Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1-72]Alan Benny v Bar Council of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1-72]
Alan Benny v Bar Council of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
R. Ramachandran Nair v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
Uvais Muhammad K.C. And Another V. State Of Kerala And Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Harish Kumar KP v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
Abad Builders Private Limited v State of Kerala and Others & other connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
Sajeev N. & Others v Anumol P. S. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Stephin Raj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala & other case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
K R Jayachandran v State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
X. v Y and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Rahul Rai v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Sarath K S v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Benny Mathew & Ors. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Kerala Coastal Zone Mangement Authority v P. M. Sukhilesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Siji v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
V.Karthyayani v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Mariya P.P And Others V. Nalupurayil Kadeeja, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Kabeer C. V. State Of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
X V. State Of Kerala and other, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Muhammed V. Raveendran Nair And Others., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Yamnuna Kumari v The Sub-Registrar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
Shoyab K.A and another v. State of Kerala and others., WP(C) NO. 15097 OF 2024, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
Leena V. A. v The State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Abhijit George v Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Fr. Mathew Paikada, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
M/S.Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. V. State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
Ammini v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
Abdul Salam v State Of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
DIG K. Janardhanan v Union of India and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
XX v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Sakkir Husain v Binu Madhu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
Manikandan N P v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
B.G.Krishnamurthy v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
James (Unsound Mind) v Sajeevan , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Dr. T. Ambujakshi v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
M/S. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd. V. General Manager, District Industries Centre And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Haseena v Suhaib, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
Bindumol A T v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Ismail Kunju M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
Bhoopathi v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
Abdul Azeez K P v The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
XX v The State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
M/S. P S Enterprises Represented By Syed Najmuddin v The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Union of India and Others v S. Sathikumari Amma, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Dr. K. B. Bindu v The Kannur University and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Arunkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Judgments/Orders This Month
Bar Councils Cannot Charge Fees To Verify Certificates Of Enrollment Applicants : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Alan Benny v Bar Council of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Kerala High Court held that the Bar Council of Kerala cannot collect money from applicants to get their certificates verified from the Universities and Examination Boards.
The Division Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan noted that the Supreme Court in its earlier decision had directed the Universities and Exam Boards to verify the certificates without charging any fees. As per this decision, the requisition to get the certificates verified should be done by the respective State Bar Councils.
ESI's Refusal To Reimburse Medical Expenses On Minor Technical Grounds Arbitrary: Kerala HC
Case Title: Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
A Single Judge Bench of Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court ruled against the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in a medical reimbursement case. The court held that ESIC's refusal to reimburse expenses for an emergency liver transplantation on grounds such as non-submission of an 'emergency certificate' was hyper-technical and arbitrary. It ruled that once the factum of treatment is established and supported by certified records, reimbursement cannot be denied for minor procedural technicalities.
Case Title: Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
While considering whether cross-examination of witnesses present in court can be done from a remote point, the Kerala High Court said that the courts can allow advocates to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing mode.
Justice V. G. Arun said that courts need not deny such request just because it is not expressly allowed in Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021. The Court however added that the permission need not be granted as a right but can be allowed if there are valid reasons.
Case Title: Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
While refusing to order CBI probe into former Kannur ADM Naveen Babu's death, the Kerala High Court today observed that accused merely having ties with the ruling political dispensation is not ground to transfer investigation from the hands of the State investigation agency.
However, Justice Kauser Edappagath observing that victim has the right to take part in the investigation of the crime (Jagjeet Singh and Others v Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Anr (2022)) and the right to be informed about the progress in the investigation within 90 days (Section 193(3) of BNSS), the Court asked the SIT to inform Babu's wife about the progress of investigation.
Case Title: Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Kerala High Court on Monday (6th January) expressed strong condemnation against DC Books, Kottayam for issuing a public notice regarding release of CPI(M) Central Committee Member and former LDF Convenor EP Jayarajan's alleged autobiography, without his consent.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan however "reluctantly" granted anticipatory bail to Sreekumar AV, the publication's Senior Deputy Editor, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another (2014).
