Donations collected by the office bearers of Popular Front of India (PFI) cannot be termed as proceeds of crime to invoke the offence of money laundering against them, the Delhi High Court observed on Wednesday [Parvez Ahmed vs Directorate of Enforcement].

Justice Jasmeet Singh explained that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) can invoke Section 3 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only in a case with ‘proceeds of crime’, that is money obtained as a result of a criminal activity.

In contrast, in the case against PFI leaders, the Court said the allegation was they had collected the money for committing crimes.

“The case set up by the ED that the funds which the petitioners were generating were used for committing a scheduled offence, hence proceeds of crime, is not the scheme of PMLA. The offence committed by the collection of funds may be an offence under any law including a scheduled offence but cannot be termed as a proceeds of crime to invoke section 3 of PMLA,” it said.

The Bench made these observations while granting bail to three office bearers of the Delhi Unit of PFI - Parvez Ahmed (President), Mohd Ilyas (PFI General Secretary) and Abdul Muqeet (Office Secretary).

They were accused of being involved in the anti CAA-NRC protests in 2020 and collection of funds for PFI, which was banned by the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2022.

After going through the ED complaint, Justice Singh noted that collection of funds had preceded the Delhi riots of 2020

The PMLA states that the proceeds of crime have to be generated as a result of criminal activity, the Court said.

"The collection of funds in an illegal way to commit a scheduled offence in future is not an offence of money laundering under PMLA. The funds so collected are not proceeds of crime and can be proceeds of crime only when they were generated as a result of scheduled offence. The case set up by the ED is putting the cart before the horse,” it added.

However, the Court also said that even if the accused had generated proceeds of crime, they prima facie did not have control over them as the funds were deposited with the PFI.

In this backdrop, the Court concluded that the accused have met the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of the PMLA.

In addition, the Court also noted that the three accused have undergone a substantial period of incarceration of more than two years and the trial was unlikely to be concluded in the near future.

In this context, it observed that stringent tests for bail under special enactments do not take away the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21.

The Court also took note of the fact that there are a total of 185 prosecution witnesses in the case and 456 documents. Besides, digital evidence run into lakhs of pages, the Court observed.

Therefore, it granted bail to the three accused.

Advocates Adit S Pujari, A Nowfal, Shaurya Mittal and Mantika Vohra represented Parvez Ahmed.

Advocates Satyakam, Talha Abdul Rahman, Sudhanshuy Tewari and Arif Hussain represented Abdul Muqeet.

Senior Advocate Shadan Farasat with advocates A Nowfal, Harshit Anand, Aman Naqvi and Niharika represented Mohd Ilyas.

Special Counsel Zoheb Hossain, Panel Counsel Vivek Gurnani with advocates Kartik Sabhdarwal, Pranjal Tripathi, Kanishk Maurya and Azeeq Mushtaque represented the ED.

[Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking directions for a scientific study on claims made by Congress politician Navjot Singh Sidhu regarding his wife’s alleged recovery from Stage 4 cancer through diet regime and ayurveda [Divya Rana vs. Union Of India, Ministry Of Health And Family Welfare, & Ors.]. 

The PIL also sought the temporary removal of the posts made by Sidhu about the same on social media platforms, X and Meta.

A Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said that Sidhu was expressing his personal opinion and his freedom of speech cannot be curtailed.

“He is just voicing his opinion. He has later on said he was advised by the doctors. It is his freedom of speech. You counter his claims by your free speech. We believe in freedom of speech in this country. This is not our domain,” Chief Justice Manmohan remarked.

The Court further said that if the petitioner does not agree with Sidhu's views, he need not subscribe to them.

"There was a television serial against which PIL was filed claiming that children are getting affected. We said you close the TV and don't watch it,” said Chief Justice Manmohan.

“He (Sidhu) is not asking you to follow it. He is just saying this is what he did. Counsel, you file a PIL against the manufacturing of cigarette and alcohol instead. I’m sure you will agree that cannot be healthy at all," Justice Gedela said.

