Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 - 62]Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker)...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 - 62]
Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
Suresh K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37
Hari v. The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
Esai Clara v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
XXX v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education v. Karthik Dev R. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
Umesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
Judgment/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, directed the Union government to comply with a 2009 Delhi High Court order and decide if the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam) is governed by the Companies Act or the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha set aside the Single bench judgment, which had set aside a 1974 government order that granted exemption to the Yogam, a company registered under the 1882 Companies Act.
Case Title: Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
The Kerala High Court has held that a reasonable delay in initiating proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) does not snap the statutory “live link” required for externment.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an externment order issued against a person classified as a “known goonda”.
Case Title: Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the State Government to constitute a multi-departmental committee to regulate and monitor sand and soil removal at the Thottappally Spillway in Alappuzha, stressing that flood-control measures cannot be carried out at the cost of ecological destruction, particularly in sensitive coastal zones and turtle nesting habitats.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. disposed of two connected writ petitions which challenged an order issued by the Alappuzha District Collector under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, permitting large-scale removal of sand and vegetation from the Thottappally Spillway to facilitate flood mitigation in the Kuttanad region.
Case Title: Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
In an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court recently directed the Railway Claims Tribunal to follow Rules 181 of the Civil Rules of Practice so as to incorporate proper appendices to all its orders.
Justice S. Manu observed that the Tribunal's judgments generally do not contain any attachment showing the witnesses examined and documents marked and due to this, there is difficulty in understanding whether the documents on records were marked or not.
Case Title: Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
Relying on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Kerala High Court recently held that a divorced Muslim woman can invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 144 BNSS to claim maintenance from former husband even if he had discharged his obligations under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that when a Muslim divorced woman approaches the Family Court invoking Section 125 Cr.PC./Section 144 BNSS even after receiving benefits under the Muslim Women Protection Act, the Family Court cannot automatically dismiss the application but has to examine whether she is still able to support herself.
Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed a plea challenging Sections 2(c) (i), 14, 16 and 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also refused to declare that Section 16 was applicable to judges of the superior courts, and that Section 17(5) has to be read along with the constitutional guarantee of right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks or financial institutions to extend the benefit of a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme.
A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S dismissed a writ appeal filed by borrowers and upheld the decision of a single judge refusing to interfere with recovery proceedings initiated by a co-operative bank.
Case Title: Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
The Kerala High Court recently held that there cannot be any discrimination between the children of the brother and those of the sister of a convict while granting emergency leave to attend their marriage.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that almost all the Jail Superintendents in the State have been rejecting applications for emergency leaves of convicts to attend their brother's children's marriage.
Case Title: Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
The Kerala High Court has held that a female heir, who otherwise had no inheritance rights under pre-1956 Hindu law, can acquire valid title through a voluntary partition deed executed by family members.
Justice Easwaran S. held that a registered partition deed consciously conferring a share on a female heir cannot be ignored on the ground that she lacked an antecedent right of inheritance under the Mitakshara law.
Case Title: XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court recently held that a victim's appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be summarily dismissed when there is no prima facie material to show that victim has an arguable case.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the provision for summary dismissal of appeals provided under Section 425 would also apply to the appeals under Section 413.
Case Title: Suresh K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, laid down that the provision under the Juvenile Justice Act/Rules is only one of the modes to determine the age of a victim of a POCSO offence.
After examining Section 34 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the decisions of the Division Bench in Silvester Pigaruz v. State of Kerala (2024) and Biju v. State of Kerala (2024), Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The POCSO Act does not stipulate in section 34(2) that when the victim is a child, age can be determined only as per the law relating to juveniles…”
Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
The Kerala High Court enhanced the notional income of an accident victim who was employed abroad and had sought compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, based on certain factual aspects even though the claimant had failed to produce salary certificate as per Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering two appeals filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, one filed by the insurance company and the other by the claimant/victim of the accident.
Case Title: V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be accorded without hearing the public servant concerned when the request is made by a person other than a police officer or other law enforcement authority.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a plea preferred by a person who was directed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to obtain sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act to proceed with his complaint against the officers of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Counsel, Kerala (V.F.P.C.K), including the HR Manager-In-Charge. These persons were also arrayed in the plea as respondents.
Case Title: Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court recently held that the District Authority can reject an application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for not maintaining minimum distance from schools and other public places in accordance with the Central Pollution Control Board's guidelines.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim added that since a playground is integral to the functioning of schools, the distance from the school's compound wall and not its building has to be considered while considering the minimum distance.
Case Title: Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that a victim cannot filed a second appeal against the acquittal of an accused by seeking special leave from the High Court as per Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu and Another, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“It is evident from the above observations itself that once the appellate remedy is invoked by the victim, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as in the form of a second appeal.”
Case Title: P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Kerala High Court has held that the existence of a civil decree for recovery of loan dues does not negate criminal liability for conspiracy and misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that criminal culpability must be assessed independently of civil remedies
Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed for misappropriation and conspiracy.
