ISSUE 04 APRIL 2024
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CHRONICLES
In This Issue
JUDGES’ CORNER
THE HISTORY
OF THE JUDICIAL Justice Anil K. Narendran
SYSTEM OF COCHIN “Judges interpret words. And words do
not bind the interpreters; rather the
interpreters give meaning to the words”
FRESH FROM THE
- Frank H. Easterbrook
BENCH
All facets of human action revolve around the fulcrum of
law. Thomas Aquinas describes law as "a certain rule and
measure of acts whereby man is induced to act or is
IMPORTANT restrained from acting." Laws are adapted for the
EVENTS community and cannot stand away from the society. It is
deeply embedded in the society. The theory of civil society
as articulated by Locke is based on ‘Law’. While Law
pervades every aspect of society, it is obligatory on the part
JUSTICE CLOCK of individuals to obey the laws.
cont'd p.2
01 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
The ancient Greek philosopher, Socrates considered
obeying the law of Athens as his obligation. This
thought of obeying the law of Athens prevented
Socrates from escaping from prison. The importance
of law in the functioning of the Society is evident from
the high pedestal in which the philosophers of the early
days have placed law. Legislators lay down laws,
while executive implements it and the judiciary
interprets. While lawyers assist the Bench as officers of
the Court, judiciary has a cardinal role of interpreting
Law and also to lay down judge made law.
Words are tricky to start with and more difficult to interpret. In every interesting case, readers of
words can reach contradictory conclusions. The task of lawyers and judges is to interpret laws in
a manner so as to enhance the object of the legislation with due regard to the society. Judiciary
has the most important role of delivering justice. They have to offer a solution to the conflicting
rights and interests. The mammoth institution of our High Court adorned by the legal luminaries
will definitely be able to achieve this obligation to the Society.
As we collate the next edition of the High Court Chronicles let us give a word of honour to uphold
the values and obligations to the society in unison with the responsibilities cast on each one of us.
- Justice Anil K. Narendran
02 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
A stroll into the past –
THE HISTORY OF THE JUDICIAL
SYSTEM OF COCHIN
Before the British intervention, the legal and judicial system of the province of Cochin functioned
through religious practices and “nattu mariyada” (customs). The province of Cochin was divided
into Nadus. Some of the Nadus were administered by Swarupi chiefs and some were administered
by Prabhus. These local administrators were the judicial head of each Nadu.
Later, these local chiefs were replaced by Karyakars (similar to the present-day Tahsildars) who
were in charge of Taluks and were well trained in dispute resolution of both civil and criminal
matters, with policing powers. Disputes were also settled through Shastris who were well versed
in Dharmashasthras. More serious disputes were sometimes decided by the king himself; who was
the highest judicial authority and he disposed of the matters personally. The king was the
fountainhead of justice and he was assisted by ministers or deputies. Every decision of the king
was based on getting permission from the Lord Poornathrayeesan, the family deity of the Cochin
ruling family.
In civil litigations, if the parties were Christians or Muslims, the customs recognized were based
on the personal laws of the respective religions. But if one of the parties is a Hindu, then Hindu
Law prevails. In criminal cases death, mutilation, whipping, imprisonment, fine, reduction to
slavery, and excommunication was the punishment in practise. Capital punishment was awarded
to persons convicted of sacrilege, treason, murder, slaying, or wounding a Brahmin or a cow.
Torture and oaths were also the methods used to find out the truth. Trial by ordeal was also
common in both civil and criminal cases. Evidence given by the women and slaves were
inadmissible in judicial proceedings. The courts functioned round the clock and there was no fixed
time or special rooms for conducting judicial proceedings. Enquiries were held where the
JUSTICE
presiding CLOCK
officer sat and the proceedings were short and in summary. The final decisions were
mainly non-speaking judgments.
03 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
During the Diwanship of Col. Munro in 1812 modern
courts of law came to be established for the first time in
Cochin. Col. Munro divided Cochin into six taluks
known as Kovilalikathum Vathuckal. In 1813, by a
Hukum-Nama two subordinate courts, one at Thrissur
and one at Thripunithura were established. Each of the
subordinate courts was presided over by a Hindu, a
Christian judge, and a Shastri. A Huzur Court of Final
Appeal with three judges, well versed in customs and
Dharmashasthras was also established in Cochin. These
courts were established with appellate jurisdiction of
appeals from the Karyakkars and also with original
jurisdiction in serious cases. The Diwan, when he was
in the station, had the authority to preside over the
Huzur Court. Col. Munro
The Hukum-Nama issued in 1814 introduced in Cochin the concept of payment of court fees
through Acchadiyolas (Stamp Cadjans). Nanjappayya, who was the Diwan of Cochin from 1818
– 1825 succeeding Col. Munro, introduced many reforms and remodelled the judicial
administration by streamlining the administration of justice on lines with the British India. By a
proclamation, the Huzur Court was named as the Appeal Court in 1818.
