Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 181 - 227]George John v Election Commission of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 181Anjali P.V. (popularly known as Anjali Nair) v. The Returning Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 182Goshree Islands Development Authority and Anr. v. Tritvam Apartment Owners Association and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 183Aaliya Ashraf v State of Kerala, 2026...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 181 - 227]
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
Judgment/ Orders This Month
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.