Case Title: Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
While dealing with an inter-religious marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the Kerala High Court has held that if a spouse wishes to convert their religion, an additional entry can be incorporated in the marriage register to record his/her new name.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registrar of Marriages, Panchayat Secretary concerned and other authorities to incorporate an additional entry in the marriage register and to issue a new marriage certificate with the wife's new name in this case, after her conversion from Hinduism to Islam.
Kerala High Court Absolves Actor Mohanlal In Manappuram Finance False Advertisement Case
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court has absolved actor Mohanlal from liability in a consumer case alleging unfair trade practice by Manappuram Finance for demanding higher interest than what was advertised by it.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that as long as the actor was only the brand ambassador of Manappuram and did not, in any manner, persuade to avail their services, liability cannot be fastened against him.
Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. however clarified that an action may lie against a brand ambassador/endorser under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act for false or misleading advertisements.
Kerala High Court Strikes Down Devaswom Recruitment Board's Power Over Guruvayoor Appointments
Case Title: Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (KDRB Act) which empowers the KDRB to prepare select lists for the appointment of candidates to various posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom posts is unconstitutional.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V M were considering an appeal filed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and others, challenging the relevant provisions of the KDRB Act.
Case Title: Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a magistrate taking cognizance based on a protest complaint must consider the refer report filed by the police and pass a speaking order.
Referring to the decisions in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran [2009 (1) KLT 794] and C.R. Chandran v. State of Kerala [ILR 2024 (3) Ker. 245], Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed:
“Therefore, it is evident that while taking cognizance of an offence based on a private complainant, especially one filed as a protest complaint against a refer report filed by the police, the Magistrate shall take into consideration the refer report as well. Further, it should be a speaking order, containing the materials justifying the order taking cognizance, as held by this court in the decisions referred above.”
Pre-Deposit For Filing SARFAESI Appeal Must Be Paid To Tribunal, Not Lending Bank: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the mandatory pre-deposit required to file an appeal under the SARFAESI Act must be paid to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and not to the lending bank.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Kerala Gramin Bank, setting aside a single judge's order that had directed the borrower to deposit money with the bank itself in order to pursue its appeal before the DRAT.
Kerala High Court Directs State To Pay ₹14 Lakh Compensation To NRI Man & Kin For Wrongful Detention
Case Title: V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to pay Rs. 14 Lakhs compensation to a NRI man and family after he was imprisoned for a period of 54 days in judicial custody based on false charges.
Justice P.M. Manoj awarded Rs. 10 lakhs to the man and Rs. 1 lakh each to four of his family members as a compensation for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment faced by them at the hands of the police officers.
Case Title: Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr.
Citation: , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court recently held that the names of the complainant and the accused cannot be substituted at the appellate stage by an amendment application as there is no enabling provision in the CrPC, specially when the amendment plea was moved 27 years after filing of the complaint.
Justice Johnson John was considering an appeal filed by the complainant in a cheque dishonour case challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Case Title: Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per the Petroleum Rules, 2002, when the licensee of a petroleum outlet loses the right to the site for storing petroleum due to expiry of lease period, the license gets automatically cancelled without any need for a formal order.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that in such cases, license can be cancelled without granting an opportunity of hearing to the licensee.
Case Title: Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that non-conduct of test identification parade taken along with other vitiating factors would render as suspect the testimony of eyewitnesses.
The Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“Although it is trite that an identification in a TI parade is not substantive evidence and that the non-holding of a TI parade will not vitiate a dock identification [Vinod alias Nasmulla v. State of Chattisgarh – [(2025) 4 SCC 312], considering the fact that the dock identification of the accused by the witnesses above was not free from doubt, a TI Parade would have proved useful to corroborate the dock identification done by PW1 and PW5 in the instant case. For our part, we are of the view that the non-conduct of a TI Parade, taken together with the other vitiating factors discussed above with regard to the conduct of the aforementioned witnesses, rendered their testimony as eye-witnesses to the incident suspect and unworthy of acceptance vis-a-vis the identification of the accused.”
Case Title: Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the limits of amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that a plaint cannot be amended after completion of evidence to introduce a claim that has already been decided on merits in an earlier suit between the same parties.
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish, delivered the judgment in a miscellaneous first appeal.
Case Title: Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Kerala High Court has recently (12 January) observed that a judge cannot assume the role of a Public Prosecutor by usurping into the counsel's powers.
The observation was made by a division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar while setting aside the life sentence imposed on an accused convicted of murder, holding that the entire trial stood vitiated due to gross denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial.
Case Title: Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision quashed an order made by the Special Judge (Vigilance) directing investigation into a complaint and the FIR registered against a public servant after noting that prior sanction as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not received.
Justice A. Badharudeen relegated the case back to the pre-cognizance stage and directed the Special Judge to insist of the production of sanction under the PC Act in order to proceed further with the complaint.
Case Title: Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court recently held that a Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the profits of the property of her husband even after its transfer, if the transfer was effected subsequent to initiation of legal proceedings for maintenance or if there is evidence showing that the transferee was aware of her claim at the time of sale.
The Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan and G. Girish clarified that in such cases, the wife's right for maintenance will get the protection and privilege of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act/Section 28 of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, which deals with the protection of a third person's right to maintenance from the profits of an immovable property irrespective of the transfer of that property.
