SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 24196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Soumen Sen, CJ, Syam Kumar V. M., J
MAYMOL P DAVIS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
RP NO. 377 OF 2026 | WP(PIL) NO.166 OF 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MAYMOL P DAVIS(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
For the Respondents: P. SYAMANTAK- GP

A petitioner cannot represent others unless their eligibility to approach the court is established; amendments to rules and individual rights are acknowledged.

Headnote:In the review petition seeking to amend a previous decision, the court addressed concerns regarding the petitioner’s representation of other eligible parties. The rectification pointed out the need for evaluating the amended rules concerning eligibility and standing of others. The petition was dismissed, allowing individuals to independently approach the Kerala State Legal Services for assistance. The review petition is dismissed.

Table of Content
1. petitioner cannot represent others without establishing eligibility. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. review petition dismissed. (Para 4)

O R D E R

Dated this the 1st day of April, 2026 Soumen Sen, C. J This petition has been filed to review the judgment dated

05.02.2026. It is noted that in the order sought to be reviewed, it is recorded that the present PIL Rules of the High Court do not permit the petitioner to represent other persons who are otherwise eligible to approach the Court, and that it is yet to be examined whether the persons whom the petitioner claims to represent, who are 33 in number, stand on the same footing as the review petitioner.

2. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that she received an intimation from the High Court Registry that the proposed amendment Rules of the High Court have not been duly noted.

3. We note that, in the order, this Court had not considered or referred to the amended rules. The Court had proceeded on the basis that the persons on whose behalf the writ petitioner sought to prefer the writ petition, on the basis of an order that she had obtained in the earlier proceeding, were not standing on the same footing as the petitioner. The individual rights of such persons are not precluded. In fact, we have categorically mentioned in the said order that it shall be open to the persons claiming to stand on the same footing as the writ petitioner to approach the Kerala State Legal Services Authority for appropriate legal assistance required.

4. With the above observation, the Review Petition is dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top