Case Title: John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Kerala High Court has said that as per Rule 4 of Appendix XII A of Kerala Service Rules (KSR), officers who opt for Leave Without Allowance, can lose chances of promotion which may arise, only during the period of leave and not thereafter.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar in its order said, "Rule 4 itself explicitly limits the consequences provided therein as to the chances of promotion only 'during the currency of the period of leave'. In other words, the said rule states only that the officers shall lose the promotion chances as may arise with reference to their seniority in the post from which they proceeded on leave, during the currency of the period of leave, and not thereafter".
Case Title: Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
The Kerala High Court has recently said that a complainant can seek her a copy of her own statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC in order to prefer a protest petition.
After perusing the contents of the refer report, Justice C Jayachandran rejected the argument of the prosecution that the report is not final and that it can be investigated further on after collecting new evidence. It said:
"It is true that in every case, further investigation can be conducted, if new evidence surfaces, as enabled by Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. However, such an option on the eventuality of surfacing new material cannot affect the finality of a refer report/final report under Section 173(8), as things stand established as of the moment. "
Case Name: Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Justice C. S. Dias Court on Monday (January 6) reiterated that in light of the State amendment made to Section 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act, a person nominated as an executor can establish their right over wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians without obtaining a probate.
For context, Section 213 states that an executor of a Will can only establish his/her right after probate of the Will is granted by the competent Court. Probate is essentially a legal process declaring the validity of a Will and granting a right to administer the deceased's estate. However, the State amendment to the Act which came into force in 1997 inserted that “this section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians”.
Case Name: Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
Justice C. S. Dias (on January 06) observed that though, under the Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision to stay the execution of an order passed by the District or State Commission, the Commissions possess inherent power to stay the same.
Case name: R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA and Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 6) observed that a man making comments about a woman's body structure calling it “fine” prima facie amounts to a sexually coloured remark.
Justice A Badharudeen thus refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner for offences including Section 354A(1)(iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Act).
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court has observed that Section 19 of POCSO Act which mandates reporting of POCSO offence is not carved out as an exception to Section 197 CrPC which pertains to requirement of sanction to prosecute public servants.
In doing so Justice K. Babu observed that Section 197 CrPC/Section 218 BNSS are meant to safeguard the public servants from being dragged into vexatious proceedings while discharging official duty.
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court (on December 20) observed that the mandate of reporting offences provided under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not of an official character and the person has to report it in his personal capacity.
Case Name: Uvais Muhammad K.C. And Another V. State Of Kerala And Another.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Justice C. S. Dias held that permission to donate human organs cannot be rejected unless there is cogent material to establish a commercial element.
In doing so the court added that if the donor claims that the donation is made purely out of altruism, their statement must be accepted if there is no credible evidence to prove the contrary.
Case : Harish Kumar KP v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
In an important judgment, the Kerala High Court held that vehicles with Bharat (BH) registration have to pay the motor vehicle tax as per the rates prevailing in the State where the registration is sought. The Court held that the Central Government does not have the power to prescribe the rate of motor vehicle tax for BH series vehicles, as motor vehicle taxation is a subject falling within the domain of the States.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh delivered this significant verdict in a batch of writ petitions filed by vehicle owners who were aggrieved by the Kerala Motor Vehicle Department's refusal to register their vehicles under the BH series without paying the State's tax.
Case Name: MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court (on January 08) observed that the principle of res ipsa loquitur (accident speaks for itself) can be extended to criminal cases, only as an aid for assessment of evidence. The maxim does not embody any rule of substantive law nor a rule of evidence., said the Court.
The Bench of Justice K Babu observed thus while acquitting an accused, convicted of rash and negligent driving. It was the prosecution's case that the accused was a driver of a private bus. He drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit a KSRTC bus. The accident, inter-alia, caused causing death of two persons who were travelling in the KSRTC bus. The Trial Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and concluded that the private bus went to the wrong side of the road. Thus, the present revision petition was filed before the High Court.
