Devan Ramachandran

Hon'ble Justice Devan Ramachandran
Judge Kerala High Court
Incumbent
Assumed office 5 October 2016
Personal details
Born	(1968-03-19) 19 March 1968 Cochin, Ernakulam, Kerala, India
Citizenship	Indian
Nationality	India
Spouse(s)	Sukanya Devan
Alma mater	Government Law College, Ernakulam
Website	High Court of Kerala

Justice Devan Ramachandran (born 19 March 1968) is a Judge of the High Court of Kerala.^[1][2] The High Court of Kerala is the highest court of Judicature for the State of Kerala and Union Territory of Lakshadweep.

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'^[3] 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.^[4]

Notable cases

In a recent judgment along with Justice P.N.Ravindran,Justice Devan evolving a new principle termed'lost life' ordered for special compensation to be paid to the mother of a minor victim in a motor accident case.The victim had been reduced to a permanent vegetative state pursuant to the accident and has remained as such for the past 11 years.Seeing the plight of child resulted in worsening the condition of his father who was a diabetic patient,which led to amputation of both his legs and finally leading to his untimely death.^[5] Justice Devan who coined the principle of 'lost life' explained the same as:-this is a case wherein we cannot be purblind to the travails of a mother who has been living for the last more than 11 years in the unfathomable misery of watching her child living in a state worse than death. The suffering of this mother is not singular event - it is a continuous loss that unfolds slowly over time. Every birthday, holiday and milestone presents her, not joy but agony and more agony. The school years, the wedding that will never be, grandchildren who will never be born – an entire generation is altered forever. The grief lasts for ever- the ripple effect is unceasing. There is no moving on, no fix, no solution. There seems no end to the ache, no elixir for the pain and the grief and anguish for ever. A mother will, however, never fail her child unless her heart fails her first. We cannot even think of such a day - God forbid.The court hence ordered an amount of Rs 15,00,000/as special compensation to the sufferings caused by the mother.It was further added by Justice Ramachandran:-We are guided to consider award of compensation to Mrs.Mymoona in this case because, as we have said above, her life is virtually lost and she has been robbed of all happiness and peace in her life for over 11 years, which looks to certainly continue for the rest of her life, thus confining her in unending grief. She has lost her life without any hope for any difference in future and we believe that it is up to the respondents to compensate for her Lost Life.

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.^[6] 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.^[7]

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.^[8] 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.^[9] 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.^[10] 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 liquour,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 ."^[11]

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.^[12] 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.^[13] 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

References

External links

• http://www.livelaw.in/tag/justice-devan-ramachandran/
• http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Kochi/High-Court-to-get-two-new-judges/article14991171.ece
• https://scroll.in/latest/865381/kerala-documents-not-enough-to-substantiate-land-grab-allegations-against-thomas-chandy-says-hc