This system continued till 1834 when Venkitasubbaya was appointed as Diwan. During his
term, various regulations were passed for the guidance of the courts. By Regulation IV of 1835,
Tahsildars were entrusted with the powers of Police Officers. The Huzur Court was reconstituted
as the Raja’s Court of Appeal and the Sub Courts were reconstituted as Zilla Courts. The seat of
the court at Thripunithura was shifted to Ernakulam, more popularly known as ‘Anjikaimal’ in
those days. The Zilla Courts were given unlimited jurisdiction both in civil and criminal matters
of the respective Zillas, with powers of awarding death sentences, but subject to confirmation by
the Raja’s Court of Appeal. For expeditious disposal of cases, Circuit Courts were also established
and judges of the Appeal Courts were appointed as circuit judges for the trial of sessions cases.
04 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
The next stage of development was during the
Diwanship of Thottekat Sankunni Menon from 1860
onwards. Regulation I passed in 1861 established the
Munsiff Courts at Ernakulam and Chittur. Two years
later two more Munsiff Courts were established, one
for Cranganore (now Kodungallur) and
Mukundapuram and the other for Thrissur and
Talappilli. Zilla Courts were divested with the powers
of Courts of Small Causes. By Regulation I of 1865 the
Appeal Court was empowered to appoint a duly
qualified Vakil. In 1868, a separate Munsiff Court was
established exclusively for Thrissur, and a similar one
Thottekat Sankunni Menon for Cochin around 1877.
Regulation I of 1868 abolished the Circuit or Sessions Courts and empowered the Zilla Courts to
try and dispose of cases of every description. In 1884, the Cochin Penal Code and the Cochin
Criminal Procedure Code were enacted, which were adapted mutatis mutandis from the
corresponding British Indian Acts.
Around 1886, a resolution was passed to conduct examinations for the enrolment of lawyers.
Also, qualification in law was prescribed for appointment as judges and only barristers and
graduates were to be appointed as judges. Criminal courts were separated and a District
Magistrate with the powers of a modern-day collector was appointed for the maintenance of law
and order. He was also given the power to hear appeals in criminal cases from the decisions of
magistrates. More serious criminal appeals had to be heard by the Zilla Judges.
Around 1901, by Regulation II, the Raja's Court of Appeal was reconstituted as the Chief Court of
Cochin with three permanent judges. S. Locke, who was already the Chief Judge of the Raja’s
Court of Appeal, was appointed as the first Chief Judge. By Regulation III, the Zilla Courts were
renamed as District Courts. The pecuniary jurisdiction of the courts was fixed. It also raised the
ordinary jurisdiction of the Munsiff Court to ₹1000 and the small causes jurisdiction to ₹50. The
Regulation also bestowed the District Courts with a small causes’ jurisdiction up to ₹200. All
Appeals against the decisions of the District Courts in original suits were to be heard by a Full
Bench consisting of all the three judges of the Chief Court. Appeals from the appellate decisions of
the District Courts were to be heard by a Division Bench consisting of two judges of the Chief
Court.
05 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
In 1902, the Chief Court framed rules regarding the
qualifications and admission of Vakils which were
practically the same as those prevailing in the Madras
Presidency. In 1904, provision was made for Division
Benches of the Chief Court with two judges. In 1938,
during the Diwanship of R.K. Shanmukham
Chettiyar, the status of the Chief Court of Cochin was
raised to the High Court of Judicature of Cochin.
By the covenant entered into in May 1949, His
Highness Chithira Thirunal Balarama Varma, the
Maharaja of Travancore, and His Highness Rama
Varma, the Maharaja of Cochin, agreed to form the
United State of Travancore and Cochin with effect
from 01.07.1949. Consequent to the formation of the
new State, by Ordinance No.11 of 1949, the High
Court of Judicature for the United State of
Travancore and Cochin was constituted with its seat
Ram Mohan Palace at Ernakulam.
Accordingly, the new Travancore-
Cochin High Court was inaugurated
in the Ram Mohan Palace, Cochin on
07.07.1949 by the Honourable Mr.
Justice P.V. Rajamannar, the then
Chief Justice of the Madras High
Court. The first Chief Justice of the
newly formed High Court was
Honourable Mr. Justice Puthuppalli S.
Krishna Pillai. The Travancore-
Cochin High Court ceased to exist on
31.10.1956, after a prestigious service
Photo taken after the Travancore-Cochin High Court was inaugurated
of seven odd years.
06 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
LEGAL MAXIMS
Ignorantia Facti
Excusat – Ignorantia
Juris Non Excusat.