The petitioner then chose to withdraw the PIL.

The petitioner highlighted the responsibility of media and social platforms to ensure accurate dissemination of health-related information, emphasizing the ethical implications of broadcasting unverified medical claims.

“These claims, while offering hope to cancer patients, are currently unverified and risk misleading the public if not scientifically validated,” the PIL stated. 

The petitioner also sought directions to Sidhu to provide his wife’s medical records regarding the cancer diagnosis and the alleged recovery through the diet plan.

He sought directions to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to frame guidelines for regulating the dissemination of unverified medical or health-related claims on digital platforms and social media.

The PIL further sought directions to the Indian Council of Medical Research and the All India Institute of Ayurveda to initiate an investigation into Sidhu’s claims.

However, the Court refused to entertain the plea.

“There are books that are bad, you don’t have to read them. Don’t read them, who is asking you?” stated Justice Gedela.

"We have a proper mechanism to deal with such cases. We cannot put fear of contempt on freedom of speech,” Chief Justice Manmohan remarked.

The petitioner then withdrew the PIL.

The petition was filed through advocate Amit Kumar Jha.

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) on Wednesday directed the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) to decide who will have to pay Mumbai International Airport Limited (MIAL) dues for the aircrafts parked by Jet Airways since its grounding in 2019. (MIAL v. Ace Aviation)

A coram led by Chairperson Justice (retd) Ashok Bhushan and Technical Member Arun Baroka passed the direction in light of the Supreme Court's order dated November 7, directing the liquidation of Jet Airways.

The NCLAT order was passed in an appeal filed by MIAL against an order of NCLT from October 7, holding that it cannot ask Malta based Ace Aviation to pay dues for three Boeing 777 aircrafts of Jet Airways that it wishes to purchase.

Ace Aviation was awarded the bid to purchase the three aircraft belonging to Jet Airways in 2022. However, the process of sale of three aircraft for ₹400 crore was put on hold in November 2022 owing to a deadlock in the monitoring committee. It emerged that while the airline's lenders were agreeable to the sale of the aircraft, the consortium and the erstwhile workmen were opposed to it.

According to the workmen, the aircraft could not be sold as they have a lien over the aircraft towards non-payment of their gratuity and provident fund dues. Ace Aviation approached NCLT against this deadlock. In October 2023, the NCLT told the committee:

"Reinitiate the process and conclude the sale of the aircraft after taking into consideration the applicant as one of the eligible bidders."

In 2024, the Supreme Court directed the monitoring committee to complete the sale of the aircraft. However, MIAL objected to the sale contending that it has lien over the aircraft owing to pending dues.

This led to the NCLT's October 7 order on the sale of aircraft.

Today, the NCLAT noted that since liquidation has already been ordered by the Supreme Court, the NCLT would have to take a relook at MIAL's dues. MIAL also made it clear that it was only 'interested in the colour of money', at this point.

Ace Aviation, however, contended that MIAL's dues must be borne from the proceeds of the liquidation and it is not liable to pay the same.

MIAL was represented by Senior Advocate Vikram Nankani and Advocate Ruby Singh Ahuja from Karanjawala & Co.

Ace Aviation was represented by Senior Advocate Ritin Rai with Advocates Petrushka Dasgupta and Mrudul Yadav of Dentons Link Legal.

The Supreme Court recently took strong exception to the complainant in a case filing a protest petition eight years after the case was closed by the police [Ramkumar Giri v. The State and Another].

The Court condemned the belated filing of a protest petition that implicated eight additional persons as accused, eight years after a second closure report was filed by the police

A Division Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih also noted that the complainant had not attributed any specific act to these new accused, who were not named in the First Information Report (FIR) registered in 2006.

"Filing the protest petition and that also by incorporating the names of eight additional accused after a lapse of eight years from the second closure report, is itself an abuse of process of law," the Court said in its November 26 order.

It proceeded to set aside a trial court's 2019 decision to take cognisance of the case against these accused persons based on the belated protest petition (a petition objecting to the closure of a criminal case by the police) filed by the complainant in 2017.

