Organ Trade: ‘State has a responsibility to protect people from exploitation’, observes High Court

By Greeshma Neelakandan and Raghul Sudheesh

A determined septuagenarian’s fight against improper brain death certification by the private hospitals in Kerala has culminated in the State Government temporarily cancelling the licence awarded to Lourdes Hospital in Kochi for organ transplantation.

Dr. S. Ganapthy after being concerned about premature brain death certifications involving poor and young patients, had filed a writ petition (a copy of the petition has been accessed by The Kochi Post) before the High Court of Kerala against the organ trade carried out by the private hospitals in the State. Dr. Ganapathy, a Family Physician and a medical practitioner with 45 years of standing in the profession had appeared before the Court and argued the case on his own.

Corruption, Health, Law, Life, People

June 24, 2017

Kerala High Court terms order of the human rights body as grossest violation of principles of natural justice

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising of the Chief Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh and Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan came down heavily against a verdict passed by the State Human Rights Commission based on newspaper reports alone and without even a complaint from the persons concerned.

Three government doctors had filed a writ petition challenging the Human Rights Commission’s suo-motu proceedings where these doctors were found guilty of medical negligence. The Commission’s order also imposed an exemplary fine of Rs 50,000 to be paid by the government to the patient and to be recovered from the petitioners.

The Court opined that after careful examination of the facts noted by the Commission, it disagrees there was any medical negligence. After the patient had undergone complete Hysterectomy operation, it was found at the time of closure of the surgical wound that a part of the surgical towel clip was missing. Though a frantic search was made, it could not be located inside or outside the body. The incision was closed to facilitate an X-ray to detect the clip. The patient was then moved to the Medical College Hospital and the clip was removed. The Court confirms that all these actions show there was no medical negligence and all due care was taken. The patient’s wards were properly informed and the records duly maintained.

Health, Law, Politics

June 12, 2017

Kerala High Court goes an extra mile to save a life

C. Abdul Rahman was suffering from chronic renal failure and was undergoing dialysis. According to the medical team treating him, his medical condition was so bad that the only way to save his life was kidney transplantation.

Under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act of 1994 a donor cannot authorise the removal of his organs for transplantation to a recipient before death, unless he is a ‘Near Relative’ of the recipient. ‘Near Relative’ under the Act includes spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson and granddaughter. However the Act provides that in cases where the donor has a reason of affection or attachment towards the recipient or for any other special reasons, organs shall be transplanted with the prior approval of the Authorisation Committee established under the Act. The object of the Act is to prevent commercial dealings in the transplantation of human organs.

In Abdul Rahman’s case, the Authorisation Committee declined permission to him to receive the organ from Prasad, the donor. The Authorisation Committee declined permission on two grounds. Firstly, there is gross disparity between financial status of the donor and the recipient. Secondly, the donor and the recipient’s daughter could not satisfactorily explain the link between them which led to the offer being made. He appealed to the State Government against this decision and the State Government confirmed the decision of the Authorisation Committee.

Health, Life, People

May 30, 2017

If this is not liable for Contempt of Court then what is?

A man stood on top of a government vehicle and challenged the entire judicial System and the judge, after that he just walked away as if nothing ever happened. This incident happened after the members of Muslim Ekopana Samithi decided to stage a protest march against the High Court verdict that annulled the marriage between a Hindu turned Muslim woman and a Muslim man, after the habeas corpus petition filed by the woman’s father.

Such an act irrespective of who that person is, should be liable for contempt against the Court. Following this showdown, Samithi has declared a dawn to dusk harthal across Ernakulam district against the alleged ‘Police brutality’ on 29^th May. According to the spokesperson of Muslim Ekopana Samithi, there was an unprovoked lathicharge.

Police had set up barricades near St. Albert’s College, but once Muslim Ekopana Samithi activist broke the barricades Police were forced to resort to water cannons, lathichage and even tear gas shells to disperse the crowd. What happened after all this violence is amusing; a man out of this group of activist used the water cannon truck as the stage to speak to the hundreds of people that was gathered there, as Police just stood there and watched.