Ignorance of facts may be
excused but not ignorance of
law.
MANU/RH/0695/2000
Nemo debet esse Judex
in propria sua Causa.
No man can be judge in his
own cause.
AIR 2007 SC 181
Actus Curiae Neminem
gravabit.
An act of the Court shall
prejudice no man.
2005 (3) SCC 353
Vigilantibus et non d
ormientibus jura
subveniunt.
Law aids the vigilant and not
those who sleep upon/over
their rights.
MANU/TN/3711/2010
07 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Fresh from the Bench
2024: KER: 22064
“The dead are to rest where they have been laid unless
reason of substance is brought forward for disturbing their
repose.” – Justice Cordozo
The High Court while emphasising that the right to decent
burial is a facet of the right to life guaranteed under Art
21, held that a burial in a stranger's property without their
express consent can be construed as an abandonment of
that body and thereby, the Kerala Panchayat Raj (Burial
of Unclaimed Corpses and Carcasses) Rules, 1996 can be
invoked in such instances. The court upheld the order of
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, requiring the Secretary of
the Panchayat to get the body exhumed and buried in
accordance with the Rules.
2024 : KER : 20593
The High Court while taking a magnanimous and
humanitarian approach, directed the bank officials to defer
coercive proceedings under the SARFAESI Act, against the
petitioner's husband and his assets, who is now in a comatose
state. The court has also directed the Sub Divisional
Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer to pass appropriate
orders to grant limited guardianship under Section 14 of the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 to the wife for
disposing of her husband's property for clearing his
liabilities.
2024:KER:20127
The High Court held that one party cannot unilaterally
withdraw from the terms of settlement entered through a
mediation agreement after the other party has performed his
part of the settlement terms. The High Court while upholding
the judgment of the Family court granting divorce based on
the settlement agreement, held that, once parties agree to file a
joint petition, pursuant to an agreement or compromise in
pending proceedings, the parties are estopped from resiling
from the agreement.
08 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
2024 : KER : 68854
The High court held that a young child, whose right to life is guaranteed under Art 21 of the
Constitution of India, which includes right to family life, also encompasses in its ambit, right to
get love and affection of both parents. In relation to service matters, once there are other
implications like those involving children, the authorities concerned are bound to deal with the
situation like transfer and appointment, in a compassionate manner so as to respect the rights
of not only the employee concerned, but also of the rights of the child in question. The High
court opined that though there is no protective legislation to protect working women and single
mother against compelling family responsibilities, the fundamental rights of the mother as well
as the child cannot be overlooked or ignored.
2024 : KER : 12546
The High Court held that a lease deed for
less than 12 months cannot be rejected for
want of registration under Section 107 of
the Transfer of Property Act. Section 107 of
the Transfer of Property Act mandates that
the requirement of compulsory registration
of lease deed is applicable only in respect of a
lease from year to year or for any term
exceeding one year, or reserving an yearly
rent. The High Court affirmed that lease of
immovable property from month to month
for 11 months need not be registered though
reduced to writing, and that such a lease
deed is admissible in evidence even though it
was not registered.
2024:KER:23724
The Court held that pension is a savings of
an employee that can be deprived only in
accordance with the procedure established by
law or when it is shown that the employment
itself was obtained by playing fraud. The
High Court thereafter, directed the disbursal
of pensionary benefits to a woman who
retired in 2013, stating that she had not
committed any fraud even though issues
regarding her caste status were pending
before the Court.
09 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
2024 : KER : 21350
The High Court held that the law doesn’t require husband’s consent to terminate pregnancy
during pending divorce proceedings. The court reasoned that 'marital status' cannot be a mere
“legal status” in the context of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and it has to be
seen as “factual status” since there may be situations where a woman, though married, may
effectively be without any benefits of marriage. While emphasizing on women's bodily
autonomy the Court held that third party affirmation is not required in such cases and that
there is no statutory requirement for the woman to obtain any such consent from her partner
or husband to terminate pregnancy.
2024 : KER : 24929
The Kerala High Court has held that a
dying declaration provided by the victim
can be the sole basis of conviction if made in
a fit state of mind, adding that it is for the
court to determine whether the individual
was in the fit state of mind from the
evidence available on record. The court
noted that since dying declarations as
provided under Section 32(1) of The Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, are the exception, the
onus of establishing that the individual was
in a fit state of mind which would bring the
statement within the exception lies clearly
upon the party who wants to rely upon the
statement, i.e., on the prosecution.
2024:KER:22209
The High Court held that the right to be
enlarged on bail is an indefeasible part of
the right to personal liberty under Article 21
of the Constitution and cannot be denied by
imposing stringent or unreasonable
conditions. The court opined that the
amount fixed in bail bonds does not
determine the sufficiency of surety and does
not depend on the amount involved in
criminal cases. Excessive bond amounts
cannot be imposed for denying bail since bail
bonds are only intend to secure the presence
of the accused before the court.