The case dates back to 2006 when an FIR was registered against various persons for allegedly damaging a road by removing sand and gravel in four vehicles.

However, the police filed a closure report in mid-2006, concluding that the complaint should be treated as a mistake of fact as no evidence was found at the place of occurrence.

The complainant then filed an application seeking a re-investigation, which was allowed by a judicial magistrate on October 8, 2007. On August 18, 2009, the police again filed a closure report in which they came to the same conclusion that was recorded in the first closure report.

Eight years later after the filing of the second closure report, on September 19, 2017, the complainant moved a protest petition. On the basis of this petition, the judicial magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant and took cognizance of a criminal case against the accused-appellants.

The charges cited against them included the offences under Sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting, armed with deadly weapon), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The accused persons challenged this development before the Madras High Court which refused to set aside the cognizance order of the magistrate.

Aggrieved, the accused then approached the apex court, which granted them relief.

"In our view, the High Court ought to have interfered and quashed the order of taking cognizance as far as the present appellants are concerned. Accordingly, the Appeals succeed. We set aside the impugned judgment. The order dated 1st March, 2019 taking cognizance of the case in PCR No.8/2019 by the learned Judicial Magistrate as against the appellants is hereby quashed," the top court said.

Senior Advocates Jayanth Muth Raj and S Nandkumar and advocates Gowtham Kumar, Vinodh Kanna B, Pradeep Kumar Kar, Praveen K Joy, Deepika Nandakumar, Ardra M, Naresh Kumar and Aakash Elango, appeared for appellants-accused.

Additional Advocate General V Krishnamurthy, advocates Sabarish Subramanian, C Kranthi Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh and Danish Saifi, appeared for State of Tamil Nadu.

Advocates Anupam Kishore Sinha, Pradeep K Tiwari, Apoorv Jha, Sahitya Srivastava and Dr SK Saamy, appeared for the complainant.

[Read Order]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday transferred the probe into the assault cases against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kabir Shankar Bose to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The matter was being probe by the West Bengal Police prompting Bose to approach the Court claiming that he has been falsely implicated in these cases by Trinamool Congress MP Kalyan Banerji.

A Bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and Sandeep Mehta passed the order allowing the plea.

"A writ of mandamus is issued to state of West Bengal to hand over the investigation to CBI so that trial may commence and justice is done to parties," the Court ordered.

Singh was one of six BJP leaders who had approached the Supreme Court in 2020 alleging a "witch-hunt" by the West Bengal Police at the behest of ruling Trinamool Congress Party. They sought transfer of all cases registered against them by West Bengal police to any other "independent" investigating agency.

Bose, who was married to TMC leader Banerji's daughter earlier, claimed that after he filed for divorce, multiple cases were lodged against him at the behest of Banerji due to political and personal rivalry.

The criminal charges cited against Bose in two cases filed in December 2020 included those for causing hurt, criminal intimidation, outraging the modesty of women etc, on allegations that he assaulted TMC workers and molested a woman.

Bose refuted the allegations and claimed that on December 6, 2020, he and his security detail came under heavy attack and sloganeering under the leadership of one Santosh Kumar Singh alias Pappu Singh just outside his residence at around 8 PM. As per protocol, the security personnel immediately took Bose to a secure location.

The petition claimed that till 2 AM, the entire building was under siege by over 200 TMC hooligans led by Banerji, the sitting Member of Parliament of the area. These actions were supported actively by the State Police, Bose claimed.

When he later went to the police station, Bose claimed that officers were repeatedly saying that Banerji was putting tremendous pressure on them to immediately arrest him. Thus, he was arrested while at the police station.

Bose also claimed that he was deliberately and intentionally kept in a COVID-19 isolation ward for around four hours in "utter violation of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India."

In January 2021, the Supreme Court had stayed the FIRs filed against him in 2020. Today, the Court entrusted the probe into these cases to the CBI.