Law, Religion

May 12, 2017

40 years and Beyond: The Life of an Unofficial High Court Barber

The ring of a cycle bell announces his arrival. A 71 –year-old, the man is dressed in a half-sleeved shirt and pants, both carefully ironed. His innocent smile does not betray the simplicity of his heart, for he would never hold any malice against anyone. With an ever-welcoming smile, he would graciously invite you to his humble shop, a gesture which is difficult to ignore. He is P. Sasidharan (pictured in blue shirt), the unofficial barber of many Chief Justices and judges of the Kerala High Court for the past several years.

Remarkably, Sasidharan has been in the business since the past 40 years. Years passed, but the dedication and enthusiasm with which he carries out every task doesn’t seem to have declined. “Happiness that I get from serving people, putting a smile on their faces is the one thing that keeps me going,” says Sasidharan. He is still willing to go to his customer’s house for a haircut.

Originally from Thiruvananthapuram, Sasidharan’s father Narayanan died when he was 8 years old. He shouldered the responsibility of his family and started working at a cycle shop where his work was of fixing punctures. He then went on to work in a tailor shop, the salary from which, however, was insufficient.

Culture, Life, People

December 30, 2016

OPINION: Kerala HC in ‘Ka Bodyscapes’ Case is Promoting Censorship rather than Artistic Freedom

By Manu Sebastian

The film ‘Ka Bodyscapes’ by acclaimed director Jayan C. Cherian had run into several controversies due to its theme of homosexuality and contrarian views about prevalent norms and mores. The Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) had refusal to grant certificate to the film for public exhibition. The reason stated in the refusal order was that the film is “ridiculing, insulting and humiliating Hindu religion, in particular portraying Hindu Gods in poor light”.The film revolves around the homosexual relationship between two men, one who is an artist and another a staunch devotee of Hanuman. Towards the end of the film, the artist makes a painting, depicting his male partner as flying like Hanuman holding Maruthwamala in hand; however holding a mountain of books instead, including the Indian Penal Code with its controversial Section 377 (criminalising “unnatural” sexual offences) written in bold over the book-spine. This imaginative painting, which symbolizes the ‘coming out’ moment of the homosexual protagonist, irked the sensibilities of the CBFC. Apart from that, there were scenes dealing with female masturbation, menstruation, etc., which the CBFC found objectionable. Therefore, certificate was altogether refused to the film.

However, the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala came to the rescue of the film maker. The Court set aside the refusal order of CBFC terming it as arbitrary, unreasonable, and vague. The Court held that the Board ought to have made an effort to certify the film in the appropriate classification by giving an opportunity to the film-maker to modify or delete the scenes which are found to be objectionable. The learned Single Judge who allowed the petition filed by the film-maker observed that mere reference to homosexuality or sexual acts would not make a film obscene. The Board filed appeal before the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench upheld the judgment of the single judge.

Film, Law, Opinion

November 2, 2016

Has the Media Boycott of Kerala High Court Diamond Jubilee Celebrations Added Fuel to the Fire?

Media persons’ boycott of the diamond jubilee celebrations of Kerala High Court and inauguration of District Court Complex has added fuel to the already existing unrest between lawyers and the media in the State over the past couple of months. The celebrations, which were inaugurated by Chief Justice of India T.S. Thakur and presided over by Supreme Court Judges Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Chellameshwar, were not attended by the media fraternity.

