Kerala High Court Half Yearly Digest: January To June, 2026 [Citations 1 - 352]
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352NOMINAL INDEXBinu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India, 2026...
Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
NOMINAL INDEX
Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
Suresh K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37
Hari v. The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
Esai Clara v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
XXX v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education v. Karthik Dev R. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
Umesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
Kamal Kumar Mandal v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Suo Motu v Union Government and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
Lunar Rubbers v Kerala Head Load And Timber Workers And Factory Workers Union(KTUC and ors and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
M R Ajayan v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
K V Sabu v Registrar of Co-Operatives Societies and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
Prasad Somarajan v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Rajendran P. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Pattasseril Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Nowfal v. The Secretary, Angadippuram Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Kunhikrishnan V. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Abid v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
R. Ragavendran and Anr. v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
V.J. Joseph v. The India Cements Limited and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
Moithunnykutty and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors. & Ma'din Knowledge Garden Public School v. Assistant Educational Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
Havildar B. Manikuttan v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Venkatraman Bhat and Ors v Anantha Bhat and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
State of Kerala and Ors. v Niradeepam Roller Flour Mill, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Sibin S.V. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
Ummu Sulaim (Minor) and Ors. v The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
C.J. Mathews v. District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing & Allied Health Science Institution v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
XXX v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Dr. Haiderali Kalliyath v. XXX and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Menon P.S. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Liji v State of Kerala and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
T.O. Abraham v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Sivakumar S. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Suo Motu v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
Pankaj Kumar v. The Station House Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
M/S. Kosamattam Finance Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
State of Kerala and Ors. Kurien E Kalathil and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
Nishad and Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
M K Suresh Kumar and Anr v The Union of Indian and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
Mubas M.H. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Aloshious Xavier v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
Greevas Job Panakkal v Traco Cable Company Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
Vijayan and Anr. v Appukutta, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
Shameem v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
Lucy Kuriakose and Anr. v State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
Balachandran v Sajan Mathew and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
I Bindhu v Thiruvanathanpuram Service Co-Operative Bank and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
xxx. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
Sabu Stephen v. State Election Commission, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
Prasanthan M. v. Kannur Corporation and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
Satkunam @ Sabesan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
Jithusooraj S.K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Basheer Thaliyil v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
P.B. Satheesh v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
M.R. Anagh v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Praveen Kumar @ Kannan v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Mariyakutty and Ors. v United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Chandramohan K.C. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
Adv. Kulathoor Jaisingh v. The Chairman and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Appukuttan v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
M/s Grid Engineers and Contractors and Anr. v. Union Bank of India and Anr. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
N.K. Premachandran v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Binu Das B v Smitha Raj L, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
X v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Ashique v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Shwetha Menon v. State of Kerala and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Adv. P.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
State Nodal Officer and Ors. v. Manoj M.S. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Jayalekshmi L. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Professor M.K. Sanoo v. State of Kerala and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Koshy Abraham v. Shaji and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Sheno Sebastian v Smitha Maxon, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Adv. Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
Alavikutty T.K v State of Kerala and ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Antony Raju v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Ashique Karoth v Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Vineesh v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Director and Ors. v Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
M.M. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Jaisappan Mathai v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
Abdul Hamid Makame v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
Biji Garnet v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
State of Kerala v. Anu and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Jijo Joseph v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Vaibhav Y. Kini and Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
X v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v. Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
K.G. Manjumol v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Linson K. Thomas v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachiriyil Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Vijesh C.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Dhanya Devadas v The Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
Gokul K. v. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Dr. Vinu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Fazeela R.A and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
N. Prakash v State of Kerala and Connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Thomas M.K v Govt. of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
George John v Election Commission of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
Anjali P.V. (popularly known as Anjali Nair) v. The Returning Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
Goshree Islands Development Authority and Anr. v. Tritvam Apartment Owners Association and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
XXX v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. & Ernakulam Kshethra Kshema Samithi v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
Human Rights Foundations v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Mohandas, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
Joshi Villadom v. Suresh Gopi, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
K.B. Soman v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
XXX and Anr. v. YYY and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
The High Power Committee For Implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
High Court of Kerala v. The Election Commission of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
Swami Saranam Enterprises and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. E.G. Sahadevan and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
Clara Dominic v. Tomy Eapen and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
All Kerala Bar Hotels & Restaurant Employees Association (CITU) v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
Shaji v. Soman and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
Shahir Basheer v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
Bipha Drug Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
Joju George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
P. Lakshmikutty Amma and Ors. v V.K Indira and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
Prasanth P. Kumar and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
Suresh v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
Hans Joseph v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
Neonova Munnar LLP and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
Shajeer v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
Ratheesh v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
Sreekumar M.R and Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Aloysious Fernandez Dickson v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
Rajan C.G. @ Rajan Chittitappally @ Rafi and Ors. v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
N.K. Prasannan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
XXX and Anr. v. Kerala Society Security Mission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
Faseela and Ors. v. Jaleel, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
M.K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v. The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Temple Advisory Committee v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
Yahya Khan N. v. Sainaba T.P. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
N. Bharathi Amma v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
Dileep K.G. v. Swapna Dileep and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
V.V. Rajesh v. The District Police Complaint Authority and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
XXX and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Manager, Majlis English Medium School and Anr. v The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
Danikutti Philip v. Johnykutty J. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
Sudheer. S and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
Mini Sunny v. Thuravoor Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
Musthafa v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
Vinu Vikraman v. State of Kerala and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Anil N v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
K.N. Ambika v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devswom Board and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Pradeep Bharathan. K v. The State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
P.K. Lakshmi and Ors. v Gopi and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v Vernin Varkey @ John, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Joseph @ Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
Sreerosh Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan K.M. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
A.K. Baby v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
C.A. Jaleel v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
Rajesh. K v The Additional District Magistrate and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
Laiju M S v The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
Vijayan P. v. George and Company and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
Lifin Sebastian and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
Shamseera Parambath v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
Alkarsf Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
Nevil John v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
N. Rajendran v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
Harikumar K.K. v. State Election Commission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
Varkey Varghese v Kathreena, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
Raveendra Panicker v. District Collector and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
Eriyad Palli @ Eriyad Mahallu Jama-Ath and Ors. v. Aboobacker K.M. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
Vishnu @ Unni v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
Hari Devageeth v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
Wilfred Jose v Jayapal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
Lawrence and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
A. Raju v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
MRPN Minority Shareholders Customers Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
Anto Augustine and Ors v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The State Public Information Officer and Ors. v. The Kerala State Information Commission and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
Aneesh Babu v. The Secretary, Home Affairs and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
Sreeja v Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
Babu Avarachan v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
Prasobh M v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
M K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
K.N. Sukumaran Nair v. K.E. Parameswara Pillai, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Union of India and Ors. v Valsala S, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
Ayshath Bunayath and Anr. v The Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Gigi Varghese v. The Village Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
Aboobacker Siddique and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar v. Dr. Mohan Kunnummal, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
Moh Farmaan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
RP 288/2026 in JPP 1/2026, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
Greeny Tomy and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
Sujithra P.A. v. Anishkumar T.R., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
XXX v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State Of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
M/s Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
Union of India and Anr. v. Sreedev Namboodiri and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
XXX and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
Ebin A.V. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
Puthur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sethumadhavan and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
Sreethu v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
Jomon Jaison and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
State of Kerala v. Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev T and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
M.C. Kunhunni Raja and Anr. v. The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Devaki and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
Thomas Poulose and Ors. v. Albin Mathew @ Anto and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
Anish Kumar S v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
The Secretary v K. Kanchana and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
Shijosh v The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
Midhun M. v. Hindustan Latex Limited (HLL) Lifecare Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Mohammed Hanish v. Kadakampally Manoj, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
Bichathu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
RK v. PK and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
Dr. M.Kodanda Ram v. State and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
Sangeetha K.P. v. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
Wei, Chun-Ju and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
T.M. Manju v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
Ahmad Nasir Osmani v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v. Rajesh K. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
Muhammed Firdouz v The State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
M/S. Pharmadude Pharmacy Vannappuram v State of Kerala and Connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
Muhammed Anwar Saidu v. Bar Council of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
Gopinath R v Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
Bhageesh Pooradan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
State of Kerala v. Dr. Reena K.J. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
Vijay R. Nair v. Lijitha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Abdul Salam v. Moideenkutty and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
A.M. Ariff v. K.C. Venugopal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
Prasobh M. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v Salpriya and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Rajesh R. and Anr. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
M/S Chicago Constructions International Private Limited v Kerala Water Authority and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
N and Ors. v. S, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Athul M.C. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
Case Title: Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, directed the Union government to comply with a 2009 Delhi High Court order and decide if the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam) is governed by the Companies Act or the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha set aside the Single bench judgment, which had set aside a 1974 government order that granted exemption to the Yogam, a company registered under the 1882 Companies Act.
Case Title: Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
The Kerala High Court has held that a reasonable delay in initiating proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) does not snap the statutory “live link” required for externment.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an externment order issued against a person classified as a “known goonda”.
Case Title: Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the State Government to constitute a multi-departmental committee to regulate and monitor sand and soil removal at the Thottappally Spillway in Alappuzha, stressing that flood-control measures cannot be carried out at the cost of ecological destruction, particularly in sensitive coastal zones and turtle nesting habitats.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. disposed of two connected writ petitions which challenged an order issued by the Alappuzha District Collector under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, permitting large-scale removal of sand and vegetation from the Thottappally Spillway to facilitate flood mitigation in the Kuttanad region.
Case Title: Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
In an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court recently directed the Railway Claims Tribunal to follow Rules 181 of the Civil Rules of Practice so as to incorporate proper appendices to all its orders.
Justice S. Manu observed that the Tribunal's judgments generally do not contain any attachment showing the witnesses examined and documents marked and due to this, there is difficulty in understanding whether the documents on records were marked or not.
Case Title: Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Relying on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Kerala High Court recently held that a divorced Muslim woman can invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 144 BNSS to claim maintenance from former husband even if he had discharged his obligations under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that when a Muslim divorced woman approaches the Family Court invoking Section 125 Cr.PC./Section 144 BNSS even after receiving benefits under the Muslim Women Protection Act, the Family Court cannot automatically dismiss the application but has to examine whether she is still able to support herself.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed a plea challenging Sections 2(c) (i), 14, 16 and 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also refused to declare that Section 16 was applicable to judges of the superior courts, and that Section 17(5) has to be read along with the constitutional guarantee of right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks or financial institutions to extend the benefit of a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme.
A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S dismissed a writ appeal filed by borrowers and upheld the decision of a single judge refusing to interfere with recovery proceedings initiated by a co-operative bank.
Case Title: Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Kerala High Court recently held that there cannot be any discrimination between the children of the brother and those of the sister of a convict while granting emergency leave to attend their marriage.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that almost all the Jail Superintendents in the State have been rejecting applications for emergency leaves of convicts to attend their brother's children's marriage.
Case Title: Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
The Kerala High Court has held that a female heir, who otherwise had no inheritance rights under pre-1956 Hindu law, can acquire valid title through a voluntary partition deed executed by family members.
Justice Easwaran S. held that a registered partition deed consciously conferring a share on a female heir cannot be ignored on the ground that she lacked an antecedent right of inheritance under the Mitakshara law.
Case Title: XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court recently held that a victim's appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be summarily dismissed when there is no prima facie material to show that victim has an arguable case.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the provision for summary dismissal of appeals provided under Section 425 would also apply to the appeals under Section 413.
Case Title: Suresh K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, laid down that the provision under the Juvenile Justice Act/Rules is only one of the modes to determine the age of a victim of a POCSO offence.
After examining Section 34 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the decisions of the Division Bench in Silvester Pigaruz v. State of Kerala (2024) and Biju v. State of Kerala (2024), Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The POCSO Act does not stipulate in section 34(2) that when the victim is a child, age can be determined only as per the law relating to juveniles…”
Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
The Kerala High Court enhanced the notional income of an accident victim who was employed abroad and had sought compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, based on certain factual aspects even though the claimant had failed to produce salary certificate as per Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering two appeals filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, one filed by the insurance company and the other by the claimant/victim of the accident.
Case Title: V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be accorded without hearing the public servant concerned when the request is made by a person other than a police officer or other law enforcement authority.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a plea preferred by a person who was directed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to obtain sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act to proceed with his complaint against the officers of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Counsel, Kerala (V.F.P.C.K), including the HR Manager-In-Charge. These persons were also arrayed in the plea as respondents.
Case Title: Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court recently held that the District Authority can reject an application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for not maintaining minimum distance from schools and other public places in accordance with the Central Pollution Control Board's guidelines.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim added that since a playground is integral to the functioning of schools, the distance from the school's compound wall and not its building has to be considered while considering the minimum distance.
Case Title: Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that a victim cannot filed a second appeal against the acquittal of an accused by seeking special leave from the High Court as per Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu and Another, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“It is evident from the above observations itself that once the appellate remedy is invoked by the victim, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as in the form of a second appeal.”
Case Title: P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Kerala High Court has held that the existence of a civil decree for recovery of loan dues does not negate criminal liability for conspiracy and misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that criminal culpability must be assessed independently of civil remedies
Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed for misappropriation and conspiracy.
Case Title: Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
While dealing with an inter-religious marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the Kerala High Court has held that if a spouse wishes to convert their religion, an additional entry can be incorporated in the marriage register to record his/her new name.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registrar of Marriages, Panchayat Secretary concerned and other authorities to incorporate an additional entry in the marriage register and to issue a new marriage certificate with the wife's new name in this case, after her conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
Kerala High Court Absolves Actor Mohanlal In Manappuram Finance False Advertisement Case
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court has absolved actor Mohanlal from liability in a consumer case alleging unfair trade practice by Manappuram Finance for demanding higher interest than what was advertised by it.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that as long as the actor was only the brand ambassador of Manappuram and did not, in any manner, persuade to avail their services, liability cannot be fastened against him.
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. however clarified that an action may lie against a brand ambassador/endorser under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act for false or misleading advertisements.
Kerala High Court Strikes Down Devaswom Recruitment Board's Power Over Guruvayoor Appointments
Case Title: Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (KDRB Act) which empowers the KDRB to prepare select lists for the appointment of candidates to various posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom posts is unconstitutional.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V M were considering an appeal filed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and others, challenging the relevant provisions of the KDRB Act.
Case Title: Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a magistrate taking cognizance based on a protest complaint must consider the refer report filed by the police and pass a speaking order.
Referring to the decisions in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran [2009 (1) KLT 794] and C.R. Chandran v. State of Kerala [ILR 2024 (3) Ker. 245], Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed:
“Therefore, it is evident that while taking cognizance of an offence based on a private complainant, especially one filed as a protest complaint against a refer report filed by the police, the Magistrate shall take into consideration the refer report as well. Further, it should be a speaking order, containing the materials justifying the order taking cognizance, as held by this court in the decisions referred above.”
Pre-Deposit For Filing SARFAESI Appeal Must Be Paid To Tribunal, Not Lending Bank: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the mandatory pre-deposit required to file an appeal under the SARFAESI Act must be paid to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and not to the lending bank.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Kerala Gramin Bank, setting aside a single judge's order that had directed the borrower to deposit money with the bank itself in order to pursue its appeal before the DRAT.
Kerala High Court Directs State To Pay ₹14 Lakh Compensation To NRI Man & Kin For Wrongful Detention
Case Title: V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to pay Rs. 14 Lakhs compensation to a NRI man and family after he was imprisoned for a period of 54 days in judicial custody based on false charges.
Justice P.M. Manoj awarded Rs. 10 lakhs to the man and Rs. 1 lakh each to four of his family members as a compensation for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment faced by them at the hands of the police officers.
Case Title: Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr.
Citation: , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court recently held that the names of the complainant and the accused cannot be substituted at the appellate stage by an amendment application as there is no enabling provision in the CrPC, specially when the amendment plea was moved 27 years after filing of the complaint.
