Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Government Can't Deny Implied Surrender After Refusing to Accept Possession: Madras HC Clarifies Scope of Section 111(f) of TP Act Custodial Interrogation Must Prevail Over Pre-Arrest Comfort in Hate Speech Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail for Provocative Remarks Against Migrants Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Cruelty Must Be Grave and Proven – Mere Allegations of Disobedience or Demand for Separate Residence Don’t Justify Divorce: Jharkhand High Court Rejects Husband’s Divorce Appeal Retaliatory Prosecution Cannot Override Liberty: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in PMLA Case Post CBI Trap of ED Officer Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal Findings of Fact Cannot Be Re-Appreciated in an Appeal Under Section 10F Companies Act: Madras High Court Equality Is Not A Mechanical Formula, But A Human Commitment: P&H High Court Grants Visually Impaired Mali Retrospective Promotions With Full Benefits Orissa High Court Rules Notice for No Confidence Motion Must Include Both Requisition and Resolution – Provision Held Mandatory Ashramam Built on Private Land, Managed by Family – Not a Public Religious Institution: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Endowments Notification Cruelty Must Be Proved, Not Presumed: Gujarat High Court Acquits Deceased Husband In 498A Case After 22 Years Trade Dress Protection Goes Beyond Labels: Calcutta High Court Affirms Injunction Over Coconut Oil Packaging Mimicry Mere Filing of Income Tax Returns Does Not Exonerate the Accused: Madras High Court Refuses Discharge to Wife of Public Servant in ₹2 Crore DA Case

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE DO NOT CONTROL THE COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW A JUDGMENT OR ORDER IN A WRIT PETITION – Kerl. HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Kerala has asserted its wide powers of review under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan, stated that the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code do not control the court's jurisdiction to review a judgment or order in a writ petition. The court emphasized that the Procedure Code is merely a guiding principle and not applicable to review petitions filed under Article 226 and 227.

Justice Kunhikrishnan said, "The jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to review a judgment is wide and not controlled by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore, the contention of the review petitioner that a portion of the judgment/order cannot be reviewed is unsustainable."

The court further clarified that a portion of a judgment or order can be reviewed under Article 226 and 227, as long as it does not contradict other findings in the same judgment or order. This highlights the expansive nature of the court's review powers, allowing for a comprehensive examination of the legal and factual aspects of a case.

In the judgment, the court also addressed several other important issues. It rejected the contention of the review petitioner regarding the commission of misconduct, but emphasized that when disciplinary proceedings are initiated, the disciplinary authority should decide the matter independently without being influenced by any previous observations made in the judgment.

The court left open the question of the maintainability of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings and allowed the review petitioner to raise the issue separately in the preliminary inquiry. This decision allows for a separate examination of the applicability and merits of Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings in the case at hand.

Moreover, the High Court of Kerala declared that it has the power to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the presiding officers of district courts and subordinate courts in the Lakshadweep Islands. As the district courts and subordinate courts in Lakshadweep are under the supervision of the High Court of Kerala, it clarified that the High Court has the authority to conduct disciplinary proceedings against these officers.

The court modified the disciplinary authority, stating that the additional third respondent is the High Court of Kerala, and directed consequential corrections to be made in the judgment accordingly. Until the High Court passes the consequential order, the review petitioner is deemed to be under suspension.

This landmark judgment by the High Court of Kerala reaffirms the court's expansive review powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution, establishing a significant precedent for future cases.

Date of Decision: 21 June 2023

CHERIYA KOYA  vs T.ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP

Latest Legal News