10 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
2024:KER:21733
The High Court while quashing an
inquiry report issued under the
Sexual Harassment of Women at
Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act and
rules made thereunder, held that,
as per Rule 7 (2), the Internal
Complaints committee has to
ensure adherence to principles of
natural justice. The Committee has
to issue copies of complaint and
other documents submitted by the
complainant to the person accused,
and witnesses must be examined in
the presence of the accused, failing
which the entire proceeding will be
liable to be quashed.
2024:KER:21953
The High Court has held
that ordinary quarrels in
marital life without any
overt act or instigation
that would stimulate the
deceased to commit suicide
would not attract an
offence of abetment to
suicide under Section 306
of the IPC. The court
opined that quarrels, fights
or disputes in a marital
relationship is not
abnormal or uncommon
and those quarrels cannot
be reckoned as a conduct
amounting to abetment of
suicide unless there is
something more in the
form of instigation or
aiding.
11 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
LEGAL TERMS
Abandonment :
giving up a legal right.
Abuttals :
the parts of the boundaries of a piece of
land which touch pieces of land alongside.
Accessory :
someone who encourages or helps another
person to commit a crime.
Accomplice :
someone who helps another person to
commit a crime.
Ademption :
when a gift in a will cannot be made
because the item no longer exists.
“The end of law is not to
abolish or restrain, but to
preserve and enlarge
freedom. For in all the
states of created beings
capable of law, where
there is no law, there is
no freedom.”
John Locke
Second Treatise of Civil Government (1690) ch. 6, sect. 57
12 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Important Events in the
Month of March
Farewell reference of Justice Anu Sivaram
13 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Justice Mullapally Abdul Aziz Abdul Hakim sworn in as a Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court
Justice Syam Kumar Vadakke Mudavakkat sworn in as a Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court
14 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Justice Harisankar Vijayan Menon sworn in as a Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court
Justice Manu Sreedharan Nair sworn in as a Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court
15 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Justice Easwaran Subramani sworn in as a Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court
Justice Manoj Pulamby Madhavan sworn in as a Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court
16 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Kerala High Court Confers Senior Designation On Twenty Advocates
The Kerala Judicial Academy in partnership with the CEELI Institute, Prague, the
Federal Judicial Centre, Washington, and the National Judicial Academy hosted a
training program at the Kerala Judicial Academy.
The training was imparted by Mira Gur-Arie from the Federal Judicial Center,
Judge David Sanders, and Patricia D. Barksdale, a federal magistrate judge for the
United States District Court and Maria Ladrón de Guevara of the CEELI Institute.
17 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
Photo taken during Samvada session
Consultation on the POSH Act
18 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
JUSTICE CLOCK
DISTRICT JUDICIARY
INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL & CASE CLEARANCE RATE
DURATION INSTITUTION DISPOSAL CCR
TODAY 1536 1626 106%
15.04.2024
LAST DAY 0 93 0.00%
LAST WEEK 10172 10727 105%
LAST MONTH 81348 138151 170%
THIS YEAR 280025 322968 115%
LAST YEAR 1019787 1145340 112%
AGEWISE PENDENCY & LISTED TODAY
AGE PENDENCY LISTED TODAY
(YEARS)
0-1 643803 10568
2-3 454076 6657
4-5 326418 5404
6-10 353685 6190
11-20 23287 575
21-30 812 9
ABOVE 30 154 0
TOTAL 1802235 29403
19 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
JUSTICE CLOCK
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
INSTITUTION, DISPOSAL & CASE CLEARANCE RATE
DURATION INSTITUTION DISPOSAL CCR
TODAY 71 1 1.41%
15.04.2024
LAST DAY 4 0 0.00%
LAST WEEK 1997 2122 106.26%
LAST MONTH 9721 9616 98.92%
THIS YEAR 32308 32123 99.43%
LAST YEAR 100333 92738 92.43%
AGEWISE PENDENCY & LISTED TODAY
AGE PENDENCY
(YEARS)
0-1 77879
2-3 45132
4-5 42090
6-10 63869
11-20 25334
21-30 860
ABOVE 30 10
TOTAL 255174
20 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
ISSUE 04 APRIL 2024
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
CHRONICLES
Editorial Board
Hon’ble Mr. Justice V. G. Arun
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. S. Dias
with the assistance of
I. T. DIRECTORATE, HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ADV. KRISHNA S.
ADV. LEO LUKOSE
To subscribe please click here
“In law a man is guilty
when he violates the
rights of others. In ethics
he is guilty if he only
thinks of doing so.”
- Immanuel Kant
21 CHRONICLES | ISSUE 04
