Introduction

Justice C.T. Ravikumar was born on 06^th January 1960 in Peermadu, Kerala to Sri K.Devan and Smt. Saraswathy. His father was a Bench Clerk at Changanassery Magistrate Court.

Career

• Justice Ravikumar was enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala on 12^th July 1986, and commenced his practice at Mavelikkara courts, and started independent practice in Civil, Criminal, Service and Labour matters.
• Justice Ravikumar served as Government Pleader from 1996 to 2001 under Advocate General, M.K. Damodaran and was then appointed as Senior Government Pleader in 2006.
• Justice Ravikumar was appointed as Additional Judge of the High Court of Kerala on 5^th January 2009 and as a Permanent Judge on 15^th December 2010.
• He chaired as the Executive Chairman of Kerala State Legal Services Authority and organised Lok Adalats for amicable settlement of disputes.
• He also served as the President of the Kerala Judicial Academy, President of Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
• He will serve for a tenure of four years in Supreme Court and will retire in 2025.
• Justice Ravikumar became the fifth Judge to be elevated to the Supreme Court directly from his parent High Court of Kerala.

Notable Judgments

Landmark Judgments

• Gurmail Singh & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022)
  • The question posed before the Supreme Court was whether reduction of accused persons below 5 due to the death of co accused would still make the accused persons liable under Section 149 read with Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
  • The Court held that the effect and impact of reduction of the number of convicts pending an appeal owing to the death of co-convicts is bound to be different from the effect and impact of reduction of the number of accused/convicts on account of acquittal.
  • The Court finally concluded that the death of seven out of ten persons would not result in non-applicability of provision of constructive liability under Section 149 of IPC.
• Sukhbiri devi & ors v. Union of India & Ors (2022)
  • The Court held that the issue limitation can be framed and determined as a preliminary issue under Order XIV, Rule 2(2)(b), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in a case where it can be decided on admitted facts.
  • The Supreme Court in this case held that though limitation is a fixed question of fact and law, however, it becomes only a question of law in those cases where the starting point of limitation is specifically made in the plaint averments.
  • In such cases the Court may frame the issue of limitation as preliminary issue and postpone the settlement of other issues.
• Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India (2022)
  • In this case the Court held that freebies may create a situation wherein the State Government cannot provide basic amenities due to lack of funds and the State is pushed towards imminent bankruptcy.
  • In the same breath, we should remember that such freebies are extended utilizing taxpayers money only for increasing the popularity of the party and electoral prospects.”
• State of Maharashtra v. Maroti (2022)
  • In this case the Supreme Court held that the accused was under a legal obligation, in terms of the provisions under Section 19(1) of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) upon getting the knowledge about committing of an offence under the POCSO Act, to provide such information either to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.
  • In case a person fails to inform he would be liable under Section 21 of POCSO Act.

Recent Judgments

• Child in conflict with law through it’s mother v. State of Karnataka (2024):
  • The Supreme Court held that the time limit of three months prescribed under Section 14(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection) Act, 2015 (JJ Act) for ascertaining the mental and physical capacity of a child below the age of sixteen years to commit a serious offence is not mandatory but directory.
  • Further, noting that no time limit has been prescribed under the JJ Act to prefer an appeal against the preliminary assessment order of the Juvenile Justice Board (JJB), the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to fill up this gap by prescribing 30 days' time limit for preferring appeal against the JJB's preliminary assessment order.
• Shazia Aman Khan and Anr v. The State of Orissa and othrs. (2024)
  • The Supreme Court while granting custody of a minor child to her aunt despite opposition from the father, held that the personal law or statute couldn't override the welfare of the child while deciding the custody of the child.
• Basavaraj v. Indira and others (2024)
  • The question that appeared before the Supreme Court was whether the plaintiff could seek an amendment to the suit whereby the nature of the suit can be changed i.e., from the partition suit to the declaration suit i.e., declaring the compromise decree as void.
  • The Supreme Court held that an application seeking amendment of plaint shouldn't be allowed under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC if the amendment alters the nature of the suit.