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 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.