Justice Johnson John was considering an appeal filed by the complainant in a cheque dishonour case challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Title: Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per the Petroleum Rules, 2002, when the licensee of a petroleum outlet loses the right to the site for storing petroleum due to expiry of lease period, the license gets automatically cancelled without any need for a formal order.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that in such cases, license can be cancelled without granting an opportunity of hearing to the licensee.
Case Title: Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that non-conduct of test identification parade taken along with other vitiating factors would render as suspect the testimony of eyewitnesses.
The Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“Although it is trite that an identification in a TI parade is not substantive evidence and that the non-holding of a TI parade will not vitiate a dock identification [Vinod alias Nasmulla v. State of Chattisgarh – [(2025) 4 SCC 312], considering the fact that the dock identification of the accused by the witnesses above was not free from doubt, a TI Parade would have proved useful to corroborate the dock identification done by PW1 and PW5 in the instant case. For our part, we are of the view that the non-conduct of a TI Parade, taken together with the other vitiating factors discussed above with regard to the conduct of the aforementioned witnesses, rendered their testimony as eye-witnesses to the incident suspect and unworthy of acceptance vis-a-vis the identification of the accused.”
Case Title: Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the limits of amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that a plaint cannot be amended after completion of evidence to introduce a claim that has already been decided on merits in an earlier suit between the same parties.
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish, delivered the judgment in a miscellaneous first appeal.
Case Title: Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Kerala High Court has recently (12 January) observed that a judge cannot assume the role of a Public Prosecutor by usurping into the counsel's powers.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar while setting aside the life sentence imposed on an accused convicted of murder, holding that the entire trial stood vitiated due to gross denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Case Title: Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision quashed an order made by the Special Judge (Vigilance) directing investigation into a complaint and the FIR registered against a public servant after noting that prior sanction as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not received.
Justice A. Badharudeen relegated the case back to the pre-cognizance stage and directed the Special Judge to insist of the production of sanction under the PC Act in order to proceed further with the complaint.
Case Title: Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court recently held that a Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the profits of the property of her husband even after its transfer, if the transfer was effected subsequent to initiation of legal proceedings for maintenance or if there is evidence showing that the transferee was aware of her claim at the time of sale.
The Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan and G. Girish clarified that in such cases, the wife's right for maintenance will get the protection and privilege of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act/Section 28 of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, which deals with the protection of a third person's right to maintenance from the profits of an immovable property irrespective of the transfer of that property.
Case Title: Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
The Kerala High Court quashed a Government order rejecting by-transfer appointments to Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) posts, observing that 25% by-transfer quota under Kerala Education Rules must be calculated on the sanctioned strength of posts and not on the vacancies arising in an academic year.
Justice N. Nagaresh in his order said that any administrative interpretation applying the quota to yearly vacancies instead of the total sanctioned posts would be contrary to Rule 4(3) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules and therefore legally unsustainable. Rule 4(3) prescribes method of appointment of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior).
Case Title: Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court has held that no fresh notification under Section 1(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is required to apply the Act, when a Panchayat Area is converted to Municipality.
A Full Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice Gopinath P. and Justice G. Girish was answering a reference which arose from conflicting Division Bench decisions on whether the conversion of a Panchayat into a Municipality interrupts the applicability of the Rent Act unless the State Government issues a fresh notification amending Schedule I.
Victim's Statement Alone Can Sustain Charge Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that an accused cannot be discharged merely because the statements of the witnesses do not disclose ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.
Justice A. Badharudheen clarified that if the statement of the aggrieved person prima facie discloses the offence, then that would be sufficient.
Authorised Govt Officer's Complaint Necessary To Prosecute Notary: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act, a complaint by an officer authorized by the government concerned is necessary for taking cognizance of offence committed by a notary public exercising functions under the Act.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, after referring to the provision and noting non-compliance, set aside all further proceedings against a notary arrayed as an accused in a crime.
Case Title: Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that contributory negligence cannot be attributed on a victim of a motor accident merely because he was carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the insurer must bring in evidence showing that the act of carrying two pillion riders had a direct and proximate cause, connecting it with the accident.
Case Title: Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dismissal for default alone cannot justify the rejection of restoration plea citing lack of vigilance.
Justice T R Ravi made the observation in a petition challenging rejection of an application seeking restoration of execution proceedings, which were dismissed for default.
Kerala High Court Orders State Bar Council To Refund ₹5K Excess Enrolment Fee Collected From Lawyers
Case Title: Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 19) directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund the excess amount collected from seven lawyers to conduct their enrolments.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund to each of the petitioners the excess fee of Rs. 5000 collected from them within 2 weeks of receipt of the judgment.
Kerala Land Reforms Act | Article 226 Can Be Invoked To Divest Land Vested With Govt: High Court
Case Title: P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37
The Kerala High Court has recently held that while excess land vests absolutely in the Government upon issuance of an order under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act), the constitutional courts may still exercise its power under Article 226 to order divesting such land in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice and violation of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment.
S.399 IPC | Preparation For Dacoity Requires Five Or More Persons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hari v. The State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that a minimum of five persons are required to attract the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha looked into the definition of 'dacoity' provided under Section 391 IPC and observed:
“A reading of Section 391 of IPC would show that the essential or core ingredient of the offence of dacoity is that there should be five or more persons. Section 399 IPC deals with making preparation to commit dacoity and therefore, the numerical requirement applicable to dacoity is equally applicable to preparation for it. If the number is less than five, the offence of dacoity or the offence of preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 IPC will not attract. If fewer than five persons are involved, the preparation cannot be said to be for committing dacoity, because the numerical requirement of five or more persons mandatory under Section 391 IPC is equally applicable to Section 399 IPC.”
Case Title: Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The Kerala High Court recently directed the repatriation of two Srilankan citizens, who are the children of the accused persons in two cases being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering the plea preferred by the petitioners seeking a declaration that their continued detention in the Transit Home after a period of more than 2 years was illegal.
Case Title: Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Kerala High Court has held that a victim whether they are complainant or not has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal of accused without seeking leave of the High Court, however such appeal must be filed before the appropriate Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a woman's appeal under Section 413 BNSS challenging the acquittal of a man who was accused of offences under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty)and 354D (Stalking).
Case Title: Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala, A. Padmakumar v. State of Kerala, B. Murari Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 21) denied bail to Jeweller Roddam Govardhan and former Travancore Devaswom Board officials A. Padmakumar and Murari Babu, who are accused of misappropriating gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala.
Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order today in open court after reserving the verdict.
Case Title: Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Kerala High Court has recently (January 19) held that a person born outside the State cannot be denied a domicile certificate if their permanent residence and social belongingness are demonstrably in Kerala.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation in a plea challenging rejection of Petitioner's application for issuance of domicile certificate on the ground that he and his parents were born and brought up in Kolkata.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that sanction under Section 188 of CrPC is not required at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence committed outside India, while it is required for commencement of the trial.
Justice C Pratheep Kumar while dealing with a criminal revision petition observed,
"At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is not required, while it is required for commencement of the trial."
Case Title: Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
The Kerala High Court recently modified an externment order restraining a person from entering the Thrissur revenue district after finding that there was no reason assigned for passing the order for maximum period.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that an externment order would have a huge impact on the fundamental and personal rights of a person and therefore, while passing the maximum period, the authority must assign proper reasons for the same.
Case Title: Esai Clara v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (22 January) closed the plea by a law aspirant seeking reservation under the transgender category for admission to the Integrated Five Year LL.B Course in Government Law College, Kozhikode.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, closed the petition when it was informed that the petitioner has acquired admission at the Government Law College, Kozhikode
Case Title: Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to elections of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the Association is neither a public authority nor a body discharging public functions.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgement while dismissing a writ petition filed by a member of the KHCAA challenging the 2026 Association elections, including the voters' list, election notification, and the declaration of results.
Case Title: Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that since Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that Section 438 CrPC regarding pre-arrest bail is not applicable to persons committing offences under the Act, the same can be said about its corresponding provision, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering judgement in an appeal preferred under Section 14A of the Act against the Special Court's order denying bail to two persons accused of committing offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 110, 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.
Case Title: Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
The Kerala High Court has held that the title 'doctor' does not belong exclusively to medical professionals and that physiotherapists and occupational therapists can use the 'Dr.' prefix.
Justice V.G. Arun pronounced the judgment dismissing the pleas preferred by Indian Medical Association, Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) and its Secretary.
Case Title: Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 28) held that denial of compensatory leave to the Gazetted Officers of the High Court is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed:
“In High Court, the functional realities are materially different from other Government Departments. Administrative and judicial work continues even during major holidays such as Onam and Christmas. Even during holidays, vacation sittings are held, which require the full process of filing, scrutiny, allocation of cases, issue of orders and even clearing of pendency. Indexing and processing of disposed files are usually done during this holiday period. The Gazetted Officers of the High Court are required to supervise, coordinate and ensure completion of all such duties… It is declared that denial of compensatory leave to the Gazetted Officers of the High Court under Ext.P1 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Kerala High Court has held that a prosecution for making a false complaint under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is maintainable only if the alleged false information relates to offences under Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault), 5 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault), 7 (Sexual Assault) or 9 (Aggravated Sexual Assault) of the Act.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was delivering judgment in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against two persons who were charged under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for allegedly lodging a false complaint.
Kerala High Court Closes Pleas Against Sprinklr Deal, Says There Was No Data Sharing By State
Case Title: Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (28 January) closed a batch of writ petitions which questioned the data confidentiality of the State government's agreement with US-based data analytics firm Sprinklr Inc. for managing COVID-19 related data.
The division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M, confirmed the earlier directions issued by a division bench of the Court and held that the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic justified the State's actions, though procedural lapses were noted.
Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that casual or angry utterances made during a quarrel, without the requisite mens rea, do not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, was delivering the judgement in a criminal revision petition against a Sessions Court order rejecting the application for discharge.
Case Title: Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a confession made to the police by one accused cannot be used to convict a co-accused in the absence of an independent incriminating evidence.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering a judgment in a criminal revision petition filed by the second accused in a theft case. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 379 (theft) of IPC.
Case Title: XXX v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court recently held that the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) by the Kollam Bar Association was against the objective and requirement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act].
Justice P.M. Manoj reasoned that a bar association is not an 'employer' within the meaning of the Act and therefore, the ICC constituted is not in accordance with the Act.
Case Title: Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Kerala High Court has held that an order issued under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order), even if it permits cultivation of crops other than paddy, cannot be construed as permission under Clause 6(2) for conversion of land or for alteration of land tenure in revenue records
Justice P.M. Manoj was delivering a judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner claimed that an order issued under Clause 7 of the KLR Order would constitute a valid permission under Clause 6(2) of the Order.
Case Title: Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the Zamorin royal family, holding that disputes relating to rights arising from pre-Constitution covenants are barred from judicial scrutiny under Article 363 of the Constitution Of India.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar further held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain such a challenge and that none of the reliefs sought could be granted in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition with costs of ₹10,000.
Case Title: T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 30) granted pre-arrest bail to the chief editor of Crime Online, a YouTube Channel, who is accused of posting an obscene content involving Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to T.P. Nandakumar, who is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) for posting a video with a caption in Malayalam that translates to “What exactly did Pinarayi do by lifting Saritha Nair's skirt...the video is out”.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 29) issued guidelines for the effective and prompt reporting of the lapses, misconduct and malpractices in the religious institutions under the Travancore Devaswom Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of the report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner relating to the submission of periodical status report of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board.
Compromise Without Pre-Existing Rights Invalid In Service Inam Land Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the claimants who possess no pre-existing legal rights over Service Inam lands cannot enter into a binding compromise inter se, under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981. It has further held that the statutory authorities cannot abdicate their adjudicatory role by merely recording such settlements.
Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgement in a petition challenging a settlement order issued under Service Inam Lands Act.
Case Title: Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “desertion” under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 must be understood as desertion without reasonable cause, despite the absence of an express statutory qualifier.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar were disposing of matrimonial appeals arising from a common judgment of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.
Case Title: The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education v. Karthik Dev R. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
The Kerala High Court has held that the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala, being a statutory body exercising adjudicatory functions under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, cannot be treated as an “aggrieved person” entitled to maintain a writ appeal against a judgment setting aside its quasi-judicial orders.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that a quasi-judicial authority cannot challenge an order passed by a superior court interfering with its decision.
Case Title: Umesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man and his mother for allegedly committing the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after noting that there was no valid marriage between him and the complainant in view of the annulment made by a competent court.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a plea preferred by the husband and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant seeking to quash the proceedings against them.
Case Title: Kamal Kumar Mandal v. State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the quantity of contraband seized as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) has to be specified for an effective communication of grounds of arrest to an accused.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on various precedents laid down by the Apex Court and by the High Court and have summarised the principles laid down regarding effective communication of grounds of arrest.
Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Case On Sale Of Chemical Kumkum At Sabarimala
Case Title: Suo Motu v Union Government and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Kerala High Court has closed the suo motu proceedings initiated regarding the issue concerning the sale of chemical kumkum in Sabarimala Temple.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar was considering a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner on measures taken to ensure adequate amenities for pilgrims during the peak pilgrimage season.
Case Title: Lunar Rubbers v Kerala Head Load And Timber Workers And Factory Workers Union(KTUC and ors and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
The Kerala High Court has held that a Labour Court cannot adjudicate on the legality or bona fides of an alleged closure when the reference itself is confined to the justification of retrenchment.
Justice Mohammed Nias CP was delivering the judgment in petitions challenging the Labour Court Order which directed the reinstatement of workmen who claimed to have been illegally terminated under the guise of closure.
Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (03 February) dismissed a review petition filed by M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist, against an order of the vacation bench, imposing costs which amounted to a total of Rs 40,000.
A division bench comprising Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the review petition challenging an interim order of the Vacation bench of the Court, which found Ajayan had filed Section 8 interlocutory applications before it, without any urgency.
Case Title: Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Kerala High Court recently held that maternity leave is a right and the same cannot be clubbed with the other regular leaves taken by a National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) Trainee to cancel her candidature.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a plea preferred by a NBEMS Trainee, who got selected in the NEET Super Specialty Examination (NEET-SS) for a DrNB course after completing her MBBS and MD.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (04 February) disposed of the suo motu proceedings on custodial deaths and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased inmates as the State informed that the Standard operating Procedure (SOP) for collection of data has been finalised.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M disposed of the petition.
Case Title: K V Sabu v Registrar of Co-Operatives Societies and Ors.
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Kerala High Court has held that Matsyafed, the State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited, is a financing bank within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.
Justice K Babu, was delivering the judgment in a petition challenging the order of supersession of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society.
Kerala High Court Closes PIL Seeking Compliance On Road Standards For Pedestrian Safety
Case Title: Prasad Somarajan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Kerala High Court has recently (29 January) closed a public interest litigation which has raised concerns regarding the pedestrian safety alongside the roads.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M disposed of the petition.
No Disability Pension Where Condition Not Attributable To Military Service: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rajendran P. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that rejected an ex-serviceman's application against non-grant of disability pension for Generalised Anxiety Disorder.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John held that the presumptions under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 regarding the sound mental condition of a member upon entering service do not come in when the medical assessment does not indicate disability is attributable to or aggravated by medical service.
Case Title: Pattasseril Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently held that a company that prefers a complaint for cheque dishonour can be represented by a power of attorney holder only if he/she witnessed the transaction or had direct knowledge of it.
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed:
“The company, being a juristic person, cannot act on its own and it must necessarily function through a human agency. A company is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and it can do so, through an authorised person. Even though, a power of attorney holder, being an authorised representative of the company, can file a complaint and give evidence, he must have either witnessed the transaction or must possess direct knowledge of the transaction.”
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Enhancement Of Prison Wages In State
Case Title: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (05 February) dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the State Government's recent decision to enhance the wages paid to convicted prisoners.
