The Kerala High Court ruled that the Kerala State Minority Commission exceeded its authority by ordering eviction proceedings, holding that only a competent civil court can issue such directions against individuals belonging to minority communities under applicable law.
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Kerala State Minority Commission cannot sidestep the jurisdiction of a properly competent civil court to issue eviction orders against a person belonging to a minority community. The Court held that the Commission exceeded the authority granted to it under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014, when it directed eviction of the petitioner and instructed revenue and police officials to implement the same.
Justice Easwaran S. allowed a writ petition filed by Moideenkutty, who challenged eviction proceedings initiated pursuant to orders of the Kerala State Minority Commission.
The controversy began after the petitioner executed two sale deeds in favour of the second respondent relating to a residential property in Malappuram district. The petitioner alleged that the sale deeds were procured through fraud and undue influence, and stated that even after execution of the documents, he continued in possession of the property.
The second respondent then approached the Kerala State Minority Commission with a complaint seeking eviction of the petitioner from the property covered by the sale deeds. Acting on the complaint, the Commission passed an eviction order and also issued communications to the Tahsildar, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Station House Officer, directing them to take steps to carry out the eviction.
Following these directions, the Tahsildar issued a notice asking the petitioner to vacate the premises. The petitioner was thereafter evicted after preparation of an inventory mahazar. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court to challenge the Commission’s orders and the consequential proceedings.
The petitioner argued that the Commission had no jurisdiction under the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 to entertain a dispute involving private immovable property or to direct eviction. He maintained that any such dispute could only be resolved by a competent civil court.
The second respondent, however, argued that the Commission was empowered to entertain the complaint under Section 9(c) of the Act, and therefore its eviction order was valid.
High Court’s Reasoning
The High Court examined the purpose and scheme of the Kerala State Commission for Minorities Act, 2014 and noted that the statute was enacted to ensure educational advancement, welfare, protection and empowerment of minorities, as well as to address matters connected thereto. The Court referred to Section 9 of the Act, which sets out the functions of the Commission, including inquiries into complaints relating to deprivation of social, economic, educational and linguistic rights of minorities.
ALSO READ: Administrative Tribunals Occupy a Unique Space Between Executive and Judiciary: CJI Gavai
After analysing the statutory provisions, the Court concluded that the Act contains no authority enabling the Commission to order eviction or adjudicate civil disputes on possession and title.
The Court observed:
“the grievance of the second respondent, does not relate to any of the purposes for which the Commission was constituted… the remedy of the second respondent is to invoke the jurisdiction of a competent civil court.”
The Court further held that the Commission effectively attempted to bypass ordinary civil remedies by entertaining the complaint and issuing coercive eviction directions.
In this regard, Justice Easwaran S. stated:
“what is attempted is to bypass the civil remedy by filing an application before the Commission and that the Commissioner has overstepped its jurisdiction and issued…order requiring the petitioner to be evicted from the premises.”
Rejecting the reliance on Section 9(c), the Court held that the provision could not be interpreted to confer adjudicatory power on the Commission to evict persons from property by bypassing the jurisdiction of civil courts. The Court also noted that Section 9(e) only empowers the Commission to make recommendations to the Government on matters concerning minorities.
The Court also criticised the fact that the Commission directed revenue and police authorities to conduct eviction.
The Bench remarked:
“The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court.”
The second respondent sought to justify the eviction on equitable grounds, including assertions about his health. However, the High Court held that equity cannot cure the absence of jurisdiction. The Court observed: “equity follows law and not otherwise.”
Holding that the Commission exceeded its jurisdiction, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the eviction order issued by the Commission, along with the consequential communications and notices issued by the revenue authorities. The Court also declared that the complaint itself was not maintainable before the Minority Commission.
The Court directed the authorities to restore possession of the property to the petitioner within two days from the date of receipt of the judgment. It further preserved the second respondent’s liberty to approach the competent civil court for appropriate reliefs in accordance with law.
Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission WP(C) No. 15842 of 2026
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE