settlement was voluntary and fair, and that the offences involved, particularly 307, could be viewed in the light of a heat‑of‑the‑moment incident with no mens rea. Consequently, the court allowed the miscellaneous application, quashed the Crime No.259/1998, and set aside the conviction and sentence. The appeal was disposed accordingly.
CRL.A. No. 1405/2019 (with connected cases CRL.A. Nos. 1406/2019, 1165/2019, 1174/2019) The Kerala High Court, in a divided bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice G. Girish, heard CRL.A. No. 1405/2019 along with connected petitions against a conviction for the 2015 Chanthakkadavu incident in which Johnson and Subin alias Justin were killed. The trial court had convicted accused nos. 1–5 under sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 120B and 302 IPC and sentenced them to life imprisonment with a fine; accused nos. 6–8 were acquitted on the 212 IPC/120B IPC charges. The High Court undertook a meticulous re-evaluation of the evidence, focusing on the reliability and presence of “chance witnesses” (PW2, PW3, PW7, PW8, PW24) relied upon by the prosecution. It noted marked inconsistencies, delays in recording statements, close relations to the deceased, and substantial geographical distance from the scene, which undermined credibility. Citing Satbir v. Surat Singh and several subsequent judgments, the Court held that the chance witnesses’ testimony could not form a reliable basis for conviction. In light of these defects, the High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and it reversed the conviction, acquitting accused nos. 1–5 under CrPC 386(b)(i), with a direction to release them forthwith. The judgment also discusses the propriety of proceeding under 304A IPC but ultimately acquits on the stated charges.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case (Crl.M.C. No.1863 of 2025) filed in the Kerala High Court by the accused Basil Mathews, Elcy John and Mathew seeking to quash Crime No.184/2023 of Chittur Police Station (pending as CC No.709/2024) under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The defacto complainant is Neethu Raj, and the respondents include the State represented by the Public Prosecutor and the Chittur SHOs. The petition contends that accorded with amicable settlement between the parties, and with the defacto complainant’s consent to quash, continuing the criminal proceedings would be futile and amount to abuse of process. The court directed recording of the defacto complainant’s statement, which confirmed settlement and no desire to proceed. The petition relied on established jurisprudence (B.S. Joshi and Gian Singh) that quashing can be ordered under the inherent powers of Cr.P.C. 482/528 when ends of justice require it and when a genuine settlement exists, particularly in matters involving matrimonial disputes. The court observed that there is no reasonable likelihood of conviction, and forcing continued proceedings would undermine justice. It concluded the settlement is genuine and bonafide, and allowed the Crl.M.C., quashing Annexure-A1 FIR (Crime No.184/2023), Annexure-A2 final report, and all further proceedings in CC No.709/2024.
MAT.APPEAL NO. 357 OF 2016; Cross Objection No. 93 OF 2016; MAT.APPEAL NO. 567 OF 2016 This is a matrimonial appeal and cross-appeal before the Kerala High Court arising from a Family Court, Vadakara, original petition for return of gold ornaments and maintenance. The wife, Bareera, claimed 56 sovereigns of gold as mahar at the time of marriage and additional ornaments later provided after childbirth; the husband, Abdulla, and the mother Ayisha denied such quantities and contended a smaller number of ornaments existed, with allegations of pledge and misappropriation. The Family Court found no direct evidence on quantity but accepted the wife’s oral testimony to the extent of 40.5 sovereigns and decreed return of that quantity, with a further question of 25 sovereigns being pledged; it also awarded maintenance. The appellants challenged the quantity, the alleged entrustment, and the valuation, arguing insufficient documentary proof and disputed pledging. The court noted lack of documentary support for the exact quantity and proceeded to fix the return at 33 sovereigns after deducting wear and probable personal use, while accepting some aspects of entrustment based on oral testimony. The cross objection by the wife sought value for 33 sovereigns at realization; the court allowed this portion, recognizing fluctuating ornament values. The husband’s challenge to the maintenance was also addressed, but the court’s final order primarily concerns the ornament return and its valuation. The appeals were disposed of with these modifications, and costs ordered accordingly.