Advocate Surjendu Sankar Das appeared for Bose.

The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Telangana government to respond to a plea filed by Senior Advocate Vedula Venkataraman challenging the criminal proceedings lodged against him for allegedly accepting ₹7 crores from clients to bribe High Court judges for securing favorable orders.

A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih issued notice to Telangana on an appeal filed by the Senior Advocate against the Telangana High Court's refusal to quash the case.

It was his contention that the first information report (FIR) registered against him only contains bare allegations without any prima facie proof and that the same is vague and general.

As per the allegations against Venkataraman, he took ₹7 crore from a client by assuring him that this money would be used to bribe High Court judges and ensure a favorable outcome in the client's case.

However, Venkataraman failed to appear in the case, and when the complainant demanded the return of money paid, the senior lawyer refused to do so. It was also alleged that Venkataraman hurled caste-based abuses and threatened to harm the complainant's family.

Subsequently, an FIR under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 504 (intentional insult) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under the relevant provisions Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the lawyer.

Venkataraman initially moved the Telangana High Court seeking to quash the criminal case registered against him. The High Court however, dismissed the lawyer's plea by holding that the allegations levelled against him are grave and the same needed to be investigated.

High Court judge Justice K Lakshman noted,

"The allegation that money was obtained to bribe the judges of this Court casts a serious doubt on the independence of judiciary and implies that justice is up for sale. Such serious allegations need to be investigated."

However, the High Court protected Venkataraman from arrest after noting that certain claims made by the complainant-client against the senior lawyer were highly exaggerated.

"The conduct of Respondent No. 3 (complainant) in participation of the illegal act alleged against the Petitioner raises suspicions about his bona fides. Further, nothing in the counter-affidavit indicates that Petitioner’s custodial interrogations is required. This Court is also mindful of the fact that the Petitioner is a senior advocate with long standing..."

Aggrieved by the High Court's decision in having refused to quash criminal proceedings against him, Venkataraman moved the Supreme Court.

In his appeal, he has stated that the High Court's refusal to quash violates the settled principles of law as laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of UP as there is no proof against him that he has paid any amount.

Further, the senior lawyer has claimed that neither was any preliminary inquiry was conducted before the registration of the FIR nor has a chargesheet been filed till date.

Senior Advocate Niranjan Reddy and advocates Mandeep Kalra and Anushna Satapathy appeared for Venkataraman.

A Public Interest litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Delhi High Court raising concerns over the unauthorised use of original artistic works by Artificial Intelligence (AI) software [Kanchan Nagar & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors].

A Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela listed the plea for hearing along with a pending matter on the misuse of deepfake technology.

"We don’t have a magic wand in our hands. We have directed them to look into this aspect. We have highlighted this aspect and told them to hear the stakeholders before passing an order. We can't do anything more than that. Everyone is facing the challenge,” Chief Justice Manmohan remarked.

The Court was referring to the directions it had recently issued to a committee constituted by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to study the issue of deepfakes.

In the order passed on November 21, the Bench asked the committee to hear various stakeholders, including internet intermediaries, telecom service providers, victims of deepfakes and websites using deepfakes.

Deepfakes are digitally manipulated videos that impersonate people.

The present plea has been moved by professional model Kanchan Nagar, photographer Vikas Saboo and the company that owns stock photography website 'Images Bazaar'.

They have sought directions for framing of appropriate rules and regulations to protect original works from being used by AI platforms.

In particular, the PIL seeks amendment to the Copyright Act, 1957 and also the Information Technology Rules to bring within its ambit the offence of cheating by impersonation using AI or deepfakes.

The PIL also seeks directions to identify and block public access to unregulated applications, software, platforms and websites enabling the creation of AI-generated images.

It further seeks directions to prohibit and punish the sale of AI-generated images created using original works of artists without their permission.

Lastly, the PIL seeks appointment of a dedicated nodal officer for receiving complaints regarding infringement of copyright by AI.

