Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49 - 62]Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala,...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49 - 62]
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
Judgments/Orders This Week
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.
Other Important Developments This Week
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson, Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, wrote to the Chief Justice of India taking serious objection to the critical remarks made by a single judge of the Kerala High Court against the Rs 1.25 lakh nomination fee charged for contesting Bar Council Elections.
Terming the remarks “baseless and reckless” in a letter dated January 26, BCI Chairman wrote a letter to Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Senior Advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, conveying the "serious institutional reaction" of the BCI.
Case Title: Tellmy Jolly v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) 91/ 2025
The Kerala government recently (21 January) informed the High Court that the State Law Reforms Commission has proposed a draft amendment to the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, proposing to decriminalise the act of giving dowry.
The submissions were made before the division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M, while it was considering an ongoing PIL filed by a law graduate and public policy professional, seeking a direction to the State to bring in accountability regarding the complaints made pursuant to Rule 5 of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2004 and the action taken on the same.
Kerala High Court Mourns Demise Of Its Former Judge Justice S Siri Jagan
Kerala High Court on Tuesday (January 27) conducted a full court obituary reference to mourn the demise of former judge, Justice S. Siri Jagan, who passed away on Saturday (January 24).
Justice Jagan had served the Kerala High Court for a period of 9 years, spanning from 2005 to 2014. He also served as the Acting Vice-Chancellor of the National University of Advanced Legal Studies (NUALS), Kochi, during 2023-2025.
Case Title: All Kerala House Boat Owners Association v. K. Srinivas and connected cases
Case No: Con.Case(C) No.693 of 2025 and connected cases
The Kerala High Court recently issued detailed directions to curb pollution caused by the plying of houseboats in the Vembanad lake, the longest lake in India and the largest in Kerala.
Justice V.G. Arun passed the interim order while considering a batch of petitions, in which the main issue was whether houseboats registered at Kodungallur Port can be allowed to operate in Alappuzha and Kumarakom.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: SSCR No. 43/2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (January 27) pulled up the Travancore Devaswom Board for ignoring the directions issued to remove clothes dumped in River Pampa after pilgrimage season in Sabarimala.
The Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition, which it had closed earlier this month after it was assured that there is no waste dumping in the river and its directions were being complied with properly.
Case Title: Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP (Crl.) 52/2026
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (January 27) orally criticised the Special Investigation Team for its delay in submitting the final report in the Sabarimala gold theft case, which has led to some of the accused being released on statutory bail.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the oral observation while hearing the plea preferred by Smart Creations CEO Pankaj Bhandari challenging his arrests in the Sabarimala gold misappropriation case as 'illegal'.
Case Title: Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Bail Appl. 14427/2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 28) reserved its verdict in the anticipatory bail plea preferred by Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in rape and miscarriage case.
Subsequent to the registration of the present crime, two other complaints alleging him of rape have been filed by two different women, which the prosecution argued has to be taken as criminal antecedents.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath however orally remarked today that the other FIRs lodged against the MLA cannot be considered as criminal antecedents while considering the bail plea.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: SSCR No. 21 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 28) directed the Travancore Devaswom Board and the State government to take steps to expedite the construction of a biogas plant and a storage plant for gas cylinders in Sabarimala.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order while considering a suo motu petition based on the Special Commissioner's report.
Case Title: Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni
Case No: Crl. A 130/ 2026
Sunil N.S. also known as Pulsar Suni, the first accused in the 2017 actress abduction and rape case has approached Kerala High Court challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
The Sessions Court has found him guilty of offences punishable under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) read with Sections 342 (wrongful confinement), 354 (outraging modesty), 354B (assault on woman with the intention to disrobe), 357 (assault), 366 (abduction) and 376D (gang rape) of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 66E and 67A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Case Title: Kunhikrishnan V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 3700/2026
The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 30) directed the District Police Chief and the SHO, Payyanur to ensure that there is adequate protection to the life of expelled Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Kunhikrishnan V. ahead of 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.
The plea before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was preferred by Kunhikrishnan seeking police protection citing threat to his life and property.
Paid Menstrual Leave Is Policy Matter, Not Enforceable Right: KSRTC Tells Kerala High Court
Case Title: Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 44089/2025
The law officer of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) has filed a counter affidavit before the Kerala High Court opposing the plea seeking 2 days paid menstrual leave for KSRTC's women conductors.
The petitioners had cited the Karnataka Government's decision regarding paid menstrual leave and prayed for a direction granting similar relief to the women conductors working in KSRTC.
Case Title: N. Subramanian v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(Crl.) No. 111/2026
Kerala Pradesh Congress Committee member N. Subramanian has moved the High Court challenging the initiation of criminal proceedings against him for allegedly making a social media post depicting Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan with Unnikrishnan Potty, the prime accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case.
When the matter came up for consideration before Justice K. Babu, the special government pleader sought time to get instructions and submitted that final report would not filed before February 2 (Monday), the next posting date.
Kerala High Court Directs State To Set Up Special NDPS Courts In Three More Districts
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters
Case No: WP(C) 29179/ 2025 and connected matters
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (27 January) directed the State to constitute Special NDPS Court in three more districts, in addition to the proposed special courts at Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam.
The direction was issued by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran, which was considering batch of petitions dealing with curbing of drug menace in the State.
Case Title: Joint Director v. The Secretary and Ors.
Case No: DBAR No. 2 of 2025
The Kerala State Information Technology Infrastructure Ltd. (KITFRA), which has been entrusted by the Travancore Devaswom Board to facilitate digitisation of temple account, undertook that it would place a detailed statement including the proposal and timeframe required for the exercise before the Kerala High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a Devaswom Board Audit Report (DBAR) that pointed to alleged embezzlement of ₹40 lakhs from a petrol pump run by the Board at Nilakkal, a base camp of Sabarimala pilgrims.