User:Pranoygreat/sandbox

Justice  Devan Ramachandran (Born on 19th March 1968) is a sitting  Judge of the Kerala High Court.

Early Life

Devan Ramachandran did his schooling from Bhavan’s Vidya Mandir, Elamakkara, Ernakulam, and, thereafter, took his law degree from Government Law College, Ernakulam. He started practice as an advocate in 1991, under the guidance of his father Senior Advocate  Mr. M.P.R Nair, Barrister-in-Law (Middle Temple- London).

Career

He practiced in various modern branches of law including corporate, company and constitutional matters. In recognition of his eminence, the Kerala High Court had engaged services of Sri Devan Ramachandran to be its advocate/counsel when he was just 35 years, making him the youngest one to do so till date.

Mr Devan also served as standing counsel for the CBSE, various banking institutions, including the Indian Banks Association, the principal financial advisory mechanism to Reserve Bank of India.

Achievements

He was designated as a ‘Senior Advocate’ by the High Court of Kerala, in 2015. Devan Ramachandran, and his father are credited to be the first and lone father-son duo till date to be designated as ‘Senior Advocate’ by the High Court of Kerala. The High Court of Kerala had also appointed Devan to assist as an Amicus Curiae (friend of court) in a suo motu Public Interest Litigation pertaining to the illegal trafficking of children from North India to Kerala.

Notable Cases.
 * A Division Bench of Kerala High Court, consisting Justice P.N.Ravindran and Justice Devan Ramachandran ruled in November 2017, that a Minister whilst he is holding such a position cannot  file a case against one’s own government or its functionaries. The judgment was rendered in case filed by Sri Thomas Chandy, an erstwhile minister in the State of Kerala. Through a separate  judgment, a first and unique of its kind in Indian Legal Jurisprudence touching upon the aspects of ‘Cabinet Confidentiality’ and ‘Cabinet Solidarity’. Justice Devan explained the concept of ‘Cabinet Collective Responsibility’ as follows: “Article 164(2) of the Constitution of India makes it indubitable  that the Cabinet shall be collectively responsible to the legislature. The word used is ‘collectively’, which means that the legislature will act cohesively as one unit. One cannot approbate a situation there under where an individual member of the Cabinet decides on his own and considers causes individually, in conflict with others and present a complete disarray before the legislature , which would be certainly contrary  to the imperatives of the Article 164(2) of the Constitution of India. Viewed from that angle, it is certain  that when a person acts as a Minister , he acts as a constituent of the  Cabinet, and he cannot act against it or, in any matter, against the interests of the Government.” It was further observed by Justice Ramachandran as follows :“ I am certain that a  person while occupying the position of a Minister  cannot file a writ petition or other legal proceeding against the Government ,of which he is a part challenging orders or action issued or initiated against him by the Government or its functionaries, alleging infraction of law by him,and that he cannot claim any right to mount such a challenge on the ground that he is a private citizen,  as long he continues to occupy the position of Minister.”


 * Through a Judgment delivered in October 2017, in T.M. Thomas  v State of Kerala, Justice Devan had called for mechanism ensuring  active participation of victims in criminal proceedings along with the State , rather than being a mere outsider to such proceedings. Justice Devan in his Judgment opined thus: “Our system often views victims as outsiders in the criminal proceedings. However, it is ineluctable that victims are, world over, being now considered as equal stakeholders in the criminal justice system. I believe, they are owed a right to exercise an effective voice in decision making processes like investigation, prosecution, reparation, etc. The victims are generally placed in a subservient position by the collective interests of the society in prosecuting the crime. However, time has now come to give them sufficient latitude in determining how their concerns are identified and how they will be taken into account. In this process, the victims' needs, concerns, fear and apprehension need to be acknowledged and accommodated. The victims deserve to be treated with respect by the investigatory and prosecuting services and to help them in their recovery process to be kept informed about the progress of all these proceedings.” The Director General of Police, in compliance with the above judgment has subsequently issued a circular to honor in letter and spirit the terms of the said judgment.