In a batch of criminal revision petitions (CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected matters) heard by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, Justice P. Somarajan delivered orders on 7 June 2024 concerning suo motu proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The core issue is the validity of orders of acquittal and the subsequent invocation of Section 258 to pause or discharge prosecutions in summons cases where the accused could not be located despite reasonable steps and the costs of securing their appearance would exceed the prescribed maximum fine. The proceedings were initiated under the Administrative Committee’s resolution of 18.09.2017, with multiple cases arising from Magistrate of First Class, Kollam. The court examined the legal position, citing a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) which delineates the conditions under which a magistrate may stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C., including recording reasons and assessing costs relative to the maximum fine. The judge reiterated that the settled legal position permits such stoppage when the required criteria are met and that it falls within the trial court’s jurisdiction. Ultimately, the High Court held that the revisions fail and are closed. The order consolidates the controlling principle: Section 258 can validly halt or discharge proceedings in summons cases under appropriate circumstances, with no interference from this Court.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 1237 of 2019) decided by the High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, on 2 April 2025, by Single Judge G. Girish. The petitioner, Sajeeb S., accused in C.C.No.21/2016 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Kodungallur, seeks to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The complainant alleges that on 25 May 2015, the petitioner and his father trespassed into the second respondent’s house, inflicted hurt, verbally abused, and threatened with a dagger, attracting offences under sections 452, 323, 506(ii) and 294(b) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The crime was registered on the basis of a complaint dated 21 October 2015 and forwarded to police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner contends innocence, maintains the case is false, and argues that the initiation under Section 156(3) was flawed due to non-compliance with statutory prerequisites. Specifically, the complaint allegedly did not comply with Section 154(3) Cr.P.C by not being sent in writing to the SP, nor was an affidavit filed as per Supreme Court guidance in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. The court notes the need for prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) and the affidavit requirement to deter false filings, citing Priyanka Srivastava and Babu Venkatesh. It holds that failure to comply renders continuation an abuse of process and, accordingly, quashes the proceedings in C.C.No.21/2016.
CRL.RC Nos. 269/2018; 273/2018; 275/2018; 276/2018; 277/2018; 278/2018; 279/2018; 281/2018; 282/2018; 287/2018; 290/2018; 291/2018; 292/2018; 296/2018; 298/2018; 300/2018; 301/2018; 303/2018; 307/2018; 308/2018; 309/2018; 311/2018; 315/2018; 317/2018; 319/2018; 323/2018; 327/2018; 328/2018; 330/2018; 336/2018; 342/2018; 346/2018; 348/2018; 349/2018; 350/2018; 351/2018; 353/2018; 356/2018; 357/2018; 358/2018; 359/2018; 361/2018; 362/2018; 363/2018; 374/2018; 375/2018; 376/2018; 383/2018; 386/2018; 393/2018) This batch of connected criminal revision petitions arises from orders of Judicial Magistrates at Kollam in various ST (session trial) numbers beginning in 2013, challenging the orders and the ongoing Suo Motu proceedings initiated by resolutions of the Administrative Committee on 18-09-2017. The petitions, listed as Crl.RC Nos. 269/2018 and connected files (273/2018, 275/2018, etc.), were heard together by a single judge, Justice P. Somarajan, on 07-06-2024. The central issue is whether the Magistrate can stop proceedings in summons cases under Section 258 Cr.P.C. when a diligent search for the accused has failed and the cost of securing appearance would exceed the maximum prescribed fine. The court relies on a Division Bench decision cited as State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) that clarifies the conditions for stopping proceedings under Section 258. The Kerala High Court ultimately held that Section 258 Cr.P.C. permits stoppage where the statutory prerequisites are satisfied, and that the revisions lack merit, dismissing and closing them. The decision underscores the narrow, stringent application of 258 Cr.P.C. in summon-based prosecutions and affirms the magistrate’s power where justified.