The Court observed that the document relied upon by the magistrate contained the facts that the investigating officer saw at the scene. However, the officer did not give any evidence regarding the place of occurrence.
Case Title: The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an appeal by the Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The bench upheld an Arbitration Court's order to pay full back wages to a former employee. The court held that employers bear the burden of proving that the employee was gainfully employed during his suspension period. In the absence of such proof, the court ruled that illegally terminated employees are entitled to full compensation.
Case Title: Abad Builders Private Limited v State of Kerala and Others & other connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Kerala High Court has declared Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules framed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 levying a fee for the area of a building exceeding 3000 square feet proposed in lands falling under the Act as ultra vires.
Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. directed that no such fee shall be demanded from the petitioners while considering the building permits of the petitioners. The Court added that if any such fee is already collected, it shall be refunded to the petitioners within 4 months.
Case Title: Sajeev N. & Others v Anumol P. S. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
The High Court held that the Government was within its powers under Rule 39 of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR) while giving extra chance to State Government employees who had not passed the departmental test necessary for promotion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government passed this order after getting representations from employees that they could not attend the test due to the Covid-19 outbreak and thereby lost their seniority to those who already passed the test.
Case Title: Stephin Raj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court held that a Court while considering a discharge plea cannot consider any documents beyond the prosecution record.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus refused to accept the argument of the petitioner that the trial court did not consider one of the documents produced by him which is not part of the prosecution records while considering the discharge plea.
“The scope and ambit of discharge shall not be available beyond prosecution records and the court cannot look into any document other than the prosecution records, either presented by the accused or by any other means which do not form part of the prosecution records, while considering the plea of discharge."
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (14th January) granted bail to Boby Chemmanur in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam Movie actress. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2013) which said that bail shall be granted if the maximum sentence for the offence is less than 7 year. The Court had said that the petitioner shall not commit an offence of the similar nature, or otherwise, the bail will be cancelled.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan while granting bail observed that there was a prima facie case against the petition. “Prima facie I am of the opinion that that there are ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is using words with double meanings. Any Malayalee who reads the First Information Statement can easily understand all the words used by the petitioner are with double meanings. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that prima facie, the ingredients of the offences are attracted."
Body Shaming Not Acceptable In Society : Kerala High Court
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has condemnded body shaming, saying that it's not acceptable in the society.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan made these comments in the order granting bail to businessman Boby Chemmanur in a case for making sexually coloured remarks against an actor.
The Court observed : “Before concluding, I am forced to say that body shaming is not acceptable in our society. Comments about the body of a person as too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall, too dark, too black etc. should be avoided. There is a sense that we are all “too something”, and we are all “not enough”. This is life. Our bodies will change, our minds will change and our hearts will change. Everybody should be vigilant while making comments about others, whether they are men or women. I leave it there.”
Case Title: Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala & other case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that registration of multiple first information reports by same person against the same accused on same set of allegations would result in abuse of process of law and violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that multiple FIR's would result in multiple proceedings against the same accused for same offences. The Court observed that second FIR is only permissible against the same accused for commission of entirely different offence which was not covered under the first FIR.
Kerala High Court Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Actor-Comedian KR Jayachandran In POCSO Case
Case Title: K R Jayachandran v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (January 14) dismissed the pre arrest bail application filed by Malayalam actor and comedian K R Jayachandran for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a four year old minor.
He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB of IPC and under Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) and 5(p) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is alleged that the actor applied his fingers and tongue upon the genitals of the minor and committed penetrative sexual assault.
Case Title: X. v Y and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
While hearing a man's plea challenging the amount of maintenance ordered to be given to his ex-wife and four children, the Kerala High Court reiterated that a man/obligant who is capable of earning and has no physical incapacities, cannot take the defence of having "no resources" to maintain the beneficiaries.