The petitioners have argued that apart from resulting in copyright infringement, this unauthorised use of artistic works undermines the collective efforts of creative professionals. It also constitutes a violation of the personality rights of freelance models in the photographs, the plea states.

Further, the PIL states that women model's photos are being used without consent and deepfakes using these images.

"This is an issue about privacy of women and consent...and consent beyond physical touch. Not everybody has the power or the means or courage to come to the courts. A lack of a clear provision fails to act as a deterrent. All we are requesting is for the purpose of commercial advertising, at least faces of women may not be used," counsel representing the petitioners submitted before the Court.

The PIL has been filed through Advocate Mumtaz Bhalla. The next date of hearing is March 24, 2025.

Advocates Mumtaz Bhalla and Mohit Goel appeared for the petitioners.

The Gauhati High Court recently held that under the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act of 1959, the State government must conduct a comprehensive inquiry into the antiquity of a structure, such as a tumulus, burial ground, or cemetery, before declaring it an 'ancient monument'.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Kaushik Goswami observed that the Superintendent of Archaeology under the Act must first gather sufficient evidence to justify the protection of a monument and then submit a proposal to the State government.

Based on this proposal and any recommendations from the Deputy Commissioner, the State Government may issue a notification under Section 3 of the 1959 Act to declare the monument as a protected ancient monument.

“Thus, the condition precedent for declaring any monument including tumulus/burial ground/cemetery as an ancient monument, the State Government must first through the Superintendent cause a thorough enquiry as to the antiquity and the age of the monument to be protected. It is only after obtaining such evidences which the Superintendent consider sufficient for protection of a monument, he/she shall make proposal to the State Government thereof. Based on such proposal of the Superintendent and the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, if any, the State Government shall issue notification under Section 3 of the said Act of 1959, declaring such monument as protected ancient monument,” the Court said.

The Court made these observations while quashing a 2005 order passed by the District Magistrate, Kamrup (Metropolitan) declaring a Christian cemetery in Guwahati as a heritage site.

The order had prohibited further burials at the site and designated an adjacent government land as an open space for community use. Subsequently, this order was reinstated in 2006 following its temporary withdrawal due to a complaint before the Assam Human Rights Commission (AHRC).

Representatives of St. Joseph’s Catholic Church and the Church of North India challenged the heritage declaration, contending that it infringed upon their religious rights and was issued without lawful authority or due process.

They argued that the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction under the 1959 Act to declare the cemetery as a heritage site. They contended that the decision was made unilaterally without prior notice or consultation with the Christian community which had been using the site for burials for generations.

The Court observed that the Assam Ancient Monuments and Records Act vests the authority to declare a site as a protected monument with the State government and not the District Magistrate.

The Court added that the law outlines a specific process involving a detailed inquiry by the Superintendent of Archaeology whose recommendations must form the basis of such declarations.

The Bench further said Section 3 of the Act mandates a thorough inquiry into the antiquity and age of the site by the Superintendent.

The Court found no evidence of such an inquiry in the present case. Instead, the declaration was based on unilateral recommendations by the Circle Officer which contravened the statutory requirements, it was concluded.

Further, the declaration order did not adhere to the procedural safeguards under the Act, such as notifying stakeholders, allowing objections, or ensuring a transparent assessment of the site’s historical significance, the Court ruled.

“It is manifestly evident that no procedures whatsoever, as laid down under Section 3 of the Act of 1959 read with Rules 3 & 4 of the said Rules of 1964, have also been undertaken by the State Government. Pertinent that under the said Rules of 1964 it is the Superintendent, who is empowered to enquire the antiquity and age of the concerned monument and submit proposal thereof. However, in the present case, the jurisdictional Circle Officer unilaterally proposed declaration of the Christian Cemetery in question as a Heritage site and the same was mechanically declared by the jurisdictional District Magistrate without both authorities having any power or jurisdiction for recommendation/declaration of Heritage site as the case may be,” the judgment said.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside October 2005 and November 2006 orders by which the cemetery was declared a heritage site. It also quashed the single-judge’s 2014 judgment upholding the declaration.

[Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took exception to the Maharashtra government seeking adjournment in the bail plea filed by lawyer and activist Surendra Gadling in connection with the 2016 Surajgarh arson case [Surendra Pundalik Gadling vs State of Maharashtra].

The State sought adjournment on the ground that some documents are yet to be filed.

A Bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar said that the matter is not a "usual one" and needs to be heard without delay.

"Matters like this we have to hear this. This is not a usual matter. We have to hear this," the Court said.

Eventually, it allowed two weeks time to the State to file additional documents.

The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court had in January 2023 rejected the bail plea of Gadling in the matter, leading to the instant appeal before the Supreme Court through advocate Nupur Kumar.

In December 2016, around 39 vehicles engaged in transporting iron ore from Surajgarh mines in Gadchiroli, Maharashtra were allegedly set on fire by Maoists.

The Gadchiroli Police then registered an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), 341, 342 (wrongful restraint and constraint), 435 (mischief by fire explosive), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 143, 147 (punishment for rioting), 148, 149 (rioting in unlawful assembly) and 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 (punishment for terrorist activities) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and certain provisions of the Arms Act.

Gadling was among those implicated for the incident and he was charged with UAPA offences.

Gadling is also an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case of 2018, which is being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Gadling is presently in judicial custody at the Taloja Central Prison.

The High Court order had stated that allegations that Gadling had direct membership of the banned organisation, Communist Party of India (Maoist) seemed to be prima facie true.

The High Court had observed that the seriousness of the allegations far outweighed the submissions made for bail.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover along with advocate Paras Nath Singh and Rohin Bhatt appeared for Gadling.

The Kerala High Court on Monday (December 2) directed the Kochi Municipal Corporation to nominate a competent officer to serve as the custodian of living wills within a week to enable a retired doctor to execute her living will [Martha Jacob v State of Kerala & ors].

The interim order was passed on a plea by a 70-year-old retired doctor (petitioner) who had raised a grievance that the Kochi Corporation's failure to appoint such a custodian was hindering the execution of her advanced directives/ living will.

Justice CS Dias found that the petitioner had established a prima facie case for urgent action when it came to appointing a custodian to verify her advanced directives or living will.

"I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for one an ad-interim order. Hence, I am of the view that the 2nd respondent (Kochi Corporation) is to be directed to forthwith nominate a competent officer, to enable the petitioner to deposit Ext.P2 living will with the said officer. In the result, the 2nd respondent is directed to nominate a competent officer within a week from today," the Court ordered.

The Court was considering a plea filed by Dr Martha Jacob, who had executed a living will in September 2023, after suffering a stroke in May 2023.

Bedridden after suffering the stroke and highly dependent on caregivers, Dr Jacob anticipated that she could lose her decision-making capacity in the future. Therefore, she had sought to put in place a living will to outline her end-of-life care.

A living will, or advance directive, is a document allowing people with declining health to specify their medical treatment preferences for a time when they cannot make decisions. It enables individuals to decline life support in a vegetative state, guiding hospitals on appropriate actions if their health worsens.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of living wills in Common Cause v Union Of India, recognising the right to die with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The top court further issued guidelines for the execution of living wills, in which it also said that a copy of the living will has to be handed over local authorities, who should nominate a competent official to be the custodian of the said document.

In her petition before the Kerala High Court, Dr. Martha Jacob pointed out that without such verification by local authorities through a custodian, it is not possible for even a doctor to execute a patient's living will during medical emergencies.

Apart from calling for a custodian to be appointed for Kochi, the petitioner has also urged the Court to direct the State to ensure that such custodians are nominated by all local bodies in Kerala.

Considering the serious medical condition of the petitioner, the Court directed the Kochi Corporation to nominate a custodian within one week and allowed her to deposit her living will with the officer so appointed.

The matter has been posted for further hearing on January 7, 2025.

The petition was filed through advocates Jikku Seban George, Deepti Susan George, and Babitha Babu.

[Read Order]