The Regional Committee of the Indian Newspaper Society and the Kerala Television Federation had also written an open letter to Chief Justice Thakur, appealing him to resolve the hiccups between media persons and lawyers in the State. Excerpts from the letter that explain the take of media in the issue are given below:

“While welcoming you to Kerala on this occasion, we are saddened to inform you that a huge blot left by a section of the judiciary has blurred the transparency of the judicial process even as grand preparations for the diamond jubilee celebrations are on. A series of sad incidents – stemming from the reportage of senior government pleader Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran’s misbehaviour with a woman at a crowded Kochi street – have cast a slur on this synergy. But a highly slanderous campaign, tarnishing women journalists, especially by putting up flex boards with their photographs, has been unleashed to demoralize us more. The situation has come to such a pass that advocates are threatened not to represent media houses when their legal issues come before various courts. In effect, apart from being prevented from discharging our Constitutional rights granted under the Freedom of Expression provisions, the media as a whole are being denied the right to natural justice to present their side of the story – on any issue, for that matter – before any judicial officer.”

In the letter they have also requested the CJI to intervene in the issue and assure security for the reporters in the Court premises and the permission to get the information on particular cases, so that they can publish the news in time to the public.

Commenting on the issue Advocate Ajith Kumar said, “Media persons have behaved in a childish manner by not attending the function and some of the media outlets that have published this news in just one column and have indirectly aimed to make fun of the legal fraternity. This points out their arrogance on the issue and to the fact that they don’t have any intention to wrap up the problems. They should have at least thought that this behaviour would reflect negatively on them when the petition submitted by them in the Supreme Court is considered.”

The Kerala Working Journalists’ Union (KWJU), in a press conference that was called on November 1, has announced that the media fraternity has only one demand – that the stand-off between them and the advocates be sorted out at the earliest and that the authorities need to intervene. C. Narayanan, Secretary of KWJU, has informed that if the media is not given its rights respectfully, then it will also restrain from publishing promotion stories. This could probably be the reason why many of the media houses did not carry the news of the CJI inaugurating the function. However, some of the newspapers have carried a one-column news item on the same.

The media persons have also demanded that they be allowed to enter the Judge’s chamber and receive the judgment copy of any case directly, after the judgment is dictated.

Adv. Ajith added that this is absurd because even the lawyer who appears for a particular case gets the judgment copy only after ten days. “How can a reporter get a privilege that is not even granted to the advocates?” he asked.

Explaining the background of the issue, Adv. Ajith commented, “The exact problem with the entire issue is not what is being projected by the media. They have been saying that they have been denied the right to expression and were manhandled by the advocates in the Court complex for reporting. What they should understand is that this is not just a place that provides them with breaking news items. This is a place where law is implemented and therefore has many protocols and rules that need to be followed. Projecting that media should be allowed to enter anywhere they want to in order to cover the news is a lame excuse. This clearly shows their arrogance.”

The latest incident, however, indicates that the agitations may not subside soon. The media houses boycotting the function have raised speculations regarding their stand. KWJU, which says it is trying to end the problems, need to explain the latest action as well.

Law, People

September 20, 2016

Young Lawyer’s Facebook Post Raises Questions on Ethics in the Legal Profession

An unfortunate Facebook post has landed environmental activist and advocate Harish Vasudevan Sreedevi in serious trouble. In the post, the lawyer had criticised the judiciary and Justice Ubaid, who granted bail to the accused arrested for sexually assaulting a ten-year-old girl child. To make matters worse, Mr. Harish addressed the judge only by his name and questioned the judgment that granted bail to the accused.

The irony, however, is that Mr. Harish was one of the lawyers who appeared on behalf of the accused in the Court. Narada news had reported that Mr. Harish was one among the lawyers who had filed vakalat for the accused in the case.

The consequence of the comment, however, was very dramatic. Mr. Harish was blamed by the public and the media for defaming his own client and questioning the judiciary. After the issue escalated to a serious level, Mr. Harish deleted the post. He also put up another post apologising for his earlier comment. He mentioned that he had posted the comment without looking into criminal law and before understanding the facts. He also expressed his regret over addressing the judge by his name. He admitted that his office had moved for bail for the accused.