A division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said: “Our view which is nothing novel – having been cemented by the Supreme Court through the years – is firmly that, when the maintenance claimed is the most essential for beneficiaries to sustain, the defence of “no resource” is untenable, particularly when the obligant is capable of earning, without any physical incapacitation.”
Case Title: Rahul Rai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that mushroom or magic mushroom cannot be treated as a scheduled narcotic or psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan referred to Karnataka High Court decision in Saeidi Mozdheh Ehsan v. State of Karnataka and Madras High Court decision in S. Mohan v. State through The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, to state that mushroom cannot be considered as a mixture but only as a fungi.
Malayalam Abuse 'P***di Mone' Means 'Son Of Sex Worker', Not Casteist Slur : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sarath K S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Kerala High Court has held that the Malayalam phrase- 'pulayadi mone', meaning 'son of a prostitute' is not a castiest slur to attract an offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice C S Sudha observed thus, “Going by the dictionary meaning, the word പുലയടി മോനെ means son of a prostitute. That being so, the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 is right in saying that the same is not a casteist slur.”
Case Title: Benny Mathew & Ors. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings of mischief alleged against Apartment Owners Welfare Association for disconnecting water supply distribution over unpaid water charges. The Court stated that every interference with distribution of water supply would not amount to an act of mischief under Section 430 of the IPC. Section 430 of the IPC deals with diminution of supply of water. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the acts of the petitioners would not amount to mischief as disconnection of water supply was reconnected soon after payment of defaulted arrears.
Case Title: Kerala Coastal Zone Mangement Authority v P. M. Sukhilesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Dharmadam Grama Panchayat seeking to construct a public crematorium in a site of mangrove forest.
The Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) had given permission to construct the crematorium in the area. However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the permission itself mentions that the site falls under CRZ-I.
Case Title: Siji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a wholesale dealer of tobacco-free pan masala, 'Vimal and Shikkar Pan Masala' who sought a direction to authorities at Muthanga and Valayar Check Posts to allow the transportation of her Pan Masala from Karnataka and New Delhi to Kerala for sale.
Justice C S Dias stated that merely because petitioner claims that her Pan Masala does not contain tobacco is not a ground to desist authorities from exercising their powers under the Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 2003.
Case Title: V.Karthyayani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Kerala High Court has held that the allegations against the relatives of the husband cannot be generally viewed as false, as a thumb rule without addressing them.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that general and sweeping allegations of cruelty against the relatives of husband are insufficient to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and there must be specific allegations with certainty. The Court stated that allegations must be evaluated on a case to case basis.
Case Name: Mariya P.P And Others V. Nalupurayil Kadeeja
Citation: 25 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Kerala High Court, while deciding eviction proceedings, reiterated that even when the tenant acquires a share of the leasehold property, the other co-owners can maintain an action against him since the lease continues to exist. In such cases, the consent of such a tenant, having a fractional interest in the property, is immaterial. The Bench of Justices A.Muhamed Mustaque and P. Krishna Kumar also highlighted that while co-owners need to be parties to such an eviction petition, their consent may be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Case Name: Kabeer C. V. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to provide reservations to transgender persons within six months in educational institutions and for public employment.
In its order dated 28 November 2024, which was made available on the HC website only today, a division bench of Justices A.Muhamed Mustaque and P. Krishna Kumar said that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in National Legal Services Authority, the matter does not lie completely within the executive's domain. The Court also highlighted the necessity to pass a direction by noting “continued inaction by the Government”.
Case Name: X V. State Of Kerala and other
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court recently (on January 06) held that criminal proceedings in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault cannot be quashed, even at the instance of a victim.
The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen thus dismissed the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the victim/ complainant, seeking quashing of proceedings against the accused for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
Case Title: Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Kerala High Court has held that interim release of goods can be ordered pending adjudication of notice under section 130 GST Act in lieu of fine.
The Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “….the adjudication can be proceeded even if the goods are released pending adjudication. Even if confiscation is ordered, there is an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation…..”