The division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Nowfal v. The Secretary, Angadippuram Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that while filing writ petitions, it is necessary to mark documents with description either in the statement of facts or in the grounds.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while considering a writ petition, noticed that the exhibits produced in it were not marked as copy of the original documents with description but were shown in brackets after stating the relevant fact. However, in the affidavit accompanying the petition, there was a statement that the documents produced are true copies of the original documents.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to prepare a list of employees to be appointed as assistants to the Melshanthis, Kazhakam, and Ulkazhakam at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, citing serious concerns over lack of oversight and the presence of individuals with criminal antecedents in temple service.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar issued the directions while disposing, a suo motu proceeding arising from the selection of Melshanthis for the Sabarimala temple and the Malikappuram Temples.
Case Title: Kunhikrishnan V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Kerala High Court on Friday (February 6) dismissed as infructuous the plea preferred by expelled Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Kunhikrishnan V. seeking police protection due to the release of his book "Nethruthwathe Anigal Thiruthanam", which is stated to be an exposé on irregularities and mismanagement of martyrs funds and other funds by some of the leaders of CPI(M), including Payyanur MLA Madhusoodhanan T.I.
He had prayed for protection for the book release event, which was held at 5 p.m. on February 2 at Gandhi Park in Payyannur, Kannur. Today, Kunhikrishnan's counsel submitted before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas that the matter has become infructuous.
Case Title: Abid v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a person found in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs would not be eligible for grant of bail merely because of long incarceration if the twin conditions under Section 37 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not satisfied or if he has criminal antecedents.
Dr. Kauser Edappagath was considering the bail application of a person who was found in possession of around 79.5 grams of methamphetamine and got implicated as the 1st accused in a crime alleging commission of offences under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.
Case Title: R. Ragavendran and Anr. v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Kerala High Court has clarified that an order passed under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act barring disclosure of witness statements must separately consider materials relating to each witness and record reasons for its decision.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan was considering a petition preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita challenging orders passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases.
Case Title: V.J. Joseph v. The India Cements Limited and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the managing director, who signed the dishonoured cheques and was in charge of the day-to-day affairs of a company accused of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is vicariously liable in the offence.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed a revision petition filed by the 2nd accused in a cheque bounce case for which he was found guilty along with the accused company in which he was the managing director.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court ordered the state government to reimburse the treatment charges expended by a government school teacher for the treatment of his daughter's rare disease in a non-empanelled private hospital in Coimbatore.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon relied on various decisions of the Apex Court and the judgment of the High Court in The General Manager and Anr. v. Rajam V.V., wherein the reimbursements not disbursed on technical grounds like treatment at non-empanelled hospitals were ordered to be given.
Case Title: Moithunnykutty and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors. & Ma'din Knowledge Garden Public School v. Assistant Educational Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Kerala High Court recently ordered closure of a school that was teaching Quran and allied subjects to its students since it was running without valid recognition as per Section 18 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering two connected writ petitions, one of which was preferred by two persons, who had complained against the school. The complaint had led to a report by the Assistant Educational Officer addressed to the District Educational Officer, who found that the school was being run without recognition. They have sought for directions for taking further action on the same.
Case Title: Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that sought action against Christian priests, who had entered Adoor Sree Parthasarathy Temple in priestly robes to attend a function to celebrate Sreekrishna Jayanthi.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a plea preferred by a devotee of the temple, who prayed for a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to take action as per the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 and the Rules thereunder for permitting entry of non-Hindus inside the temple.
Case Title: Havildar B. Manikuttan v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a person would be entitled to disability pension if his chronic disability was acquired due to military service even though he voluntarily discharged himself from service.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a plea preferred after the petitioner's application before the Armed Forces Tribunal against non-grant of disability pension was dismissed.
Case Title: Venkatraman Bhat and Ors. v. Anantha Bhat and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The Kerala High Court has held that an intentional adjudicatory decision cannot be corrected under the guise of “clerical error” or “inherent powers” under Section 151 or 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and must be challenged only through appellate or review mechanisms.
The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar were delivering a judgment in a civil revision petition arising out of a partition suit.
Case Title: Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Kerala High Court recently held that the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would be prima facie attracted when it is prima facie established that a false suit using a forged document was filed by a non-member against a member of the community.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed:
“when it is prima facie established that the suit filed…is one in the category of false, malicious or vexatious one, particularly using a forged suit document, when the defendants therein are members of the Scheduled Caste and the plaintiffs therein are not members of Scheduled Caste, the offence unader Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act would attract prima facie.”
Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. v Niradeepam Roller Flour Mill
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an acquittal in a criminal trial under Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 does not by itself entitle a trader to compensation with interest under Section 6C(2), unless the statutory preconditions under that provision are strictly satisfied.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan were delivering the judgment in an intra Court appeal against a Single Judge's order that had directed payment of the procurement price of seized wheat along with interest to a roller flour mill following its acquittal in a criminal case.
Case Title: Sibin S.V. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that using minimum corporal punishment to discipline student in school is not an offence under the Juvenile Justice Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar quashed the criminal case initiated against a teacher for caning a student in the school.
Case Title: Ummu Sulaim (Minor) and Ors. v. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Kerala High Court has held that the concept of a “neighbourhood school” under Section 6 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) Act cannot be applied through rigid distance-based standards and must be understood in light of local geographical and demographic realities.
Justice N. Nagaresh was delivering the judgment in two writ petitions filed by minor students from Agatti and Andrott Islands in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, who had challenged administrative orders shifting and merging Junior Basic Schools.
Case Title: C.J. Mathews v. District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment clarifying that as per Section 412(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the secretary of a municipal corporation can cut down dangerous trees, without notice to their owner.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan granted relief to a 92-year-old man, who had been fighting for the past 9 years to get the trees in his neighbouring property cut down because of the danger they posed.
Case Title: Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing & Allied Health Science Institution v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Kerala High Court has held that the State Nursing Council cannot insist on a Recognition/ Suitability Certificate of the Indian Nursing Council (INC) for granting inter-State registration to nursing students.
Justice N. Nagaresh was delivering the judgment in a writ petition which challenged the insistence of recognition of the Nursing Colleges by Indian Nursing Council for registration as Nurse in the State of Kerala for persons who have obtained their degrees outside Kerala.
Case Title: XXX v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the upper age limit prescribed to avail assisted reproductive technology services.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen passed a common judgment in the batch of cases that had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 that prescribed the upper age limits for women as 50 years and men as 55 years for availing ART services.
Case Title: Dr. Haiderali Kalliyath v. XXX and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Kerala High Court recently expunged a caution given to a doctor by the Statutory Mental Health Review Board for being unaware of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal that challenged the order of the Review Board.
Case Title: Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Kerala High Court has held that while communication of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional and statutory requirement, the specification of the quantity of contraband seized is necessary only in respect of those accused from whose possession the contraband was recovered.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgement in a bail application arising out of crime registered under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).
Case Title: Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 12) granted anticipatory bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in the first rape and miscarriage case alleged against him.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath pronounced in open court:
"Bail application is allowed on the following conditions:
The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer on 16.2.2026 at 10 am for interrogation. He shall surrender his mobile phone before the investigating officer on that day. The applicant can be interrogated for the next three days from 10 am to 4 pm everyday if required, after giving adequate intervals. The applicant shall be deemed to be under custody during the aforesaid period for facilitating the requirements of investigation, including to undergo medical examination or potency test. If the investigating officer intends to arrest the applicant, then he shall be released on bail on executing a bond Rs. 1 lakh...The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, shall appear before the investigating officer on every second Saturday between 10 and 11 am, shall not commit any offence... He shall not attempt to contact the respondent or any of the prosecution witnesses. The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala. He shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer..."
Case Title: Menon P.S. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the owner of a vehicle involved in a motor accident can adduce independent evidence on the issue of negligence, even if the driver pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was considering a plea seeking to set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order wherein it dismissed a vehicle owner's interim application to summon a witness to disprove the police version since his driver pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings.
Case Title: Liji v. State of Kerala and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
The Kerala High Court has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has a statutory right to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and therefore cannot invoke the High Court's revisional jurisdiction as an alternative remedy.
Justice K. Babu delivered the judgment while dismissing two criminal revision petitions filed by a complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court.
Case Title: Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
The Kerala High Court on Friday (February 13) dismissed the plea preferred by Pankaj Bhandari, CEO of Smart Creations, Chennai, alleging that his arrest as part of the Sabarimala gold theft case was illegal.
Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order rejecting the plea.
The prosecution allegation is that Bhandari along with the other accused in the case, including prime accused Unnikrishnan Potty, conspired together to misappropriate gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and the doorframes of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala temple and in furtherance of this, Potty took the gold-cladded items to Smart Creations, which stripped the gold knowing it to belong to the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Case Title: T.O. Abraham v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, upheld the conviction of two for their involvement in a corruption case relating to the Kulasekharapuram Irrigation Project.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the appeal filed by one of the accused whereas modified the sentence passed against the other accused since he was no more.
Case Title: Sivakumar S. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Kerala High Court has held that a transfer order in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings must be justified and cannot be operated as a disguised punishment.
Justice N. Nagaresh, was delivering a judgment which set aside the transfer of a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) employee to Kasaragod over an article in a union house journal discussing the Corporation's financial condition and potential policy changes under a different political dispensation.
Case Title: Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
The Kerala High Court has clarified that a Special Court considering a protest complaint alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must pass a reasoned order after verifying the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer so as to either accept or reject the same.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal challenging the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/STAct.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Kerala High Court on Friday (13 February) ordered that no writ petition or similar plea seeking defreezing of bank accounts shall be entertained unless the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned is made a party respondent.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M, passed the order in a suo motu Judicial Practice and Procedure proceeding initiated by the High Court.
Case Title: Pankaj Kumar v. The Station House Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused arrested and released on transit bail cannot prefer an anticipatory bail plea, and he is only allowed to prefer a regular bail application before the jurisdiction court.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed a pre-arrest bail application of a Kashmiri man, who is arrayed as an accused in a crime registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.
Case Title: M/S. Kosamattam Finance Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Kerala High Court recently held that high courts can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority granting gratuity without jurisdiction, even if the claim for gratuity was not objected to by the employer.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition preferred by Kosamattam Finance Ltd. seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent Controlling Authority appointed by the State government determining gratuity of its former employee, the 2nd respondent.
Challenge To Vested Forest Notification Filed After 14 Years Barred By Limitation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. Kurien E Kalathil and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
The Kerala High Court has held that a challenge to a vesting notification under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, filed 14 years after publication, was barred by limitation.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals arising from proceedings before the Forest Tribunal relating to approximately 873 acres of land originally owned by Ponmudi Holdings Ltd.
Case Title: Nishad and Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a husband's appeal against a Family Court's order asking him to return 40 sovereigns of his wife's gold ornaments after disbelieving his version that the gold included those purchased by him.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar remarked that in a lot of cases, a woman does not always have custody of all of her gold ornaments after marriage since it is entrusted to the husband or his close relatives.
Case Title: M K Suresh Kumar and Anr v The Union of Indian and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (17 February) dismissed the petition challenging a Central Government notification that permits Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to continue adjudicating cases even after the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 came into force.
Justice Gopinath P delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Mubas M.H. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Aloshious Xavier v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the public interest litigation challenging the State government's 'Nava Kerala Citizens Response Programme' which commenced on January 01.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the verdict.
Case Title: Greevas Job Panakkal v Traco Cable Company Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
The Kerala High Court has held that an employer cannot refuse to accept an employee's resignation citing financial constraint and that compelling an employee to continue in service against his will would amount to bonded labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.
Justice N Nagareesh delivered the judgment in two writ petitions filed by the Company Secretary of Traco Cable Company Limited, a State Public Sector Undertaking.
Case Title: Vijayan and Anr. v Appukutta
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
The Kerala High Court has held that a husband convicted for dowry death cannot inherit his deceased wife's property, even though the Indian Succession Act, 1925 contains no express statutory disqualification akin to Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Justice Easwaran S was delivering the judgment in a Regular Second Appeal.
Case Title: Shameem v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
The Kerala High Court recently denied bail to an NDPS accused on finding that there is prima facie material to connect him to the offence and that the mandatory requirement of communication of grounds of arrest to relative was substantial complied with.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that as per the remand report, the accused's relative was asked to appear before the arresting officer over phone but since he was not willing, a Whatsapp message was sent informing about the grounds of arrest. This, the judge felt, amounted to sufficient compliance of the statutory mandate.
Case Title: Lucy Kuriakose and Anr. v State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
The Kerala High Court has held that grant of loans by a co-operative bank to persons residing outside its service area does not, by itself, constitute criminal misconduct or misappropriation in the absence of pecuniary loss or wrongful gain.
Justice A Badharudeen made the observation while allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of a final report before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam.
Case Title: Balachandran v Sajan Mathew and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
The Kerala High Court has held that a single complaint is maintainable for the dishonour of multiple cheques for which consolidated single notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) is issued, provided they arise out of the same transaction
Justice G Girish dismissed a petition challenging the maintainability of a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act based on four dishonoured cheques covered by a consolidated statutory notice.
Case Title: I Bindhu v Thiruvanathanpuram Service Co-Operative Bank and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a Labour Court retain the powers to extend time for compliance with their awards, even after the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice Gopinath P while dismissing a writ petition observed that the Labour Court does not become functus officio merely because 30 days have elapsed from the publication of its award.
Case Title: xxx. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Kerala High Court recently quashed all criminal proceedings initiated against a customer of a brothel after noting that the prosecution does not have a case that he caused or induced prostitution.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a plea preferred by a man who was arrayed as 4th accused in a crime alleging commission of the offences under Sections 3(1), 3(2)(a) [Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel] of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Case Title: Sabu Stephen v. State Election Commission
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Kerala High Court has recently (19 February) directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to consider and decide complaints alleging deviations from the prescribed statutory form of oath taken by elected representatives of Local Self Government Institutions (LSGIs), within four weeks.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the order while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation alleging that several elected members of Panchayat, Municipalities, and Corporations had violated mandatory statutory provisions while taking their oath of office following the 2025 local body elections.
Case Title: Prasanthan M. v. Kannur Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment ordering the stoppage of Kannur Corporation's 60-year-old siren, which was installed in 1965 during the Indo-Pakistan war as a civil defence mechanism.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a public interest litigation praying to discontinue the operation of the high-intensity siren.
Case Title: Satkunam @ Sabesan v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (24 February) granted bail to an alleged LTTE Operative who attempted to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), for the purpose of waging war against Sri Lanka, citing prolonged incarceration and the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Susrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan allowed the Criminal Appeal, setting aside the Special Court's April 22, 2024 order that had rejected the accused's bail plea.
Case Title: Jithusooraj S.K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (February 24) denied anticipatory bail to Jithusooraj S.K., part-time shanti and the 31st accused in the crime registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta in relation to the embezzlement of sale proceeds of Adiya Sishtam Ghee in Sabarimala.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the FIR was registered on the basis of the Division Bench's order in a suo motu proceeding initiated on the basis of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner's report.
Case Title: Basheer Thaliyil v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to a person accused of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) after noting that the grounds of his arrest was not intimated in writing to his relative and it was done only over phone.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that there are prima facie material to connect the accused with the crime but since the mandate of intimation of grounds of arrest in writing to his relative was not complied with, his arrest is vitiated.
Case Title: P.B. Satheesh v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to finalise and implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for enforcement against overloading on National Highways.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the directions while disposing of a writ petition which sought implementation of measures to prevent overloading and other safety measures in roads.
Case Title: M.R. Anagh v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot return a private complaint merely because the complainant has not furnished the postal address of the accused.
Justice C.S. Dias was delivering the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Kerala High Court recently invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order correction of the name of the father in the birth certificate of a minor child, who was born out of an extra-marital affair of the child's mother.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a writ petition filed by the minor child and her biological parents. They sought to correct the name of the father in the birth certificate from that of her mother's former husband to that of the child's biological father.