 * Justice Devan upholding the autonomy and  independence of Universities in granting No Objection Certificates (N.O.C’s) to start  new courses, further held that they are not subservient to any Government .It was ruled :-“The concept of an NOC, therefore, defies logic because NOC means a No Objection Certificate and it is in the nature of a prior permission or imprimatur. Nowhere does the provisions of the Statutes, as I have extracted above, show that the University is bound by a prior approbation of the Government. They are not subservient to the Government but are expected to act autonomously and independently under the provisions of the Act that empowers and enlivens them. It is ironical that the Universities are sufficiently empowered by the Statutes but the Universities take it upon themselves to feel that they are merely adjuvant to the dictates of the Government. They seem to harbour a belief that they are under a duty to go to the Government first and obtain an NOC before which they can act. To exacerbate the situation, it is not merely that they feel that they should go to the Government but they obligate the applicants to approach the Government and obtain an NOC as a pre-condition for consideration of their applications for affiliation. I do not understand on what basis or logic that the Universities have acted so. I have a feeling that the Universities believe that they are under the executive control of the Government and that it is under this misconception that the Universities have acted in issuing the impugned notification mandating the applicants to obtain prior NOC from the Government. I  believe that it is now time that the Universities are told that they are not under the Government and that they can act independently.”


 * Describing the long human chain formation(queue) in front of liquor shops across the state  as an “affront to citizenry and  loss of self respect”, Justice Ramachandran, issued various directions to the State Excise Department to do away with such a practice with consideration for self respect and upholding  humanitarian values. Deprecating such a practice Justice Devan reasoned his order on the following lines: “The sinuous queues that are found of men (very rarely or never of women) in several parts of Kerala waiting for their turn to buy liquor, which spill over to the  road, streets, lanes and other public areas is not merely a sight for the sore eyes but also an affront on the collective dignity of the citizenry of the State. What is violated is not merely self respect of the persons in the queues but also the collective respect  of the citizenry as a whole.”  


 * In  a batch of writ  petitions concerning the illegal encroachments and damages caused to lakes and biodiversity, Justice Devan called upon the authorities to take strong  prompt action against such defaulters in the greater interest of future generation  and public. Such action should be taken firmly without waiting for formal court orders, he ruled. Stressing on the Constitutional obligation of every citizen under Articles  49 and 51A  he opined that:- “Conservation of biodiversity is vital to response to climate change and in the delivery of key ecosystem services like food, flood management, pollination, clean air and water. Conservation includes restoring and enhancing species, populations and habitats and in the optimal sustainable yield in the use of natural resources.”


 * A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court,comprising  Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan(as his Lordship then was) and Justice Devan Ramachandran, had expressed deep anguish  and concern over the deteriorating status of Legal education across the country .Justice Devan who penned down the judgment directed that  the legal education imparted across the country should be done with a trajectory(vision) towards the future. Justice Devan’s judicial reasoning was as follows  :-“Time has come to rethink how we prepare our young lawyers for the future and for the profession. The necessity of improvement is dictated by time and realities to which we no longer can afford  to be myopic.Law Colleges have to be ultimately corroborative, diverse, international, technologically attuned to the times and entrepreneurial. Law colleges have to be set on a trajectory to the future-whether they like it or not-pulled along by the restless and worried students they service and legal and judicial systems they feed. The wheels are in spin and law colleges have to change to fit the times.”


 * In a Division Bench Judgment with Justice Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan(as his Lordship then was), which  challenged the banning of  the screening a film titled ‘Ka Body Scapes’ Justice Devan ruled that  under the banner of censorship any film or artistic work  cannot be banned without following a fair and reasonable procedure speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, Justice Devan wrote :-“We are in affirmation that the true import of censorship and examination of films under the Act and Rules is to render the film, so far as possible , viewable by attuning it to be in conformity with the statutory Guidelines and not to condemn it without a fair process.The fundamental desideratum of all exercise under the Act will be to make a film copacetic and suitable for viewing applying the statutory guidelines rather than condemning it into confines of the no access”