GST Act | Notification Not Needed For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials : Kerala High Court
Case Name: Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
In a significant judgment having a wide impact on several pending cases, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 15) ruled that separate notification is not necessary for the cross-empowerment of State officials under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Dr AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran delivered this significant judgment while answering a reference made to it by a single bench.
Case Name: Muhammed V. Raveendran Nair And Others.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
The Kerala High Court (on January 14), while refusing to order a joint trial of suits, observed that the Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits. Instead, its necessity is governed by equity, justice, convenience and necessity. Further, the Court may consider the principle of prejudice while ordering a joint trial.
“The Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits or other proceedings. Equity, justice, convenience and necessity govern the question of whether the joint trial of suits or other proceedings is required or not. The principle of prejudice may also be taken into account when the court orders a joint trial.”
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Kerala High Court has said that medical evidence showing that hymen is intact by itself would not prove that there was no penetrative sexual assault or coitus.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus dismissed a criminal revision petition of the petitioner on finding that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case that he kidnapped the minor child with intent to sexually assault her.
Case Name: Yamnuna Kumari v The Sub-Registrar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Kerala High Court has held that the bank's insistence for a court declaration on the validity of a sale deed before sanctioning a loan on the property of a minor, sold without approval from the District Court as mandated under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Justice C S Dias noted that Section 8 (2) of the Act mandates that minor's property shall not be sold without obtaining prior permission from the District Court.
Case name: Shoyab K.A and another v. State of Kerala and others., WP(C) NO. 15097 OF 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
The Kerala High Court observed that reservation provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act is confined to the posts which are identified by the government for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 33.
At the outset, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the petitioners have a normal promotional avenue to the post of Assistant Registrar / Deputy Registrar / Joint Registrar. However, the promotional posts have not been identified as suitable for granting reservations to persons with disabilities. Thus, unless the university does not identify higher promotional posts, such as those of the petitioners, the petitioner could not claim any legal right for promotion.
Case Title: Leena V. A. v The State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
The Kerala High Court held that the managers of aided school have an obligation to appoint 'protected teachers' only when they are already provided with the list of 'protected teachers'
Justice K. Babu noted that unless the vacancy is filled the Manager will not be able to conduct the school in a proper manner. He observed that while the Manager has the obligation to appoint a protected teacher, the system should not be stretched so much as to deny the approval of the appointment of a qualified teacher, especially in a vacancy which arose out of retirement.
Case Title: Abhijit George v Assistant Sub Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The Kerala High Court has observed that the public often shows reluctance to become witnesses, and stated that the testimony of police officers can be admissible, if they are found to be reliable and trustworthy.
A single judge bench of Justice M. B. Snehalatha further held testimony of police officer should not be viewed with distrust solely because he is a witness from the Department of Police.
Diocese Cannot Claim Insurance Over Death Of A Priest: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Fr. Mathew Paikada
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
Kerala High Court held that a “Diocese is not entitled to claim compensation for the death of a deceased priest.”
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar made this observation in an appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of insurance money to the Diocese over the death of a priest from road accident. The deceased was travelling in a motor bike when he was hit by a lorry and succumbed to the injuries.
Case Title: M/S.Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. V. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 41
The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Dr A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. held that if the parties choose to refer to a singular point for arbitration, then the arbitral tribunal cannot proceed to decide on all disputes. On the contrary, if the parties agree to arbitrate on the entire disputes, then the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide the entire dispute and not a specific dispute.
Sale Deed Cannot Be Unilaterally Cancelled: Kerala High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Ammini v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that there cannot be unilateral cancellation of a sale deed.
Justice Gopinath P. relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P (2016) and the high court's decision in Noble John v State of Kerala (2010).
Case Title: Abdul Salam v State Of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Kerala High Court while dismissing the appeals of two men who were convicted and sentenced to three year imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 377 of IPC for sexually abusing a minor boy, observed that the victim's testimony cannot be termed as deviant or unreliable merely because he smoked.