Law, People

September 16, 2016

OPINION: The SC Judgment in the Soumya Murder Case Reflects a Voice of Reason

By Manu Sebastian

Judicial temperament should be one based on rationality, sobriety and equanimity, and not based on sentimentality and populism. Through the judgment in the ‘Soumya Murder Case’, the Supreme Court has emphasised this fact, and has proved that judiciary is not intended to appease popular sentiment, but to administer justice in accordance with law and reason.

Indeed, the ‘Soumya Murder Case’ is an unfortunate incident. A poor young girl supporting her economically backward family with her meager income getting raped and killed during the course of her journey by public transport, viz. the Railways, is a tragic event that should not have happened in a civilised society. Understandably, the incident sent shock waves across society, disturbing its conscience. That the criminal was an immigrant having a history of habitual offences, who had no compunction in subjecting a dying girl to rape added to the fury of society. Mounting public pressure sent the police into swift action, and the criminal, Govindaswamy, was nabbed within two days. The investigation was over in 90 days, and the trial was completed in a record time of four-and-a-half months, whereby he was sentenced to death. The appeal before the High Court was disposed of sooner than usual, confirming the death sentence. Keralite society seemed to attain a sense of closure seeing the triumph of justice in sending a wretched criminal to the gallows.

Opinion

August 6, 2016

Exclusive: Lawyer Moves Contempt Petition Before Kerala HC Against Journalists, Policemen

A contempt petition (1334/2016 – a copy of the petition is with The Kochi Post) has been moved against three police officials and four media persons in light of the protest that took place at the High Court last week. Advocate J.S. Ajith Kumar from Kochi is the petitioner. He said that the application was moved to “…uphold the dignity, prestige, pride and credibility of the High Court of Kerala…”, of which he is a prominent part. The Kochi Post had reported about how a misleading newspaper report caused the spat between lawyers and journalists at the Kerala High Court.

The petition is listed for hearing on Monday in the Chief Justice’s Court as item number 205 and Senior Advocate K. Ramkumar will be appearing for the petitioner.

G.D. Vijayakumar (CI, Central Station, Ernakulam), Nizamudeen (CI, North Police station, Ernakulam) and Siby Tom (CI, South Police station, Ernakulam) are the police officials against whom the petition has been filed. The journalists named in the petition are Wilson Vadakkumcherry (Reporter Channel), Ravikumar (President, Kerala Union of Working Journalists, Press Club, Ernakulam), Praveenkumar (Senior Video Editor, JaiHind T.V.) and Salam P. Hydrose (Chief Reporter, Asianet).

People, Politics

July 21, 2016

Misleading DC Report Seems to Have Triggered Spat between Lawyers and Journalists at Kerala HC

Lawyers and journalists getting into brawls isn’t a new occurrence in India. Such incidents are reported often. The assault on two journalists by a group of lawyers at the Patiala House Court earlier this year in New Delhi, was a much publicised one.

A similar situation prevailed in Kochi, between advocates and journalists, over the last two days. News reports highlighted that the initial scuffle took place after a government pleader was arrested on molestation charges. However, lawyers have been quick to clarify that the arrest wasn’t the cause for these clashes.

The Kerala High Court Advocates’ Association had passed a resolution condemning police atrocities on government pleader Dhanesh Mathew Manjooran.

People

July 16, 2016

High Court of Kerala: Elope at your own risk and be ready to face consequences including dismissal from college

A recent judgement delivered by Justice K. Vinod Chandran of the Hight Court of Kerala has come to the attention of The Kochi Post. The case pertained to a writ petition filed by a student of Marthoma College of Science and Technology, Kollam. The college had decided to take disciplinary action against the girl and a boy, both students of the college, after the couple was apprehended by the police in a lodge in Trivandrum.

They had eloped and a man missing complaint had been filed. The police produced them before a magistrate after which they were released to their respective parents.

The college management, on learning about the incident, took disciplinary action by sending them out of college.

People