Case Title: Praveen Kumar @ Kannan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment wherein it refused to set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was delay in filing complaint by wife.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha remarked: “Matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence, as the suffering of the victim does not end with a single isolated incident but continues so long as oppressive conduct persists. Harassment and cruelty within the marriage cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in the context of continuous conduct.”
Case Title: Mariyakutty and Ors. v United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that siblings of a deceased accident victim are not entitled to compensation under a separate head of “loss of love and affection”.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was delivering the judgment in an appeal filed by the mother and siblings of a 21-year-old man who died in a road accident in 2014. While the Court enhanced compensation under the head of loss of dependency, it reduced the amount granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) towards “loss of love and affection,” restricting consortium compensation to the mother alone.
Case Title: Chandramohan K.C. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 5) refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction to re-title the movie 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', which was released last week, so as not to include the words “Kerala”/ “Keralam”. A detailed order is awaited.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. orally remarked that similar issues are already pending before a coordinate Division Bench, which is considering appeals against the interim stay granted against the release of the movie.
Case Title: Adv. Kulathoor Jaisingh v. The Chairman and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 5) dismissed the public interest litigation filed by Advocate Kulathoor Jaisingh seeking a direction to drop further proceedings before the Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly against Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil that was initiated on the basis of a complaint made by D.R. Murali, MLA of Vamanapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Case Title: Appukuttan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
The Kerala High Court has held that the failure of an investigating officer to identify or record the intellectual disability of a victim during investigation does not vitiate the prosecution case, provided the court is satisfied that the victim is competent to testify and capable of giving rational answers.
Justice A Badharudeen was delivering the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Title: M/s Grid Engineers and Contractors and Anr. v. Union Bank of India and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is maintainable against an ex parte ad interim order or any order which has affected a party's right to pursue statutory remedy.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. clarified the position of law while considering an intra-court reference preferred by a Single Judge of the Court and a writ appeal challenging the said reference.
Case Title: N.K. Premachandran v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (06 March) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the proposal to start an MBBS course at the ESIC Model and Super Speciality Hospital, Asramam, Kollam, observing that the project must strictly comply with the National Medical Commission (NMC) regulations before approval is granted.
The Court has directed the proposal of approval to be expedited within four weeks.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M was considering a petition filed by Lok Sabha Member N.K. Premachandran seeking intervention regarding the establishment of the medical college.
Transfer Of Matrimonial Case At Advanced Stage Of Trial Unjustified: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Binu Das B v Smitha Raj L
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a transfer of a matrimonial case at the advanced stage of trial was unjustified and improper while set aside an order transferring a matrimonial case from the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Punalur,
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment while allowing a transfer appeal filed by the husband in the matrimonial dispute.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
The Kerala High Court has recently issued directions to the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to ensure transparency and better utilisation of the available days for conducting Padi Pooja in Sabarimala temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the directions while considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of monthly report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner regarding the activities undertaken during the Kumbham masa pooja.
Case Title: New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Kerala High Court has held that losses suffered by a bank due to fraudulent ATM withdrawals using debit cards issued by other banks are not covered under a Banker's Indemnity Insurance Policy when the policy expressly excludes losses arising from the use of ATMs.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar set aside a trial court decree that had directed the insurer to indemnify the bank for losses caused by ATM fraud.
Case Title: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Kerala High Court recently closed the public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State to ensure uninterrupted functioning of Out-Patient Departments (OPD) and all essential medical services in Government Medical Colleges in view of the indefinite boycott by the Kerala Government Medical College Teachers' Association (KGMCTA), initiated on February 16.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.R. observed that the medical services is an essential service and it is the State's duty to ensure that the same is uninterrupted.
Kerala High Court Allows Accused To Renew Passport With 5-Year Validity For Overseas Employment
Case Title: Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Kerala High Court recently permitted a person accused in two criminal cases to renew his passport with a validity of 5 years in order to enable him to travel abroad for his new job in Oman.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea wherein the petitioner had filed applications in both the cases before the trial court for permission to renew his passport and to travel abroad. Though these applications were allowed, the trial court did not specify the validity period of the passport.
Case Title: Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
The Kerala High Court recently held that a complaint against a Village Officer cannot be entertained before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea preferred by a Village Officer aggrieved by the proceedings pending against him before the Ombudsman that was initiated on the basis of a complaint.
Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a reasoned opinion by a Medical Board is indispensable in denying disability pension to armed forces personnel.
The division bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John were delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Bail In POCSO Case Can Be Set Aside If Victim Not Heard : Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
The Kerala High Court has held that bail granted to an accused in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be set aside if the victim or guardian is not given an opportunity to be heard before the bail order is passed.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to set aside the bail order granted by the Sessions Court Kottayam to the accused in a case under Section 351 (Criminal Intimation) BNS and sections of POCSO Act.
Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 10) dismissed a plea alleging violation of privacy of government employees and judges by the State by sending bulk messages to their phone numbers, which was illegally accessed from SPARK [Service Pay Roll Administrative Repository for Kerala].
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pronounced in open court:
"Thus, if used for legitimate purposes, including for good governance in a social welfare State, the data collected can be utilised without falling within vice of infringement of the right to privacy of an individual...Since KSITM is a part of government of Kerala and the impugned message was sent through the Whatsapp account registered in the name of KSITM by using the data in its possession, if the nature of the message was not for any illegitimate purpose, such messaging has to be regarded as irreproachable. Hence, the question boils down to whether the data was used for a legitimate purposes...As this Court has already held that, there is neither any material to indicate that any data has been transferred to the Chief Minister's office nor are there any particulars available to conclude that the Chief Minister or his office had any access to such data, there is no merit in this writ petition. The message sent by KSITM informing details about DA and HBA cannot be regarded as violating the right to privacy of the recipients of those messages. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed."
Case Title: Ashique v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an accused, who is already under judicial custody, is arrested in relation to another case following a production warrant under Section 302 BNSS, there is no need to separately inform him of the grounds of arrest.
The reasoning of the Court was that as per Form 37, relating to the order requiring production of a person in prison as per Section 302, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform accused of the contents of the order and to deliver him the attached copy and this amounts to sufficient communication.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, however, clarified that in such cases, it is mandatory to inform the relative of the accused.
Case Title: Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the plea preferred by the editors of Vellinakshatram magazine seeking to quash the criminal complaint initiated against them for allegedly defaming an actor by redisplaying on their website the derogatory comments made against him in a Facebook group.
Justice G. Girish held that the offence of defamation as provided under Section 499 IPC makes no distinction between first time publication of defamatory content and redisplaying it. Unless the impugned act falls within the seven exceptions provided under the provision, redisplaying defamatory content already published on another platform can attract the offence, the Court opined.
Case Title: Shwetha Menon v. State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (March 11) quashed all further proceedings in the FIR and private complaint lodged against Malayalam actor Shwetha Menon for allegedly acting in movies and advertisements containing obscene and vulgar visuals.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea by the actor seeking to quash all further proceedings against her prusuant to the complaint and FIR.
Case Title: Adv. P.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
The Kerala High Court has held that notification inviting application only for Government Pleader cannot be used for the appointment of Public Prosecutor.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Rule 7 of the Kerala Government Law Officers(Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 enables the Government to separate the offices of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors at any Court and make separate appointments.
Case Title: State Nodal Officer and Ors. v. Manoj M.S. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a party invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands, holding that suppression of a prior blacklisting order disentitles a contractor from equitable relief.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. further clarified that public authorities may still be directed to release payments for work already executed, subject to contractual recoveries and claims of secured creditors.
Quantity Of Contraband Not Relevant For Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jayalekshmi L. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the quantity of contraband is not a relevant factor to decide whether a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act) should be passed against a person found engaged in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a plea preferred by the mother of the detenue against whom a detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act ordering him to be detained for a period of one year.
Kerala High Court Orders Removal Of Vellapally Natesan As SNDP General Secretary
Case Title: Professor M.K. Sanoo v. State of Kerala and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 12) ordered the removal of Vellappally Natesan as the General Secretary of the Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam).
Justice T.R. Ravi opined that directors of the Yogam were disqualified since they failed to file audited accounts for 3 consecutive years, in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore, the office bearers, including Natesan, were found to be disqualified.
Case Title: Koshy Abraham v. Shaji and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
The Kerala High Court has held that a decree holder with a charged decree enjoys priority over unsecured decree holders under Section 73 of CPC while challenging court auction sales under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) .
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was delivering the judgment in an appeal challenging the dismissal of an application to set aside an execution sale conducted by the Sub Court, Thodupuzha.
Kerala High Court Upholds Direction To Implead Local SHO In Bank Account Defreezing Petitions
Case Title: Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The Kerala High Court has upheld the a direction requiring petitioners seeking defreezing of bank accounts to implead the local Station House Officer (SHO ) of the police station having jurisdiction over their address as a party respondent in such writ petitions.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment in appeals arising out of orders of the Single Bench dated 10 December 2025 and 15 December 2025.
Case Title: Sheno Sebastian v Smitha Maxon
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
The Kerala High Court has held that an indefinite undertaking by a co-owner agreeing to accept “whatever amount” another party may pay on a future sale of property cannot bar a statutory right to seek partition.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a regular first appeal, affirming a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad.
Kerala High Court Upholds Non-Maintainability Of Writ Petitions In Bar Association Election Disputes
Case Title: Adv. Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
The Kerala High Court on Monday (16 March) reaffirmed that disputes concerning elections to Bar Associations are matters of internal administration and cannot be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was delivering the judgment in an appeal against dismissal of a writ petition which challenged the 2026 Executive Committee Election to the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA)].
Case Title: Alavikutty T.K v State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
The Kerala High Court has held that government officers exempted from personal appearance for document registration under Section 88 of the Registration Act, 1908 retain that exemption even when the document is registered in another State.
Justice P.V Balakrishnan delivered the judgment in a writ petition, where the Court examined whether a registering authority in one State can insist on the personal appearance of an executing officer of another State, despite an exemption granted under Section 88 of the Registration Act.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case
Case Title: Antony Raju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (17 March) dismissed the plea preferred by former MLA Antony Raju seeking to set aside the order of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram that rejected his application to suspend his conviction in the Evidence Tampering case.
Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Kerala High Court recently passed an order whereby it directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to furnish the duty register of customs officers on duty at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to facilitate investigation into a crime relating to smuggling of methamphetamine from Muscat to India.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that in heinous offences under the NDPS Act, cooperation of State and its instrumentalities was necessary.
Kerala High Court Rejects PIL Challenging Use Of 'Indian Premier League' Name For IPL
Case Title: Ashique Karoth v Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the legality of name “Indian Premier League” used by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for conducting IPL.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M disposed of the petition noting that there is no merit in the argument by the petitioner.
Case Title: Vineesh v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a person can be prosecuted for illegal removal or transportation of river sand as per the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in addition to the offence of theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that his earlier decision in Mohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala was rendered without noticing the relevant provisions under the Sand Act and the General Clauses Act as well as the precedents rendered by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Case Title: The Director and Ors. v Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (18 March) disposed of the appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate against a Single judge's interim order staying the show cause notice issued against Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), relating to the utilisation of funds raised through masala bond.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar disposed of the appeal noting that the interim order challenged had since expired.
Case Title: M.M. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (19 March) disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the naming contest announced by Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation (BEVCO) and Malabar Distilleries Ltd. inviting the public to suggest a name and logo for a proposed premium brandy product.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M disposed of the petition upon noting that the respondents have withdrawn the contest.
Case Title: Jaisappan Mathai v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to revisit its compensation framework for families affected by the 2020 floods.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the directions while disposing of a writ petition seeking disbursal of balance amount to the remaining 3,232 families of Kuttanadu area in Alappuzha district.
Case Title: Abdul Hamid Makame v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Kerala High Court recently held that when the accused is a foreign national, it is not necessary to communicate the grounds of his arrest to his relatives if the accused has been duly informed along with the Foreign Regional Registration Officer or his embassy or consulate.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering a bail application preferred by a Tanzanian national residing in India and arrayed as accused no. 5 in a crime registered by the Kunnamkulam Police for the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
Case Title: Biji Garnet v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an accused seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly posting provocative statements on Facebook, compelling people to violate the restrictions imposed by the government during Covid-19 pandemic.
Justice G. Girish delivered the judgement.
Kerala High Court Cancels Bail Granted To 8 Accused In Walayar Mob Lynching Case
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Anu and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 19) cancelled the bail awarded to all the accused in the Walayar mob lynching case in which Ram Narayan Bhagel, a native from Jharkhand belonging to a scheduled caste community, was brutally attacked and killed by 8 men on December 17, 2025.
Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the State's appeal to cancel bail after hearing the accused, the State and the brother of the deceased.
Case Title: Jijo Joseph v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
The Kerala High Court has recently (18 March) disposed of a public interest litigation concerning the Angamaly–Sabari railway line, as the Ministry of Railways has submitted that the project has been defreezed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. disposed of the petition following the submission that the project has been defreezed following a meeting held on 18 February, 2026.
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Kerala High Court has recently (17 March) declined to restrain the release of the web series “Anali” on the OTT platform JioHotstar. The Court held that the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the plea moved by Koodathayi murder accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly against the release of the web series while reserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue appellate remedy under Rule 12 of the Information Technology Rules 2021.
Case Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 23) held that the practice of endogamy among the Knanaya Christians is not an essential religious practice and excommunicating members for marrying outsiders violates their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Easwaran S. dismissed the appeals filed by the Archeparchy of Kottayam and the Knanaya Catholic Congress, and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
Case Title: Vaibhav Y. Kini and Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court recently extended a helping hand to a few law students of St. Dominic's College of Law, after they were barred from writing their examinations due to attendance shortage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that the college failed to conduct requisite number of classes and if it had the minimum number of hours, the students could have made up for the shortage in attendance or at least reached the condonable limits.
Kerala High Court Calls For 'Child-Centric' Custody Approach, Urges Parents To Rise Above Conflict
Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Kerala High Court has recently underscored the urgent need to shift from a parent-centric to a child-centric approach in custody disputes, highlighting the severe emotional toll such litigation imposes on children.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha made the observation while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother alleging illegal detention of her two minor children by their father.
Case Title: Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v. Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 24) allowed the appeals filed challenging a 2024 order of the Single Judge directing the Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad districts to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction feud.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. pronounced the order in open court:
"In a dispute relating to the religious affairs of a church, which is a parish church governed by the 1934 Constitution, the High Court cannot direct the civil administration to take over possession of the church. In appropriate cases where repeated disobedience of the decree passed by the competent court has resulted in a law and order situation, the High Court, being the constitutional court, can render justice by granting police protection to ensure that there is no law and order issues in the conduct of religious services and other affairs to said church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution as held by the Apex Court..."
Case Title: K.G. Manjumol v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a widow is not disentitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency for the reason that she is employed or remarried subsequent to her husband's death in a motor accident.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen held:
“The material date for deciding the compensation is the date of accident/death. Any subsequent act cannot deprive her from compensation. Though she had a job at the time of accident, that cannot be a reason to deprive her from dependency compensation because, the claim petitioner was also in her young age at the time of accident and death of the husband has resulted into loss of dependency…a view is taken by the court disentitling a woman on account of her remarriage, the court will be discouraging the widow from remarrying, after her husband's death.”
Case Title: Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (24 March) directed the Central Government to take a time-bound decision on a representation alleging violations of the Union Government's Broadcasting guidelines in the operation of Malayalam news channel 'Reporter TV'.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the petition.
The petitioner, who is the president of the political party Twenty20, had approached the Court seeking a limited relief namely, a direction to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to act upon a representation submitted on February 2, 2026.
Case Title: Linson K.Thomas v Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory confidentiality provisions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be invoked to deny an accused employee access to relevant documents in disciplinary proceedings.