Justice C S Sudha dismissed the men's appeals on finding that there is no reason to disbelieve the boy and only because the boy had admitted that he used to smoke, would not be a ground to conclude that he is of a deviant character.
Case Title: DIG K. Janardhanan v Union of India and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
The Kerala High Court dismissed the challenge against the dismissal of a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of the Coast Guard after the vessel on which he was the Commanding Officer (Designate) collided with a fishing boat and caused the death of 5 fishermen and 1 fisherman missing.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon noted that there was no vessel stationed around the place when the accident occurred. Cort observed that this negates the petitioner's argument that the vessel was not involved in the accident. The post-mortem report of the 5 fishermen showed that the cause of death was head injury which they might have suffered during the collision. The Court said that the if the vessel had stopped and they carried out a search and rescue as provided under the Act, the death could have been prevented. As per, Section 14(2)(b) of the Coast Guard Act, it is the duty of coast man to provide protection to fisherman including assistance to them while in distress.
Case Title: XX v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the mother of two girls–who were allegedly raped and killed in Walayar in 2017–against the Integrity Certificate issued by the State to Superintendent of Police M J Sojan, who probed the case.
Refusing to interfere, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the Selection Committee of UPSC has the power to examine the aspect of integrity independently.
Case Title: Sakkir Husain v Binu Madhu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it can exercise jurisdiction over the order of Compensation Commissioner when there is lack of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship, which is a jurisdictional fact to be established, for the Commissioner to exercise its jurisdiction.
Justice T. R. Ravi set aside the order of the Employees Compensation Commissioner on the finding that no employer-employee relationship was proved between the appellant and respondent. The Court reached the above conclusion by relying upon decisions in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022), C. Manjamma & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022) and Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2016).
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.”
Case Title: Manikandan N P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
The Kerala High Court clarified that if bail application of an accused is allowed, then the bail application of co-accused in the same crime cannot be denied without giving sufficient reasons for denial.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan ordered that Trial Courts must exercise clarity while considering bail applications for maintaining judicial discipline.
Case Title: B.G.Krishnamurthy v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Kerala High Court has held that the geographical restrictions on escort visits of prisoners to see their family–restricting it to within the state except in the case of death of near relatives, are based on practical considerations and do not violate prisoners' fundamental rights.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that escort visits fall within the State's policy domain and would depend on the State's capacity to provide accompanying police officers, transportation, distance and financial resources.
Case Title: James (Unsound Mind) v Sajeevan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Kerala High Court has held that legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation for 'pain and suffering' endured by a deceased motor accident victim.
In doing so, Justice C Pratheep Kumarrelied on Section 2 of the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1977 which provides that all causes of action on account of personal claim would survive to the legal heirs.
Case Title: Dr. T. Ambujakshi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Kerala High Court has asked the investigating officers to be extra cautious while implicating doctors as accused for failing to report commission of crime against minor under Section 19 read with read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
The Court further stated that arraying doctors mechanically in criminal proceedings as accused is absolute injustice and causes mental trauma to doctors which would prevent them from discharging their duties.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus ordered that unwarranted implication of doctors in POCSO cases must be avoided unless there is deliberate intention or omission to report the commission of a crime.
Case Name: M/S. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd. V. General Manager, District Industries Centre And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Recently, the Kerala High Court observed that the lands allotted by the State Government in the industrial area are to promote industrial growth and a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted to cancel the allotment. The Court was referring to the Kerala Allotment of Government Land in Development Areas on Hire Purchase For Industrial Purpose Rules, 1969.
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu said that the focus should be on proper utilisation of the land allotted for industrial use. However, unutilised lands would defeat the purpose of industrial growth.
Case Title: Haseena v Suhaib
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a Muslim wife who is residing separately from her husband for contracting second marriage is not disentitled from claiming maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that even though Muslim law permits husband to contract second marriage during subsistence of first marriage, the husband is bound to treat both the wives equally.
Case Title: Bindumol A T v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no provision under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act of 2016 for the appointment of a permanent guardian for a person with mental disability.