The petitioner, Chandrika D., a senior Medical Records Officer, superannuated from RCC on 30 November 2021 after a long service (1985 appointment; post-probation promotion to Medical Records Officer in 2006). Following the 6th Central Pay Revision and its basis in the 7th CPC framework, the RCC/State implemented revised pay structures, including II FCP, which led to various pay fixes, gratuity, earned leave surrender and pension computations. The petitioner alleges irregular fixation and recovery of sums already paid, culminating in an apparent overpayment deduction, and seeks redress for incorrect pay fixation, gratuity and pension calculations, and for the recovery of amounts claimed as excess payments, supported by accompanying notes and undertakings (Exts P14, P15). The government/court history shows a prior order in 2019 directing the government to examine representations; the 3-member committee recommended remedial measures; GO RT No. 869/2012/H&FWD and GO MS 76/2021/H&FWD were cited as enabling the adjusted pay scales for RCC staff. A key issue is whether any undertaking to refund excess payments, given two months before retirement, can be invoked to recover sums after retirement. The court ultimately applies the Supreme Court’s decision in Punjab v. Rafiq Masih to bar such recoveries post-retirement, directing refund of the entire excess and payment of interest, while holding that the undertaking cannot be enforced for recovery since it was not given at the time of pay revision. The petition is disposed of accordingly, with financial remedies and interest timings specified.
Muhamed Safvan E filed W.P.(C.) No.7195 of 2025 in the Kerala High Court seeking the lifting of a debit freeze on his bank account No. 99980103567538 held with the 4th respondent bank. The petition asserts that the freezing was effected by the bank pursuant to requisitions from the police and is illegal and arbitrary against an innocent account holder who is not charged with any crime. The matter was heard on 25 March 2025, with arguments from the petitioner (through his counsel) and the bank’s counsel. The bank explained that the freeze arose from suspicions of suspicious transactions, and that the freeze was imposed in response to police action. The court anchors its decision on a line of precedents, notably Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024) 1 KLT 826, which required banks to confine freeze orders to the amount specified by police and to seek timely police guidance on continuation; and Nazeer K.T. v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), which endorsed the approach and added procedural requirements tied to Section 102 Cr.P.C. (now Section 106 BNSS, 2023) and its interpretation by the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D. Neogy and Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, as well as Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen. \nThe court further directs that (i) the freezing must be confined to the amount stated in the police order, enabling the petitioner to transact beyond that limit; (ii) police must inform banks whether the freeze should continue and for what period; (iii) banks must act on such information; (iv) if no information is received within two months of this judgment, the debit freeze must be lifted; (v) police must inform the bank whether seizure has been reported to the Magistrate and time limits for such reporting, with service of this judgment to the concerned officers; (vi) the bank and petitioner must serve copies of this judgment on the relevant officers. This decision seeks to balance enforcement with protecting individuals not accused of offences.
W.P.(C) Nos.7163 & 10913 of 2024 The petitioners challenge the non-inclusion of their names in the select list for appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the Kerala Judicial Service against 13 NCA and 56 regular vacancies. Ext.P2 notified 69 total vacancies; petitioners’ names appeared in the merit list (7163: rank 27; 10913: rank 64) and were included in the select list forwarded to the Government for Governor’s approval. Subsequently, the High Court recalled the list and issued a new list of 39 candidates, leading to Ext.P4 notification appointing those 39. The petitioners contend that, after notifying 56 regular vacancies and forwarding a 48-candidate list, the Court could not reduce the number of selected candidates; they rely on Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra) and argue that recasting is arbitrary and prejudicial. The State and High Court defend the recasting, citing computations showing 69 vacancies and additional 10% anticipatory vacancies, and emphasize imponderables such as cadre re-fixation, deputation dynamics, and non-materialization of some anticipated posts. The Court references Malik Mazhar Sultan and Reshma A. to endorse the methodology for computing vacancies (existing, anticipated, wait-list) and reiterates that mere merit-list inclusion does not confer indefeasible right to appointment. Ultimately, the Court dismisses the petitions, holding that recasting of the select list was valid for legitimate reasons and that the petitioners’ rights to appointment were not indefeasible. The decision underscores jurisdiction to supervise but not to override administrative decisions absent illegality.