Justice N. Nagaresh, delivered the judgment.
The present petition was filed seeking to quash the order transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram Region to Karnataka Region and subsequently to Andhra Pradesh Region.
Case Title: Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachiriyil Joseph
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
The Kerala High Court has held that that right to seek rescission of a contract accrues upon the expiry of the time stipulated in the decree for deposit of balance consideration and not upon the receipt of notice of the subsequent proceedings.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment in an original petition in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immoveable property.
Case Title: Vijesh C.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
The Kerala High Court has held that temporary surrender of land for a public infrastructure project does not amount to a transfer requiring prior statutory sanction under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act, 1951.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, were delivering the judgement in a writ petition challenging the road widening project leading to the Madayikavu Bhagavathy Temple in Kannur District.
Case Title: Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that it is not necessary to mention the exact quantity of contraband seized in the notice communicating the grounds of arrest if it is specified that the nature of quantity is small or intermediate or commercial.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the intention behind mentioning the quantity is to enable the accused to know whether the offence if bailable or not and if the nature of quantity is mentioned, then it amounts to substantial compliance of the requirement under law for communicating arrest grounds.
Case Title: Dhanya Devadas v The Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the State Election Commission (SEC) must mandatorily issue a show-cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing, before disqualifying candidates for failure to file election expense accounts under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the common judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging disqualification orders issued under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Case Title: Gokul K. v. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
The Kerala High Court on Friday (27 March) directed the Chief Election Commission of India to consider a representation filed against BJP leader B.Gopalakrishnan for making alleged communal remarks during a campaign in Guruvayur constituency amid the upcoming State assembly elections.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the ECI to decide the representation in two months.
The Court was considering a writ petition moved by Kerala Students' Union (KSU) leader Gokul.
Case Title: Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgement, upheld the finding of guilt of a landlord who had trespassed into his tenant's room and vandalized it.
Justice Jobin Sebastian held:
“It is well settled that offences such as criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership. Therefore, even a true owner cannot, under the guise of ownership, unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with the intent to commit an offence. In the present case, the mere fact that the accused is the owner of the room does not, ipso facto, absolve him of criminal liability when such entry is effected with the intention to commit an unlawful act.”
Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
The Kerala High Court has recently (26 March) dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. V.A Arun Kumar,son of the late former Chief Minister V.S. Achuthananthan as the Director In-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development.
Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment in a plea filed by Dr. Vinu Thomas, Dean (Academic) and Controller of Examinations (in charge) at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
Case Title: Fazeela R.A and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Ker) 178
The Kerala High Court has set aside a Government order that proposed transferring a substantial portion of land from a Government UP School in Ramavarmapuram for the construction of a Music College citing lack of proper consideration.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas examined whether the State's decision to transfer a government school playground for constructing a music college was legally sustainable.
Kerala High Court Upholds 2024 Amendment To Kerala Lok Ayukta Act
Case Title: N. Prakash v State of Kerala and Connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (31 March) upheld the amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act in 2024.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment.
"We have upheld the constitutionality of the amendments ...but we have said that having regard to Section 12, the provision which has been amended, should be read as deemed acceptance if it is not considered within 90 days..." the Court orally said.
Case Title: Thomas M.K v Govt. of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal challenging the constitutional validity of State co-operative banking laws including the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1984.
A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Nagaresh and Justice Johnson John delivered the judgment.
The appellant approached the Court seeking to declare State legislations, namely the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1984 as unconstitutional for enabling co-operative societies to conduct banking activities, a subject falling under Entry 45 (Banking) of the Union List.
Case Title: George John v Election Commission of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (01 April) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking enforcement of a circular issued by the Chief Election Officer on March 18, calling for use of eco-friendly and biodegradable electoral campaign materials, ahead of the upcoming Assembly polls.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M refused to entertain the petition noting that the petitioners failed to produce any instances of violations.
Case Title: Anjali P.V. (popularly known as Anjali Nair) v. The Returning Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (April1) directed the Returning Officer of Thrippunithura Assembly Constituency to hear and pass orders on the representation preferred by actor and Twenty20 party's candidate Anjali P.V. to change her name to her more popularly known name "Anjali Nair" in the ballot paper / Electronic Voting Machine (EVM) in the upcoming Legislative Assembly elections.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was hearing a plea preferred by the actor after her representations before the Returning Officer and Chief Electoral Officer were not acted upon.
Case Title: Goshree Islands Development Authority and Anr. v. Tritvam Apartment Owners Association and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed an appeal preferred by Goshree Islands Development Authority seeking to set aside a Single Bench's order restraining the construction/installation of commercial kiosks on Queen's Walkway in Ernakulam.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar remarked that it would not be proper for it to consider the appeal presently.
Case Title: Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
The Kerala High Court has held that repeat drug offenders can be held as “Goonda” under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA Act).
A five-judge Larger Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice P Gopinath, Justice A Badharudeen, Justice MB Snehalatha, and Justice Jobin Sebastian delivered the judgment in a reference made due to conflicting judicial precedents.
Case Title: XXX v. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
The Kerala High Court recently considered an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to a child, who suffered intellectual disability, following an accident.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen interacted with the injured person and opined that her functional disability should be assessed as 100% since intellectual disability results in life-long impairment.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. & Ernakulam Kshethra Kshema Samithi v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
The Kerala High Court recently held that temple property purchased using public funds collected from devotees cannot be held in the name of Advisory Committee and must absolutely vest in the deity.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar found that the property of the Ernakulam Shiva Temple purchased under the scheme “Ernakulathappanu Oradi Mannu” (One Foot Land for Lord Shiva) was usurped by the Ernakulam Kshetra Kshema Samithi, which had previously acted as the Temple Advisory Committee.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
The Kerala High Court recently directed that a custody of a minor child be given to his father while considering a habeas corpus plea filed by the father alleging neglect by the child's mother and grandmother, leading him to lodged in an orphanage.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar interacted with the child during the course of the proceedings and noted that the child wished to be with his father.
Case Title: Human Rights Foundations v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
The Kerala High Court has directed the Election Commission of India and Chief Electoral Officer in the State to look into the enforcement of ban on PVC flex and other non-recyclable plastic advertisement materials, in accordance with the existing Government Orders and statutory provisions, in the wake of the General Assembly Elections.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the direction while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking urgent intervention to enforce an existing statewide ban on PVC flex and other non-recyclable plastic materials.
Case Title: The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India v. Mohandas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
The Kerala High Court has held that absence of formal notice under Section 10 of the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923, does not bar an employee's compensation claim where the employer had prior knowledge of the accident.
Justice S. Manu delivered the judgment in an appeal against an order by the Employees Compensation Commission, granting compensation to the respondent for injuries sustained in an accident during the course of his employment under the appellant.
Kerala High Court Rejects Plea To Stall Movie Allegedly Inspired By Venjaramoodu Mass Murder Case
Case Title: Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (April 7) dismissed the plea preferred against the release of movie 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha', which is allegedly inspired by the Venjaramoodu Mass Murder case.
The plea was preferred by the father of the accused, who stated that the movie may prejudice the trial in the case, which is still pending before the Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pronounced the order.
Case Title: Joshi Villadom v. Suresh Gopi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (07 April) dismissed an Election Petition filed against Union Minister and actor Suresh Gopi challenging his election from Thrissur Parliamentary Constituency.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath pronounced the order today in the open Court in a plea filed by Joshi Villadom, who has contested as an Independent Candidate from Thrissur Parliamentary Constituency in 2024 Parliamentary Elections.
Case Title: K.B. Soman v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
The Kerala High Court has ordered the State government to conduct a performance audit of the two Vigilance Tribunals formed under the State Civil Service (Vigilance Tribunal) Rules, after noting that the maximum five cases were disposed off by the tribunal annually while the expenditure incurred exceeded Rs. 1 crore.
Justice K. Babu was considering a plea seeking a time-bound disposal of a vigilance enquiry pending since 2021 pertaining to allegations of corruption relating to creation of forged pattayam by one B.A. Muhammed with the connivance with a person who was the General Manager of the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.
Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. YYY and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by two practicing advocates, who sought to keep in abeyance the execution proceedings of their former client in a land acquisition reference proceedings, over unpaid legal fees.
Noting that the engagement of the petitioners as lawyers was terminated by the clients, owing to disputes relating to Advocates fees, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that an advocate has no right to halt proceedings until his claim is settled.
Case Title: The High Power Committee For Implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (April 7) appointed retired Justice V.G. Arun as the Chairman of the High Power Committee for implementation of the Sabarimala Master Plan.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar noted that since the previous Chairman, Retd. Justice S. Siri Jagan, had passed away earlier this year, it was necessary to appointment a new Chairman for ensuring continued and uninterrupted functioning of the Committee.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea Seeking Clearance For Court Infrastructure Work After EC Approval
Case Title: High Court of Kerala v. The Election Commission of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
The Kerala High Court on Friday (10 April) disposed of a writ petition filed by its own Registry after recording that the Election Commission of India (ECI) had approved a proposal permitting maintenance work during the subsistence of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. noted that the ECI had conveyed its approval for Maintenance through a communication dated April 8, 2026, addressed to the Chief Electoral Officer(CEO), Kerala.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
The Kerala High Court, in a recent order, remarked that the Cochin Devaswom Board has the duty to ensure basic amenities like sufficient toilets, safe drinking water, etc. to the devotees of the 409 temples managed by it.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu devaswom board petition initiated on the basis of a complaint submitted by the Convenor of Sree Kurumbamma Bhakthajana Samithi, Kodungallur regarding issues of inadequate facilities for devotees of the temple.
Case Title: Swami Saranam Enterprises and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
The Kerala High Court has held that a product classified as “compostable” under Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016 cannot simultaneously be treated as “biodegradable,” either scientifically or legally.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, were examining the legality of introducing PLA-based (polylactic acid) water bottles at Sabarimala.
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. E.G. Sahadevan and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that since there is no need for separate badges to drive autorickshaws if drivers hold valid licenses, absence of badge is not a fundamental breach of insurance policy conditions.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha held that in such circumstances, the insurer is liable to compensate and it does not have the right to recover from the registered owner the compensation paid under the 'pay and recovery' principle.
Case Title: Clara Dominic v. Tomy Eapen and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a withdrawal slip drawn on a cooperative society, which is engaged in banking activities, falls within the definition of 'cheque' as provided under Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice C.S. Dias held that cooperative societies performing banking functions can be considered as 'banker' as per Section 3 NI Act and therefore, withdrawal slips drawn on such societies would partake the character of cheques as defined under the Act.
Kerala High Court Disposes PIL On Bar Timings After Stakeholder Meet Resolves Labour Concerns
Case Title: All Kerala Bar Hotels & Restaurant Employees Association (CITU) v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
The Kerala High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging recent amendments to liquor regulations affecting bar hotel working hours, after noting that the concerns raised had been substantially addressed through a government led stakeholder consultation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was hearing a petition filed by the All Kerala Bar Hotels & Restaurant Employees Association (CITU).
Case Title: Shaji v. Soman and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
The Kerala High Court in a recently ruling clarified that an insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation in motor accidents claims cases when the injured person is a gratuitous passenger on a goods vehicle.
Relying on Kaminiben & Ors v. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Ors., Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed that the insurer is entitled to recover the amount paid from the owner of the vehicle.
Case Title: Shahir Basheer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that anticipatory bail can be denied solely on the ground that an accused fails to disclose that he is aboard at the time of filing the application.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on the Division Bench decision in Anu Mathew v. State of Kerala and observed:
“it is the primary duty of an accused applying for pre-arrest bail from abroad in a court in India to disclose that he is abroad. He must also undertake to come to India when directed by the Court. The failure to disclose in the bail application that the accused was abroad at the time of filing the application alone would disqualify him from obtaining the extraordinary relief of pre-arrest bail. In other words, if an accused conceals that he was abroad when filing the application, that alone is enough for the Court to decline to exercise its discretion under Section 438 of Cr. P.C./Section 482 of BNSS in his favour.”
Case Title: Bipha Drug Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v Kerala State Electricity Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
The Kerala High Court has upheld the validity of requiring subsequent purchasers or occupiers of a premises to deposit arrears of a previous consumer as a condition for obtaining a fresh electricity connection.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P was delivering the judgment in a writ arising out of Electricity dues liability of a subsequent purchaser of a property which had arrears from previous consumer.
Case Title: Joju George and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea for habeas corpus preferred by three fathers, who alleged that their adult daughters were being illegally detained by the nuns of Monastery of Holy Ruah (MHR), a religious congregation that was dissolved in 2023 by the Archdiocese of Thrissur.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian noted that the alleged detenues are educated and there were no reasons to suspect that they are not acting on their free will.
Alteration In Will After Execution Has No Legal Effect Unless Duly Attested: Kerala High Court
Case Title: P. Lakshmikutty Amma and Ors. v V.K Indira and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that any alteration or correction in a Will made after its execution has no legal effect unless it is duly attested in the manner prescribed under Section 71 of the Indian Succession Act.
It further clarified the scope of probate jurisdiction in examining the effect of unattested alteration made in a Will.
Justice S. Manu was delivering the judgment in a miscellaneous first appeal.
Case Title: Prasanth P. Kumar and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that Lok Adalats can settle disputes of any pecuniary value if the same falls within its territorial jurisdiction since Section 19(5) of the Legal Services Authority Act does not prescribe pecuniary jurisdiction for Lok Adalats.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a writ petition challenging an award passed by the Adoor Taluk Legal Services Committee on the grounds of fraud and lack of jurisdiction.
Case Title: Suresh v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
The Kerala High Court has held that a convict's past involvement in criminal cases cannot, by itself, justify denial of ordinary leave if he is eligible for Ordinary leave under Rule 397 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules.
Justice K. Babu was considering a writ petition filed by the father of a convict seeking leave for his son.
Case Title: Hans Joseph v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the decision regarding repatriation of mortal remains is decided on the basis of rules and not at the wish or desire of the successor or legal heir of the deceased.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The transfer of mortal remains cannot be at the wish or desire of any successor or legal heir of a person, though the same can certainly be a relevant consideration. Eligibility to transfer the mortal remains of a dead person has to be decided primarily on the basis of citizenship as well the relevant rules in force. Since burial of a dead body has serious and numerous legal implications, it has to be done on the basis of relevant rules.”
Kerala High Court Refuses To Lift Ban On Munnar Glass Bridge, But Directs Collector To Revisit Issue
Case Title: Neonova Munnar LLP and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 17) directed the District Collector, Idukki to decide on the issue of re-opening of the glass bridge in Munnar that was erected without any permit from the Kerala Adventure Tourism Promotion Society.
The Division Bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Johnson John gave the direction while considering an appeal against an interim order of the Single Judge refusing to stay an order prohibiting the use of the glass bridge.
Case Title: Shajeer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The Kerala High Court recently held that accidental brushing against the official car of a judge while overtaking would not constitute the offence of assault on public servant.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M. quashed all criminal proceedings initiated against the driver of a private bus booked for allegedly injuring and obstructing the official driver of a judicial officer.
Case Title: Ratheesh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Kerala High Court recently held that the probative value of fingerprint evidence gets eroded if the same is collected at the police station instead of place of recovery in cases where there is no direct evidence.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian acquitted a murder convict, who was found guilty by the Sessions Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.
Case Title: Sreekumar M.R and Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court has held that tenants remain liable to pay rent even after a Section 3-D acquisition notification under the National Highways Act, 1956, until actual surrender of possession.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar were delivering the judgment in a plea which sought to declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any rent or arrears to the Travancor Devaswom Board (TDB), when the property has been acquired under Section 3D notification of NH Act.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (21 April) permitted the State's Devaswom Minister to convene a coordination meeting for the upcoming Thrissur Pooram festival, while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for the general elections to the State Assembly remains in force.