Justice C.S. Dias clarified that this is because the office of guardianship operates on a mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with a disability, intended for a specific purpose or situation.
Case Title: Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Kerala High Court today closed the writ petition filed by late Gopan Swami's family (wife and children) after exhumation of his body from the Samadhi site.
His family had approached the High Court against the order of the District Administration, permitting the exhumation of the body.
Today, when the matter was taken up, Justice C.S.Dias noted that the body has been exhumed as per the District Collector's order.
Case Title: M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to consider the inadequacy of sentence imposed on a person under Section 58 of the NDPS Act who falsely implicate innocent persons in NDPS cases. The Court stated that false implication in NDPS cases has severe consequences and can ruin someone's life.
The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking bail for providing false information to the detecting officer, which led to a woman being wrongly implicated in an NDPS case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. This section provides imprisonment for 10 years, extendable to 20 years.
Crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 58 (2) which imposes penalty of two years imprisonment for wilfully and maliciously giving information to cause vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act. Justice
P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registry to send the copy of this order to the Union Government. “False accusations are the most malignant and venomous of all calumnies. Hence, sentences to be imposed by a court of law in such cases should be fair, proportionate and just. The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence. If there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these type of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to do the needful in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Kerala High Court stated that a two-week prior notice must be given before taking any coercive steps against Rahul Easwar if any case alleging non-bailable offences is registered against him by the Malayalam film actress.
Rahul Easwar had allegedly made adverse comments about the actress's dressing style while discussing the Boby Chemmanur case in news channel debates. Boby Chemmanur is currently on bail in the case of sexual harassment filed by the actress.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan passed the above order in the bail petition moved by Rahul Easwar on finding that at present no case is registered against him.
Case Title: Ismail Kunju M v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Kerala High Court held that a person's request for kidney transplantation cannot be rejected in a routine and pedantic manner since it directly affects their right to life and health. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that the Authorisation Committee while rejecting application for kidney transplantation must consider each application on its merits and give reasons in writing before rejecting application, rather than generalising that all organ transplantations are part of large-scale commercial transactions.
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-authorisation-committee-organ-transplantation-commercial-transactions-reasons-writing-282248
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”
Case Title: Bhoopathi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Kerala High Court has directed the Sessions Court to complete trial into the murder of Abhimanyu, a SFI leader who was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharajas College in Ernakulam. The direction comes in the plea moved by deceased's mother, stating that the case was pending for six years and there was no progress.
Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered thus, “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considering the report, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, to dispose of S.C.No. 1068 of 2018 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Case Title: Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
The Kerala High Court has held that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.
Considering the facts of the case, Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the wife who has a temporary job and is living in a rented house with a dependent daughter, is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.
Case Title: Abdul Azeez K P v The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
The Kerala High Court has held that as per Section 6 (2)(e) of the Passports Act of 1967, passport authority cannot refuse passport to a person held guilty of offence involving moral turpitude, if he has not been convicted within five years preceding the date of filing the passport application.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was convicted on December 31, 2015 for three years imprisonment, and passport application was filed on December 07, 2024.
Justice Gopinath P. allowed the writ petition and ordered that passport authority shall consider his application for passport without being influenced by his prior conviction.
Case Title: XX v The State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Kerala High Court held that the Children's Court has to conduct an inquiry as to whether a child can be tried as an adult even if the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) has already passed an order saying that the child can be tried so.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said that it is clear from the decision in Child in Conflict with law through his mother v State of Karnataka (2024) that it is mandatory that the Children's Court should conduct an inquiry to decide if the child deserves to be treated as an adult.
Case Title: Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Kerala High Court has clarified that before issuing notice to an accused named in the complaint, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as per Section 223 (1) of the BNSS.
It further clarified that as per first proviso to Section 223 (1), if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence, the accused should be given an opportunity of hearing.
