Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63 - 121Kamal Kumar Mandal v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63Suo Motu v Union Government and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 64Lunar Rubbers v Kerala Head Load And Timber Workers And Factory Workers Union(KTUC and ors and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 65M R Ajayan v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 66Susan K. John v. National Board...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63 - 121
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
Judgments
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.