Justice S. Manu, allowed the writ petition filed by the State Government, and has imposed conditions in conduct of the meeting.
Case Title: Aloysious Fernandez Dickson v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
The Kerala High Court has held that the Magistrate's power to dismiss criminal complaints under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be exercised judiciously and supported by reasoned orders rather than invoked mechanically.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case, which challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed by the petitioner for failure to take steps for the issuance of a summons to the accused.
Case Title: Rajan C.G. @ Rajan Chittitappally @ Rafi and Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (April 21) granted bail to three Maoists, who are accused in the 2016 Malappuram Arms case relating to a large-scale arms training inside the reserve forest in Nilambur (Malappuram) by the members of proscribed terrorist organization CPI(Maoist).
The Vacation Bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice P.M. Manoj granted them bail after noting that three other co-accused in the case, who were charged with the very same offences, were earlier granted bail by the High Court.
Case Title: N.K. Prasannan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate entertaining a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) has the power to review its order so as to rectify its mistake.
In the criminal revision petition before Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, the petitioners had challenged the dismissal of an application to vacate an injunction order passed by the Magistrate under a wrong premise.
Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. Kerala Society Security Mission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that failure to serve copies of complaint and other relevant documents and denying opportunity for cross-examination to the accused in a workplace sexual harassment complaint violates principles of natural justice.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering a writ petition challenging the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that made adverse findings against the petitioners, which in turn, led to the passing of a termination order against them.
Case Title: Faseela and Ors. v. Jaleel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalayas established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008, cannot exercise jurisdiction over maintenance proceedings under Chapter IX Cr.P.C (pertaining to orders for maintenance of wife, children and parents) in areas where a Family Court has been established.
In doing so the court held that since Family Courts Act which is a special law, has not expressly altered by the Gram Nyayalayas Act, therefore provisions of the prior will prevail.
Justice K. Babu passed the order in a transfer petition filed by a wife and her children seeking to move a maintenance case from the Gram Nyayalaya at Kuttiyadi to the Family Court at Vadakara.
Case Title: M.K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v. The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the validity of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, dismissing a writ petition that challenged the amendment to Section 104(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Justice Gopinath P. delivered the judgment.
The Section 104(1) of the Code repealed statutes including, the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, the 2026 amendment, which incorporated Section 104(1A) in the Code stated that the functioning of the Tribunals and statutory authorities functioning under the repealed Acts must continue adjudicating disputes until the other statutory authorities become functional under the Code.
Case Title: Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that existence of a compromise decree in a civil suit does not ipso facto render the criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act non-maintainable.
Justice C.S. Dias refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in a cheque dishonour case since only the civil court, and not the criminal court, recorded the settlement and passed decree.
Case Title: The Temple Advisory Committee v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 24) permitted the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnatha Temple to install advertisement boards in Vadakkumnathan Kshetra Maidan during Thrissur Pooram.
The vacation bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar allowed a Devaswom Board Application filed by the Temple Advisory Committee challenging an order of the Cochin Devaswom Board that denied permission to install advertisement boards.
Case Title: Yahya Khan N. v. Sainaba T.P. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction in a cheque dishonour case.
The petitioner before Justice C.S. Dias had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate, which sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant.
Case Title: N. Bharathi Amma v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the State cannot be directed to return the land that it acquired from a person even if the purpose of the acquisition became impossible or redundant.
It, however, added that the State had a duty to maintain the land properly and put it to use as is legally mandated.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a land owner whose property was acquired by the State more than 37 years ago for the 'Kallada Irrigation Project' (KIP).
Case Title: Dileep K.G. v. Swapna Dileep and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that a magistrate has inherent power to restore a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act that was dismissed for default.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar opined:
“for ensuring the effective protection under the D.V.Act it is to be held that a Magistrate who has power to dismiss a case for default inherently has the power to restore it, upon sufficient cause being shown.”
Case Title: V.V. Rajesh v. The District Police Complaint Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, clarified that Section 110 of the Kerala Police Act grants power to the Police Complaints Authority to recommend registration of criminal cases against even retired police officers for custodial torture.
Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a writ petition challenging the order of the District Police Complaints Authority, Alappuzha that dismissed the writ petitioner's complaint alleging custodial torture.
Kerala High Court Upholds Age Limits Under Surrogacy Act, Says It's Scientifically Justified
Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 226
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that challenged the constitutional validity of the age limit prescribed by the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 on intending couples.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha remarked that the upper age limit is scientifically justified and it is not arbitrary or discriminatory.
“The age limits prescribed for intending parents and surrogate mother are based on intelligible differentia namely biological age and medical fitness. Thus classification bears a direct nexus with the objective of the Act which is to ensure safe pregnancies, healthy child birth and the well being of both the surrogate mother and the child to be born. Age based classification is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory but rather scientifically justified. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits classification if it is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus with the objective. The State is not merely a passive observer but has a positive obligation to safeguard the health of persons undergoing assisted reproduction procedures and the child born through such procedure,” the Court observed.
Case Title: The Manager, Majlis English Medium School and Anr. v The Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 227
The Kerala High Court has held that alleged procedural lapses such as denial of additional time to adduce evidence, do not automatically justify bypassing statutory appellate remedies to approach High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Justice Gopinath P was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by Majlis English Medium School challenging an order of the Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Case Title: Danikutti Philip v. Johnykutty J. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be attracted in cases where part payment has been done only if the presented cheque has recorded indorsement of such payment.
Justice A. Badharudeen clarified the position of law after relying on Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Another:
Case Title: Sudheer. S and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that local authorities cannot deny statutory and constitutional rights to establish industrial units merely due to protests lacking factual or legal basis.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observation while delivering a judgment in a writ petition filed by two entrepreneurs whose licensed hot mix plant project had been stalled for years due to resistance from a section of local residents.
Case Title: Mini Sunny v. Thuravoor Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that mere drying of latex sheet in a smoke house does not amount to 'manufacture' and therefore, the same does not require licence from the panchayat.
Justice P.M. Manoj observed that since there is no new or different commodity coming out during smoking of latex sheets, the same would not be 'manufacture' and licence is not required. Moreover, the allegation in the petition is not that sheets are being stored or sold but only dried; therefore, licence would not be required, the Court opined.
Case Title: Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court recently questioned a government circular that mandates approval of local-self body for introducing co-education scheme in single gender schools since it prescribes no procedure that has to be followed by the body.
Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a writ petition filed by Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School, Erattupetta challenging a government circular that insists on local body approval for introducing co-education in single-gender schools.
Case Title: Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to challenge orders that imposed penalty 'disproportionate' to charges even if appeal remedy available.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a plea preferred by the former Head of the Department (Department of Engineering and Maintenance) of Malabar Cancer Centre challenging his dismissal from service.
Case Title: Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the results of a tender process for the purpose of conducting tourism activities in Kanjirapuzha dam.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. noted that the participants of the tender had accepted the results and the present PIL preferred by a stranger to the tender process amounted to a 'proxy litigation', intended to delay the project. It went on to impose exemplary costs on the litigant.
Case Title: Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
The Kerala High Court recently held that public authority cannot initiate eviction proceedings over areas offered for recreational purposes through housing scheme, by citing expiry of lease deed.
Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 for evicting persons of the Mavelipuram Residents Association from the recreation hall constructed by them.
Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked When Contract Provides Arbitration Remedy: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly arbitration, will ordinarily dissuade courts from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering the judgment in a writ appeal challenging the termination of an EPC contract by the Cochin Port Authority.
Case Title: Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the manner of attack and injury of the victim are relevant for ascertaining if the accused had intention or knowledge that the same would cause death.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that causing only one injury on the shoulder of the victim would not be sufficient to conclude that an accused intended to cause murder to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Case Title: Musthafa v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, refused to set aside a conviction in a POCSO case that was challenged alleging anomaly in the prosecution case due to minor discrepancies regarding the date of occurrence.
The appellant before Justice A. Badharudeen had contended that since the child victim failed to disclose the actual date of occurrence in FIS and in statement before Magistrate but disclosed later in his chief examination before court, the prosecution case was doubtful.
Case Title: Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who was accused of stealing a case bundle from the trial court.
Justice C.S. Dias noted that the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint, which was filed by a third party, when the statutory mandate under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was for the officer of the Court or an authorised person to do so.
Case Title: Vinu Vikraman v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 5) directed the Sub-Registrar/Marriage Officer of Mavelikkara to process and solemnize the marriage of an Indian man and a Sri Lankan woman as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without insisting on an NOC from the Embassy.
Justice Easwaran S. relied on a 2019 decision of the High Court [Saranya R. A. v. State of Kerala and Others], wherein it was clarified that there is no prohibition under the Special Marriage Act to solemnize a marriage between an Indian and a foreigner.
S.377 IPC Continues To Apply In Cases Involving Minors: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction For Oral Sex
Case Title: Anil N v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 377 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) for committing sexual offences on an 11-year-old girl, reaffirming that the provision continues to apply in cases involving minors.
Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering the judgment in a criminal appeal filed against conviction under Sections 450 (house-trespass to commit offence), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 377 (unnatural offences) IPC.
Case Title: K.N. Ambika v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that family pension cannot be denied to the wife of a deceased employee merely because she is employed or receiving another pension.
Justice P.M. Manoj observed that as per the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), if the surviving wife has not remarried, she is entitled to receive family pension whether or not she was dependent on her deceased husband.
Case Title: The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, expressed strong disapproval towards the careless manner in which a government official handled a citizen's application for changing the nature of her property.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal against a Single Bench's order imposing Rs. 10,000 costs upon a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO).
Case Title: Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the Ombudsman for Local-Self Government Institutions has a duty to conduct a proper and effective enquiry into complaints regarding maladministration and losses caused to panchayat, and it cannot relegate the same to courts.
Justice P.M. Manoj set aside an order of the Ombudsman that relegated, to the Rent Control Court, a complaint raising issues of maladministration and loss caused to the Panchayat due to renting of a premise at a lower rate than that offered by the petitioner association.
Case Title: Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
The Kerala High Court has held that the Malabar Devaswom Board cannot invoke its general supervisory powers under Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act to effectively take over temple administration by appointing a full-time Executive Officer.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, issued the order in a writ challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer by the Malabar Devaswom Board in a temple managed under a hereditary trusteeship scheme.
Case Title: Pradeep Bharathan. K v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a donee of an undivided share in a co-owned property becomes a co-owner and would be entitled to seek registration of a deed partitioning the property by paying stamp duty applicable to partition deeds.
Justice Basant Balaji was considering a writ petition challenging the refusing of registration of a partition deed executed by a co-owner and the son of another co-owner, who had received the undivided share in the property by a gift deed.
Case Title: M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 22C of the Legal Services Act, Permanent Lok Adalats must comply with the mandate of conciliation before adjudicating a dispute on merits and that delay in remitting costs to set aside ex parte order cannot be cited to forego conciliation.
Justice P.M. Manoj further observed that the Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute which is already seized by a court.
Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court recently held that the State Minority Commission cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court to pass eviction order against a person belonging to a minority community.
Justice Easwaran S. remarked:
“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… Still further, the extent of overstepping of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is evident from the fact that the Commissioner has gone ahead and instructed the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take such steps to evict the petitioner. The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court.”
Case Title: P.K. Lakshmi and Ors. v Gopi and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has held that a life estate granted to a Hindu widow under a Will enlarges into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It further noted that the absolute ownership would render any subsequent bequest in the same Will ineffective.
Justice Easwaran S., was delivering the judgment in a batch of connected second appeals.
The dispute arose over the management rights of the Mooriyad Central Upper Primary School in Kannur district. Under a 1955 Will executed by Koran Gurukkal, management of the school was first vested in his wife, Bachi @ Janaki, during her lifetime, with a further clause providing that the right would pass to their son Gopi after her death.
Case Title: Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v Vernin Varkey @ John
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The Kerala High Court has held that a Family Court cannot refuse a decree of divorce by mutual consent merely because spouses state that they are living separately “without any reason,” so long as both parties continue to consent to dissolution of marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen delivered the judgement in matrimonial appeal, and set aside a Family Court order that had rejected a joint plea for divorce by mutual consent.
Case Title: Joseph @ Sabu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court has held that in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), conviction may be sustained even in the absence of documentary proof of age when the oral testimony of the child victim and her mother regarding the age of the Victim remain unchallenged during trial.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Sreerosh Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the District Disaster Management Authority or its Chairperson cannot issuse a stop memo to a person barring all construction activities under the Disaster Management Act.
The court was considering whether the Disaster Management Authority or the Chairperson invoking the powers under Section 26(2) can issue direction or stop memo in exercise of the powers under Section 30(2)(v) of the Act. Section 30(2)(v) underlines power of the District Authority to give directions to different authorities at the district level and local authorities to take such other measures for the prevention or mitigation of disasters as may be necessary.
Justice C. Jayachandran held that the Act does not confer any powers upon the District Authority or its Chairperson, the District Collector, to directly take any measures but only to give necessary directions to the competent authorities.
Case Title: Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan K.M. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court refused to set aside a Lok Adalat order that directed an insurance company to pay compensation to a toddy tapper, who was injured in a fall from a coconut tree, even though the order recorded non-submission of insurance claim.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that writ courts can refuse to interfere with orders with technical discrepancies, if the writ sought to be enforced would affect another person's right to life.
Case Title: A.K. Baby v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that managers of aided schools do not have the authority to disregard the findings of a statutory enquiry officer who exonerates a teacher and thereafter impose a major penalty on their own.
Justice Viju Abraham delivered the judgment while considering a writ petition filed by the manager of an aided school challenging a government order granting service and salary benefits to a retired teacher who had earlier been compulsorily retired from service.
Case Title: C.A. Jaleel v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment whereby it set aside an order passed by the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority that called upon the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned to demolish a dilapidated building.
Justice C. Jayachandran passed the judgment in a petition by a tenant of the building that was under the ownership of the Panchayat.
Case Title: Rajesh. K v The Additional DIstrict Magistrate and Ors.
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
The Kerala High Court has held that Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines cannot be treated as mandatory while considering applications for No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for petroleum retail outlets under the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim delivered the judgment in a writ by a dealer of Petroleum Retail outlet.
Case Title: Laiju M S v The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
The Kerala High Court has held that a person conducting business on government puramboke land under a valid municipal licence cannot be treated as an “encroacher” for the purpose of denying rehabilitation and resettlement compensation when displaced by a public infrastructure project.
Justice Viju Abraham was delivering the judgment in a writ petition challenging a government order that stated that the petitioner, who owned a bunk shop in a puramboke area with statutory licence is not entitled to the compensation payable to tenants under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
Case Title: Vijayan P. v. George and Company and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, has clarified that joint trial of dishonour of multiple cheques is permissible when the cheques in question were issued as part of same transaction.
Justice Johnson John was considering a criminal revision petition filed by the accused in a cheque bounce case challenging the concurrent findings of guilt passed by the trial court and the appellate court.
Case Title: Lifin Sebastian and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
The Kerala High Court recently granted relief to two persons, who wanted to erect a gate on a government property that lied in between their property and the main road, by asking them to approach the Tahsildar concerned with an application as per the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules.
Justice Viju Abraham ruled that a Tahsildar is empowered to grant permit for erecting wall, fence, building, etc. on government property following procedures and conditions in accordance with the Act and Rules.
Case Title: Shamseera Parambath v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court held that a contractual employee working under the MGNREG Scheme can be removed only in accordance with the procedure laid down by the guidelines issued by the government.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the employee cannot be removed merely on the basis of a recommendation made by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
Case Title: Alkarsf Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
The Kerala High Court has held that the provisional attachment under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit (BUDS) Act cannot continue indefinitely and the attachment won't exist beyond the statutory period within which by the Competent Authority is mandated to file a confirmation application before the Designated Court as per Section 14.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Nevil John v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, observed that possibility of misuse cannot be a reason to interpret a statutory provision contrary to what is explicitly provided.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition where the main issue was as to the meaning of the term 'multi stories building' provided under Section 2(xva) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986.