Justice V.G. Arun observed that the first proviso of Section 223(1) of the BNSS introduced a "radical change," as the corresponding provision in the CrPC, Section 200, did not require the accused to be heard before taking cognizance. The first proviso to Section 223 (1) now mandates that the Magistrate must give the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence. The Court also stated that it is in agreement with the Karnataka High Court decision in Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) and Shivananda S Patil (2025).
Case Title: M/S. P S Enterprises Represented By Syed Najmuddin v The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
The Kerala High Court has held that notice and opportunity of hearing must be provided to persons before debarring or blacklisting them from future contracts.
Justice C.S. Dias further stated that debarring or blacklisting is a matter of serious concern and should not automatically follow every termination.
The bench added that termination of contract of a person is different from debarring or backlisting him since it disqualifies him from future contracts.
Case Title: K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
If elected representatives want to change political affiliation, then they must resign and face the mandate of the people again, observed the Kerala High Court. "If the elected representative wants to change his policy or political affiliation, he has to resign and face the mandate of the people again. That is the moral side of democracy. Otherwise, it will be a unilateral withdrawal from the bond executed with the people by the elected representative. It will be an insult to the will of the people. But the people can show their will to such a representative in the next election either by supporting him or by defeating him. That is the beauty of democracy."
The Court made this observation while granting bail to five persons accused of assaulting a lady councillor of Koothattukulam Nagara Sabha.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that both the LDF and UDF are trying to take the law into their own hands, instead of approaching the people in a democratic manner.
Case Title: Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that a notice to revive a stalled arbitration proceedings by appointing another arbitrator satisfies the mandate of Section 21 of the A&C Act.
The court observed that the questions relating to the validity of the partnership agreement cannot be looked into by a referral court. The Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) has limited the scope of the referral court to ascertain whether a Section 11 application has been filed within three years. The court cannot go into the arbitrability of the dispute, and such questions are for the tribunal to adjudicate.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v S. Sathikumari Amma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Kerala High Court held that an employee cannot make a representation that his legally wedded wife or other dependents are not entitled to claim the family pension.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar observed that family pension is not an estate or property of the employee and cannot be disposed of as per the will of the employee. “Family pension unlike the other pensionary benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc could not be a subject matter of testamentary disposition by the employee during his lifetime. In other words, an employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another nor he can nominate some other person for receiving family pension other than the one who is entitled to it.”
Case Title: P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Kerala High Court stated that showing undue leniency towards a government employee in disciplinary proceedings could undermine the essential discipline required in public service. Considering the facts of the case, the Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar stated that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the offences committed by the petitioner for misappropriation of money by manipulating sales records in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC).
Case Title: P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Kerala High Court bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu JJ. while hearing a writ petition has held that when an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government refuses to entertain an application u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Courts can entertain a petition under Article 226 to the limited extent of referring the dispute to arbitration. Section 3G(5) places a statutory obligation upon the District Collector, who acts as an arbitrator, to receive applications for adjudication of disputes relating to the determination of compensation.
Case Title: Dr. K. B. Bindu v The Kannur University and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Kerala High Court cancelled the selection of Assistant Professors in Kannur University made by the Selection Committee partly chaired by the former Vice Chancellor Gopinath Ravindran. In-midst of the selection process, on November 30, 2023 the Supreme Court had set aside the appointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the VC of the University.
Justice N. Nagaresh said that the VC could not have substituted himself in the Selection process in the midway. The Court held that if the Chairman could not preside over the Selection Committee due to some reason, the appropriate step would have been to cancel the interview process already held and subject all the candidates to a fresh interview process by a reconstituted Committee.
Case Title: Arunkumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, particularly the first proviso thereof, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners.
For context, Section 479 BNSS deals with the maximum period of time for which a undertrial prisoner can be detained. The first proviso stipulates that a first-time offender shall be released on bond if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence alleged.
Justice C. S. Sudha noted that the Supreme Court by an order in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has made Section 479 retrospectively applicable to undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. The High Court said that the Apex Court has not given the benefit of the Section to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court said it cannot extend the benefit to convicts.