Case Title: N. Rajendran v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified that the Disaster Management Authority is bound to pay rent for all rooms in the building that was taken over by it irrespective of whether or not all the rooms were in its occupation.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a plea challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted to the petitioner in respect of his building requisitioned for institutional quarantine/COVID containment.
Case Title: Harikumar K.K. v. State Election Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
Recently, the Kerala High Court held that as per Article 243K of the Constitution, the State Election Commission does not have any power to interfere once the election process to the panchayat is over and therefore, it cannot pass an order cancelling election result.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea by the Vice-President electee of Kottungal Grama Panchayat who had contested the election to the panchayat as a candidate of the BJP.
Settlement Deed Clause Divesting Daughter Of Property Upon Marriage Is Void: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Varkey Varghese v Kathreena
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
The Kerala High Court has held that a clause in a settlement deed providing that a daughter would lose her rights over gifted property if she married is void as being contrary to law and public policy.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in a regular second appeal.
Case Title: Raveendra Panicker v. District Collector and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked to evict alleged encroachers of private temples, which are not coming under the control of the Devaswom Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar dismissed a batch of writ petitions that prayed for a direction to the State to remove private persons, who had alleged encroached upon the properties of private temples.
Case Title: Eriyad Palli @ Eriyad Mahallu Jama-Ath and Ors. v. Aboobacker K.M. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that once a Waqf Tribunal is established by the State, a Muttawalli interest in a waqf or any person aggrieved by an order made under the Waqf Act must approach the Tribunal instead of the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. added that writ jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked only in cases where there is no Tribunal established or the Tribunal is not functioning.
Case Title: Vishnu @ Unni v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a man's conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, despite non-seizure of the mobile phone used to show sexually explicit videos to child, noting that no challenge has been raised regarding the non-seizure, during cross-examination.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging conviction under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, including a charge under Section 11(iii) relating to showing pornographic material to a child.
Kerala High Court Allows Transgender Man To Preserve His Eggs
Case Title: Hari Devageeth v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 15) allowed a transgender man to cryopreserve his eggs by permitting him to approach an ART bank of his choice.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen pronounced the order.
Case Title: Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that a person seeking to transfer a case from one Special Court to another Special Court can directly approach the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment.
Case Title: All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Kerala High Court has held that LPG distributors do not possess a vested legal right over customer bases built during the course of distributorship operations.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim was considering two writ petitions filed by a registered All India Association of LPG Distributors and other individual LPG Distributors in various parts of the State of Kerala.
Case Title: Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 18) dismissed the bail application preferred by astrologer Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri, who was arrested on February 9 for allegedly raping a minor girl on the pretext of conducting an 'exorcism' on her.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:
“A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The available medical records would show that bite marks were seen on the lips of the minor victim. The victim has narrated the entire incident in the FIS. I see no reason to disbelieve the same. That apart, the blood stains belonging to the victim were recovered from the place of occurrence along with her bloodstained dress. It is true that the final report has already been filed. However, considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.”
Case Title: Rahiman v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
The Kerala High Court recently held that omission to sign the First Information Statement (FIS) by the informant alone would not make it inadmissible in evidence if the informant gives evidence in tune with the statement given in the form of first information.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“omission to get signature of the informant in the FIS alone would make the FIS totally inadmissible in evidence, is the question, in fact, poses for consideration. In response to this query, it is held that the mere failure or omission on the part of the informant to put signature in the FIS is not a reason to disbelieve the FIS or the entire prosecution case, when the informant while giving evidence admits and supports the case of the prosecution in tune with the statement in the form of first information given by the informant.”
Case Title: T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Kerala High Court has held that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner cannot enrol as an advocate unless she first cancels her registration as a medical practitioner.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while dismissing a challenge against the Bar Council of Kerala's refusal to enrol a Homoeopathic doctor as an advocate while her name continued in the register of medical practitioners.
Case Title: Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Kerala High Court recently held that power of attorney holder's incompetence to institute a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be raised as a ground to assail conviction at the stage of revision, if not raised earlier.
Justice G. Girish referred to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides when the finding or sentence passed by a competent court is reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.
Case Title: Wilfred Jose v Jayapal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that in cheque bouncing prosecutions, the initial burden rests upon the complainant to prove the transaction and once this burden is discharged, the complainant can avail the presumptions in its favour laid down in Section 139 NI Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a criminal appeal filed against the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case involving ₹3 lakh.
"Now it is necessary to address how the complainant in a prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act would be able to discharge his initial burden in the matter of transaction and execution of cheque alleged to be dishonoured, so as to avail the presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act.”
Case Title: Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
The Kerala High Court has said that an institution's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) can inquire into sexual harassment complaints against the institution's Director if he does not have control over the affairs and management of the institution and is an “employee” appointed by the institution's executive committee.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering an appeal challenging the decision of the Single Judge, who dismissed a plea by the Director of Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC).
Case Title: M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the Syndicate of a University cannot challenge the orders passed by its Chancellor, who is exercising powers of appeal, as the same would be against institutional hierarchy and discipline.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the Chancellor is the head of the University as well as the appellate authority with respect to the decisions taken by the Syndicate in matters of disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the Syndicate has to give effect to the orders passed by the Chancellor, being the superior authority.
Case Title: Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (May 21) dismissed the appeal challenging dismissal of a plea to stall release of the movie 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha' that is allegedly inspired by the sensational Venjaramoodu Mass Murder case.
When the matter came up today before the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., Advocate Sajju V. appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal has become infructuous since the movie has already been released. He then prayed for withdrawing the appeal.
CrPC | Accused Has Absolute Right To Use Section 161 Statements To Contradict Witnesses During Cross-Examination: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lawrence and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that an accused has an absolute right to use the previous statements given by the witnesses to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of shaking the veracity of their evidence and making it untrustworthy.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“it is the absolute right of the accused to use previous statements during cross-examination of the maker of the same for the purpose contradicting the maker to shake the veracity of the evidence spoken by him and to make it as untrustworthy of credit, and the same is the main purpose of cross-examination as well.”
Tribunals Can't Dispose Appeals Through 'Cryptic Orders', Must Record Reasons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
The Kerala High Court has held that quasi-judicial tribunals cannot dispose of appeals through cryptic conclusions and are legally bound to issue reasoned, speaking orders that disclose the basis of their decisions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgement while setting aside an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions that had upheld a Panchayat's refusal to regularise a building and assign it a number.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
The Kerala High Court recently closed the suo motu case initiated in the light of an unauthorized helicopter movement over Sabarimala temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar noted that a crime has been registered at the Pamba Police Station for the offence under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act [Penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger] and that investigation revealed that the same belonged to the Indian Coast Guard.
Periodic Replacement, Maintenance Cost Of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Factored Into Motor Accident Compensation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
The Kerala High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted to a person, whose leg was amputated following a motor accident, so as to give him a just compensation for the purpose of maintenance and periodic replacement of his prosthetic leg.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha granted Rs. 30 lakhs for periodic replacement and maintenance after noting that artificial leg is not a one-time expense:
“A prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense. It requires periodic replacement, maintenance, physiotherapy and adaptation over the claimant's lifetime. Therefore, the Courts/Tribunals must adopt a humane and realistic approach while assessing compensation. Merely awarding the present cost of an artificial limb would be wholly inadequate. A young person will require several replacements in the course of his life, particularly because prosthetic technology advances and wear and tear make periodic renewal inevitable. Compensation must accordingly include future medical expenses, recurring replacement costs, rehabilitation expenses and loss of amenities of life.”
Case Title: A. Raju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted a man, who was convicted of offences under the Abkari Act, observing that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt since there was no signature or seal of the Magistrate who certified the correctness of the inventory as required under Section 53A.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“In the present case,… there is nothing to indicate that the Magistrate had verified and certified the correctness of the inventory, particularly when neither the signature nor the seal of the Magistrate is found in such a crucial document. When the procedure prescribed under Section 53A of the Abkari Act is not strictly complied with, and when the residue of the contraband after drawing sample is not produced before the court, coupled with the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding its lawful destruction or disposal, the very seizure of the contraband becomes doubtful. In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
Case Title: MRPN Minority Shareholders Customers Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
The Kerala High Court recently closed a plea preferred by the shareholders' association of Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. seeking further action on the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)'s Final Report.
The company is part of the Popular Finance Group that orchestrated the ₹2000 crore scam, known as the “Popular Finance Scam”.
Justice Viju Abraham closed the writ petition recording the submission that the Centre has already filed criminal complaints before the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam and that it has also initiated winding up proceedings of the company.
Case Title: Anto Augustine and Ors v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
The Kerala High Court has held that social media intermediaries cannot be compelled to remove allegedly defamatory content unless a competent court or authorised government agency first determines the content to be unlawful.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by M/s Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd., a news and current affairs content broadcasting channel.
Case title: Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 25) acquitted Hussain, the first accused in the murder of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, who was brutally lynched to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Palakkad in February 2018.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the verdict in the appeal preferred by the convict.
The State and the victim's mother had also preferred separate appeals challenging acquittal of two.
Madhu Lynching Case: Kerala High Court Sentences 12 Convicts To Life Imprisonment
Case title: Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 25) awarded life imprisonment to the 12 persons convicted of the murder of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, who was brutally lynched to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Palakkad in February 2018.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar heard the convicts regarding sentencing and passed the order.
Case Title: The State Public Information Officer and Ors. v. The Kerala State Information Commission and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no unrestricted right under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act to seek every information that would have been supplied to the legislature.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. further clarified that with the introduction of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the disclosure framework founded upon balancing of public interest is also materially curtailed, and had the effect of doing away with the above proviso.
Case Title: Aneesh Babu v. The Secretary, Home Affairs and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
The Kerala High Court on Monday (25 May) declined to transfer an ongoing criminal investigation alleged against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Shekhar Kumar to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), holding that the matter is still under active probe by the Vigilance authorities and that it would be premature to order a central agency investigation at this stage.
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order.
Case Title: Sreeja v Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
The Kerala High Court has held that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not completely govern land acquisitions undertaken under the National Highways Act merely because of the Central Government notification issued under Section 105 of the 2013 Act.
Justice Easwaran S., delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Babu Avarachan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
The Kerala High Court recently held that a person, who is charged with hurt to defer public servant under Section 332 IPC, cannot be convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt by dangerous means/weapons unless a specific charge is made out as required under Section 222 CrPC.
Justice Jobin Sebastian added that conviction under Section 323 IPC for simple hurt would sustain if Section 332 IPC is charged as the former is a 'minor charge'.
Kerala High Court Dismisses CMRL's Plea To Quash ED Case Alleging Misappropriation Of Public Money
Case Number: M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 26) dismissed the petition filed by the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in view of the bribery and money laundering allegation against the company.
Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the present plea, made at the stage of issuance of summons, was premature.
FIR For Scheduled Offence Not Necessary For ED Investigation : Kerala High Court In CMRL Case
Case Number: M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Kerala High Court has held that the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence does not bar the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from initiating investigation proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice T.R. Ravi dismissed a writ petition filed by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and its officials challenging the ED proceedings initiated in connection with the alleged CMRL-Exalogic transactions.
Case Title: Prasobh M v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (26 May) dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Prasobh M, former Congress councillor of the Palakkad Municipality, challenging denial of Anticipatory Bail by a Special SC/ST Court in a sexual assault case.
Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: M K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 104(1A) of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, and held that the provision enabling existing labour adjudicatory forums to continue functioning until new tribunals are constituted is a lawful transitional mechanism and not “manifestly arbitrary.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed a writ appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge which had earlier upheld the amendment to the Industrial Code.
Case Title: K.N. Sukumaran Nair v. K.E. Parameswara Pillai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not necessary to schedule the property of the defendant in suits for determination/fixation of boundary as per Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar clarified that the mandate is that the plaint must describe the plaintiff's property and mention that the adjoining property of the disputed boundary belongs to the defendant.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v Valsala S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that armed forces personnel invalided out of service due to schizophrenia are entitled to the benefit of statutory presumptions under military pension rules unless the authorities provide reasons to deny disability pension.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension to the widow of a deceased ex-serviceman.
Case Title: Ayshath Bunayath and Anr. v The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Kerala High Court has held that passport authorities cannot insist on a court-issued divorce decree for deleting a spouse's name from a passport when the marriage has already been dissolved through a legally recognised form of extra-judicial divorce under Muslim personal law.
Justice Murali Purushothaman was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by a divorced Muslim woman seeking reissue of her passport after dissolution of marriage through Mubaraat.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 29) closed the suo motu petition initiated to address the issue of dumping of Sabarimala pilgrims' clothes in the River Pamba after noting that 97% of the waste dumped has been removed.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and local authorities concerned to ensure that dumping of clothes is prohibited and its earlier directions in the case are complied with.
Case Title: P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Kerala High Court has said that under Section 17 CPC if immovable properties are situated in the jurisdiction of different Courts, then a partition suit can be instituted in any of the Courts within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar examined Sections 16 and 17 CPC as well as the Apex Court decision in Shivnarayan (D) By Lrs. v. Maniklal (D) Thr. Lrs. and others.
Case Title: Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, laid down that denial of disability pension to an ex-army personnel based on a medical opinion that is not fully supported by reasons is not valid.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a writ petition that challenged an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension.
Case Title: Gigi Varghese v. The Village Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The Kerala High Court has asked gram panchayats in the State that in case they receive genuine complaints, they must swiftly act on it and remove wild vegetation from vacant private property/residential plots where owner is unidentifiable, as such spots can become a breeding ground for snakes posing a threat to life of residents.
In doing so the court held that a Gram Panchayat cannot refuse to remove dangerous nuisances from private property merely because the owner of the land has not been identified. It said that public safety obligations under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 empower Panchayats to take immediate remedial action and recover the expenses later from the owner once identified.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was delivering the judgment in a case arising from complaints regarding an abandoned plot overgrown with vegetation and wild grass adjacent to the petitioner's residence in Alappuzha district.
Case Title: Aboobacker Siddique and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused would be entitled to default bail if the final report was e-filed by the police after 5 p.m. on the last day of the statutory period prescribed.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath reasoned that since, as per Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, e-filings made after 5 pm are deemed to have been instituted on the next working day, the final report would be deemed to have been filed on the day after the statutory period.
Case Title: Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 1) directed all the Family Courts in Kerala to follow the Calcutta High Court's guidelines on child custody and parenting plan until a State specific rule is framed.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the order, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by a mother, who is the natural guardian of a minor child on the ground that despite a decree passed by the Family Court granting permanent custody to her, the father of the child illegally removed the child from her custody while the child was in school and without informing her.
Bharat Mata Portrait Row: High Court Closes Contempt Case Against Kerala University VC For Defying Order To Reinstate Registrar
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar v. Dr. Mohan Kunnummal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (02 June) closed the contempt petition filed against Kerala University Vice-Chancellor Dr. Mohan Kunnummel for failing to implement the University Syndicate's decision reinstating Professor Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar as the Registrar.
Justice Viju Abraham, closed the contempt petition on the request of the counsel for the contempt petitioner.
“Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no further orders are required in this case. Accordingly, the above contempt case is closed.” the Court ordered.
Case Title: Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a statutory demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, must expressly specify the amount demanded to invoke the offence of cheque dishonour.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case involving a cheque for ₹95,000.
Case Title: Moh Farmaan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 3) granted transit anticipatory bail to the husband of viral Kumb Mela star, Mohammed Farmaan, who is arrayed as an accused in a crime registered by the Madhya Pradesh police based on her father's complaint.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted a month's time to the first petitioner, Farmaan, to approach the courts in Madhya Pradesh for seeking bail.
Case No: RP 288/2026 in JPP 1/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 3) allowed a plea by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) seeking to review a judgment that mandated the SHO (Station House Officers) concerned to file affidavits confirming identity of the petitioners in cases seeking defreezing of bank accounts.
When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., Advocate Peeyus A. Kottam, KHCAA President, submitted that the matter can be disposed of by confirming the observations made in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the interim order passed on March 25.
Case Title: Greeny Tomy and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
The Kerala High Court has upheld a person's "posthumous bodily integrity" which would include their right to donate their body executed during the person's lifetime, noting that the law strives to honour the wishes of the deceased and protects their interests.
In doing so, the Court upheld a deceased woman's wish to donate her body for anatomical purposes, over subsequent objections raised by family members seeking burial according to religious customs.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. were delivering the judgment in an appeal moved by the woman's children challenging a Single Judge's order while allowed the retention and proposed use of the body of their deceased mother for anatomical purposes. Against this, the children moved an appeal.
Case Title: Sujithra P.A. v. Anishkumar T.R.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
The Kerala High Court has observed that delay in challenging Family Court orders on matrimonial disputes, especially on dissolution of marriages, is fatal as parties may alter their marital status.
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed:
“In matrimonial disputes especially in the matters relating to dissolution of marriage, delay in challenging the order of the Family Court is fatal as there are chances of parties altering their status after the appeal period… Great care and caution has to be exercised while condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decrees after the appeal period as it has the effect of affecting the rights of third parties.”
Case Title: XXX v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
The Kerala High Court has clarified that persons with Down Syndrome would fall within the purview of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a writ petition filed by the father of a Down Syndrome patient after his application to be his daughter's guardian was rejected by the District Collector.
Kerala High Court Rejects Jolly Joseph's Plea Against Order Allowing Examination Of Expert Who Gave Opinion On Allegedly Forged Will
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (June 4) upheld a trial court order which had allowed State's application to examine an expert witness who had given opinion regarding certain documents, including a Will, which was allegedly forged by the Jolly Joseph accused of murdering her family.
Justice C.S. Dias upheld the trial court order that allowed the prosecution's plea had issued summons to the witness. Against this order, Jolly Joseph had moved the High Court.
Case Title: M/s Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 5) dismissed an appeal by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and its officials challenging an order of the Single Bench that dismissed their plea to quash the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged case of misappropriation of public funds.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has upheld the single judge's order.
Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v. Sreedev Namboodiri and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 4) dismissed as infructuous the appeals filed by the Central government, the CBFC and the producer challenging a single judge's common interim order passed in pleas challenging certification granted to 'Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond' film which was released on February 27.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice A.K. Preeta, however, left open the question of law raised by the CBFC and Union regarding maintainability of private interest litigations challenging certification granted to a film alleging disrepute to a State. Earlier this week, the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions challenging the certification of the film.
Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
In an exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Kerala High Court recently ordered for the addition of father's name in the birth certificate of a child born when parents were living together.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea by the parents of the child, whose birth certificate recorded only the mother's name but left the father's name as 'blank'.
Case Title: Ebin A.V. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The Kerala High Court recently observed that potency test can be conducted on a man, who is accused in a criminal case, without his consent and it is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the ground raised that the potency test conducted without informed consent violated his right to privacy and bodily integrity guaranteed under Article 21.
Case Title: Puthur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sethumadhavan and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the creditors of a co-operative society can recover the amounts deposited by invoking Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1986 do not take away the rights of creditors to invoke the Consumer Protection Act to recover the deposits.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Mother Booked In Balaramapuram Child Murder Case
Case Title: Sreethu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
The Kerala High Court on Monday (08 June) granted bail to Sreethu, the second accused in Balaramapuram Child Murder case, who is accused of conspiring with the first accused in the alleged murder of her minor daughter.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, granted the bail upon execution of a bond of ₹1 lakh with two solvent sureties for the like amount.
Case Title: Jomon Jaison and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 8) rejected a plea filed by CBSE students challenging the State Government's 2026 Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses with respect to the standardisation formula for preparing ranklist to Engineering courses.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that the introduction of the new scheme of standardisation of marks is a matter of policy of the government and courts, not being experts in academic matters, can interfere only in exceptional circumstances of arbitrariness, mala fide or prejudice caused to students.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev T and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
The Kerala High Court has recently expunged the the remarks made by the Special Judge against the investigation of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Sabarimala Gold Theft case while granting bail to accused Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev Thantri.
Justice A Badharudeen, expunged the remarks while disposing of the petition by the State to cancel the bail granted to to Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev Thantri, who is arrayed as an accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case. The court however did not cancel Rajeev Thantri's bail.
Case Title: M.C. Kunhunni Raja and Anr. v. The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, directed the Malabar Devaswom Board to formulate within three months a new scheme for the effective administration of Sree Thirumandhankunnu Bhagavathy Temple in Malappuram district.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar remarked that the present scheme framed in 1966 is ineffective, and ordered that a new scheme be drafted and be placed before the Court for approval.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Devaki and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
The Kerala High Court recently held that a sibling is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency if dependency is established by adducing evidence before the Tribunal in motor accidents claims.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to an unmarried and unemployed sister of the deceased, who had deposed and gave evidence regarding her dependency.
Case Title: Thomas Poulose and Ors. v. Albin Mathew @ Anto and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that in motor accident claims cases, contribution of a deceased as a homemaker, who also was a salaried employee, cannot be added to monthly income unless proved by evidence.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen was considering an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Case Title: Anish Kumar S v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
The Kerala High Court has held that government employees are not entitled to claim hostel subsidy under the Children Education Allowance (CEA) Scheme merely because a school mandates hostel accommodation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, which had rejected the employee's claim for hostel subsidy.
Case Title: The Secretary v K. Kanchana and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
The Kerala High Court has held that a person engaged through a quotation or tender process may still qualify as an “employee”under Employees Compensation Act , 1923 and entitled to compensation if he personally participates in the execution of the work.
Justice S. Manu delivered the judgment in an appeal against the direction of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner.
Case Title: Shijosh v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the statutory presumptions available to complainants in cheque dishonour prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be invoked only after the complainant first establishes the underlying transaction and execution of the cheque through competent evidence.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment, while considering an appeal against an acquittal in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
Case Title: Midhun M. v. Hindustan Latex Limited (HLL) Lifecare Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the police cannot decide whether or not a person is suitable for appointment while issuing a verification report containing criminal antecedents under Section 53 of Kerala Police Act, 2011.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“In a report verifying the antecedents of an applicant for employment, it is not open for a police officer, even of the stature of the third respondent [District Police Chief/Verifying Authority], to state whether that person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain the details of the criminal antecedents of an applicant. Suitability or otherwise of an applicant to a post, based on the criminal antecedents if any, is the prerogative of the employer. It must always be open to the employer to decide whether the existence of any criminal case would render an applicant unsuitable or not. In other words, the suitability of an applicant to a post cannot be decided by the police.”
Case Title: Mohammed Hanish v. Kadakampally Manoj
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 15) dismissed an appeal filed by Mohammed Hanish, the Principal Secretary of the Industries Department (Cashew) of the State government challenging an order of the Single Bench directing his personal appearance in a contempt case initiated for refusing sanction to the CBI to prosecute allegedly corrupt ex-officials of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John heard detailed arguments on behalf of the counsel appearing for Hanish and for Kadakampally Manoj, who had filed the writ petition after sanction was refused for the first time. Manoj then filed a contempt plea after no positive action was taken.
Case Title: Bichathu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applies only to the personal search of an individual and not to the search of plastic bags carried by the person.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant in an NDPS case.
Can Family Court Decide Marital Status After Alleged Husband's Death? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: RK v. PK and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
The Kerala High Court has held that Family Courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the validity of a marriage or matrimonial status when one of the alleged spouses had died before the proceedings were instituted.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. further held that such disputes are ordinary civil disputes to be decided by civil courts.
Dental Student Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To College HOD Dr. Kodanda Ram In Abetment Case
Case Title: Dr. M.Kodanda Ram v. State and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 19) dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Dr. M. Kodanda Ram seeking pre-arrest bail in the suicide abetment case of dental college student Nithin Raj.
Justice A. Badharudeen opined that there was prima facie commission of offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the statutory bar against grant of anticipatory bail would apply.
Does A Recruitment Freeze Apply To Compassionate Appointments? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: Sangeetha K.P. v. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that a ban on regular appointments would not automatically act as a bar for compassionate appointments.
Justice Viju Abraham referred to two decisions rendered by the Bombay High Court that took a similar view and reasoned that the compassionate employment scheme is an exemption to help a family to survive sudden financial destitution.
Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's POCSO Conviction For Sexually Assaulting Minor Boy
Case Title: Rasheed v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a madrassa teacher, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor student.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal preferred assailing the conviction for the offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(2) r/w. 3(d), 6(1) r/w. 5(f), 5(m), 8 r/w. 7, 10 r/w. 9(o) and 9 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act [Punishment for cruelty to child].
Case Title: Wei, Chun-Ju and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision allowed two foreign crew members of MV Wan Hai 503, which was involved in a maritime accident last year near to Azheekal, to leave India for their home countries.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the writ petition filed by Taiwanese national Wei, Chun-Ju and Chinese national Tao Peng, who respectively the Master and Chief Officer of the vessel that suffered a fire onboard on June 9, 2025.
Case Title: T.M. Manju v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (17 June) upheld a Single Judge's decision that held that a registered homeopathic medical practitioner cannot seek enrolment as an advocate while continuing to remain on the register of practising medical professionals.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. delivered the judgment while dismissing the appeal against the Single Judge decision.
Case Title: Ahmad Nasir Osmani v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Kerala High Court has recently (11 June) directed immigration authorities to process an Afghan national's application for compounding of offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, holding that the absence of a prescribed application form cannot prevent consideration of such a request.
Justice G. Girish passed the order in a writ petition filed by the Afghan national currently detained at the Detention Centre (Transit Home) in Kollam.
Case Title: The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v. Rajesh K. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment clarified that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is not unregulated.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the practice of alternative medicine is, in fact, regulated by the provisions of the the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 and before that, by Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953.
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Free Bus Travel For Women, Transgender Persons
Case Title: Muhammed Firdouz v The State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala High Court on Monday (22 June) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the State Government's recently launched "Priyadarshini Scheme," which provides free travel for women and transgender persons in ordinary Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) buses.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment.
Case Title: M/S. Pharmadude Pharmacy Vannappuram v State of Kerala and Connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
The Kerala High Court has upheld the authority of the State Drugs Controller to require pharmacy licence applicants and renewal applicants to undertake that they will not display misleading discount boards relating to the sale of medicines.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging a circular issued by the Drugs Controller on September 4, 2024.
Case Title: Muhammed Anwar Saidu v. Bar Council of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 22) closed the plea filed relating to the issue of lack of Bar Council of India (BCI) affiliation for the Government Law College, Kozhikode after noting that provisional affiliation was granted to the college.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas closed the plea after noting that the BCI has issued a letter granting 6-months' affiliation to the college.
Case Title: Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 22) allowed the plea filed by the Tritvam Apartment Owners Association against the proposed construction of 20 commercial kiosks in the Queen's Walkway.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pronounced that the Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) do not have any right to construct, install or operate commercial kiosks on the Queen's walkway as it would affect the legal rights of the pedestrians:
Kerala High Court Asks Neighbours Fighting Over Coconut Tree To Settle Dispute 'Over A Cup Of Tea'
Case Title: Gopinath R v Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition arising from a dispute between two neighbours over a coconut tree, observing that the matter represented an unnecessary escalation of a trivial neighbourhood disagreement.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, deciding a writ petition, remarked that if the coconut tree at the centre of the dispute “had the capacity to laugh,” it might have laughed at the neighbours' quarrel.
Case Title: Bhageesh Pooradan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala High Court has held that caste-based abuse uttered in the presence of multiple persons in a private place can satisfy the requirement of occurring “within public view” under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act cases, Thrissur.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Dr. Reena K.J. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (June 23) allowed the appeal filed by the State challenging the interim order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that permitted Dr. Reena K.J. to continue as Director of Health Services (DHS) by staying, for two weeks, the orders transferring her from the post.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. remarked that the Tribunal cannot undo an already completed administrative action whereby the 2nd respondent, Dr. Meenakshy V., had already taken additional charge of the post with effect from June 13, even before the original application was filed before the Tribunal.
Case Title: Vijay R. Nair v. Lijitha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala High Court has recently considered a question as to whether the remarriage of a party during the pendency of divorce appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, in which delay was condoned, would be void.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed by a husband/appellant challenging a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court to his wife/respondent.
Case Title: Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (24 June) allowed a writ petition challenging the oath taken by the Councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in the name of various deities, martyrs and political movements.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan directed the State Election Commission to make necessary arrangements to facilitate respondent no.4 to 23 (councillors) to take the oath once again, within four weeks.
Case Title: Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court has held that elected representatives cannot expand or modify the statutory form of oath by invoking specific deities, political martyrs, organisations or public figures, observing that such departures could lead to limitless variations and undermine the uniformity intended by law.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while holding that oaths taken by representatives in the local self government in the name of deities, Martyrs and political movements as invalid.
Can State Minority Commission Pass Eviction Orders? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: Abdul Salam v. Moideenkutty and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the finding of a Single Bench on the point that the State Minority Commission cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court and pass eviction orders.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed challenging a decision of the Single Judge that set aside an eviction order passed by the Minority Commission (2nd respondent) and directed that the evictee/writ petitioner (1st respondent) be put back in possession of the property.
Case Title: A.M. Ariff v. K.C. Venugopal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 24) rejected the election petition filed challenging the win of Congress MP K.C. Venugopal from Alappuzha constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Justice G. Girsh pronounced the judgement.
Kerala High Court Rejects Expelled Palakkad Councillor's Appeal Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Prasobh M. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 29) dismissed the appeal filed by Prasobh M., former Congress councillor of the Palakkad Municipality, challenging denial of regular bail by the Special Court for SC/ST cases (Mannarkkad) in a sexual assault case.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that bail cannot be granted at the present stage, when the investigation is still primitive as there are chances to impede the same and to threaten the victim.
Positive Alcohol Test Alone Cannot Defeat Accident Insurance Claim: Kerala High Court
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v Salpriya and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
The Kerala High Court has held that the mere presence of alcohol in a deceased person is insufficient to deny insurance benefits unless the insurer proves that the person was "under the influence of alcohol" as required by the policy.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by United India Insurance Company challenging an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat directing payment of ₹15 lakh to the legal heirs of a deceased policyholder.
Case Title: Rajesh R. and Anr. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that challenged the discontinuation of the benefit of admission granted to single girl child and twin girl children over and above the approved class strength in Kendriya Vidyalaya schools.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected the petitioners' argument that the discontinuation of the scheme, that treated twin children as a single admission, with effect from 2022-23 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/S Chicago Constructions International Private Limited v Kerala Water Authority and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala High Court has held that contractors executing Jal Jeevan Mission projects for the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) are bound by tender conditions limiting interim payments for supplied materials to 80% of the estimated rate or the quoted rate, whichever is lower.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was considering a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors who argued that KWA had unlawfully restricted payments for pipes and other materials supplied at project sites by calculating the interim payment on the basis of the estimated rate instead of the higher quoted rate.
Case Title: N and Ors. v. S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala High Court recently set aside two conditions imposed by the Family Court on a mother, who wanted to take her minor child to United Kingdom for better education and proper care for him.
The Family Court had ordered the mother to furnish security of Rs. 75 lakhs for taking the child to UK.
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that conditions imposed by courts must not be “illusory” and the primary consideration must be the welfare of the child.
Case Title: Athul M.C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 29) closed the plea by the 1st accused seeking supervised investigation by a senior police official to look into the alleged assault on former Health Minister Veena George at Kannur Railway Station.
When the matter came up before Justice G. Girish, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.