Case Title: Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
The Kerala High Court quashed a Government order rejecting by-transfer appointments to Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) posts, observing that 25% by-transfer quota under Kerala Education Rules must be calculated on the sanctioned strength of posts and not on the vacancies arising in an academic year.
Justice N. Nagaresh in his order said that any administrative interpretation applying the quota to yearly vacancies instead of the total sanctioned posts would be contrary to Rule 4(3) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules and therefore legally unsustainable. Rule 4(3) prescribes method of appointment of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior).
Case Title: Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court has held that no fresh notification under Section 1(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is required to apply the Act, when a Panchayat Area is converted to Municipality.
A Full Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice Gopinath P. and Justice G. Girish was answering a reference which arose from conflicting Division Bench decisions on whether the conversion of a Panchayat into a Municipality interrupts the applicability of the Rent Act unless the State Government issues a fresh notification amending Schedule I.
Victim's Statement Alone Can Sustain Charge Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that an accused cannot be discharged merely because the statements of the witnesses do not disclose ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.
Justice A. Badharudheen clarified that if the statement of the aggrieved person prima facie discloses the offence, then that would be sufficient.
Authorised Govt Officer's Complaint Necessary To Prosecute Notary: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act, a complaint by an officer authorized by the government concerned is necessary for taking cognizance of offence committed by a notary public exercising functions under the Act.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, after referring to the provision and noting non-compliance, set aside all further proceedings against a notary arrayed as an accused in a crime.
Case Title: Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that contributory negligence cannot be attributed on a victim of a motor accident merely because he was carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the insurer must bring in evidence showing that the act of carrying two pillion riders had a direct and proximate cause, connecting it with the accident.
Case Title: Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dismissal for default alone cannot justify the rejection of restoration plea citing lack of vigilance.
Justice T R Ravi made the observation in a petition challenging rejection of an application seeking restoration of execution proceedings, which were dismissed for default.
Kerala High Court Orders State Bar Council To Refund ₹5K Excess Enrolment Fee Collected From Lawyers
Case Title: Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 19) directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund the excess amount collected from seven lawyers to conduct their enrolments.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund to each of the petitioners the excess fee of Rs. 5000 collected from them within 2 weeks of receipt of the judgment.
Kerala Land Reforms Act | Article 226 Can Be Invoked To Divest Land Vested With Govt: High Court
Case Title: P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37
The Kerala High Court has recently held that while excess land vests absolutely in the Government upon issuance of an order under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act), the constitutional courts may still exercise its power under Article 226 to order divesting such land in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice and violation of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.
Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment.
S.399 IPC | Preparation For Dacoity Requires Five Or More Persons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hari v. The State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that a minimum of five persons are required to attract the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha looked into the definition of 'dacoity' provided under Section 391 IPC and observed:
“A reading of Section 391 of IPC would show that the essential or core ingredient of the offence of dacoity is that there should be five or more persons. Section 399 IPC deals with making preparation to commit dacoity and therefore, the numerical requirement applicable to dacoity is equally applicable to preparation for it. If the number is less than five, the offence of dacoity or the offence of preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 IPC will not attract. If fewer than five persons are involved, the preparation cannot be said to be for committing dacoity, because the numerical requirement of five or more persons mandatory under Section 391 IPC is equally applicable to Section 399 IPC.”
Case Title: Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The Kerala High Court recently directed the repatriation of two Srilankan citizens, who are the children of the accused persons in two cases being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering the plea preferred by the petitioners seeking a declaration that their continued detention in the Transit Home after a period of more than 2 years was illegal.
Case Title: Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
The Kerala High Court has held that a victim whether they are complainant or not has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal of accused without seeking leave of the High Court, however such appeal must be filed before the appropriate Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a woman's appeal under Section 413 BNSS challenging the acquittal of a man who was accused of offences under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty)and 354D (Stalking).
Case Title: Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala, A. Padmakumar v. State of Kerala, B. Murari Babu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 21) denied bail to Jeweller Roddam Govardhan and former Travancore Devaswom Board officials A. Padmakumar and Murari Babu, who are accused of misappropriating gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala.
Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order today in open court after reserving the verdict.
Case Title: Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Kerala High Court has recently (January 19) held that a person born outside the State cannot be denied a domicile certificate if their permanent residence and social belongingness are demonstrably in Kerala.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation in a plea challenging rejection of Petitioner's application for issuance of domicile certificate on the ground that he and his parents were born and brought up in Kolkata.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that sanction under Section 188 of CrPC is not required at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence committed outside India, while it is required for commencement of the trial.
Justice C Pratheep Kumar while dealing with a criminal revision petition observed,
"At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is not required, while it is required for commencement of the trial."
Case Title: Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
The Kerala High Court recently modified an externment order restraining a person from entering the Thrissur revenue district after finding that there was no reason assigned for passing the order for maximum period.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that an externment order would have a huge impact on the fundamental and personal rights of a person and therefore, while passing the maximum period, the authority must assign proper reasons for the same.
Case Title: Esai Clara v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (22 January) closed the plea by a law aspirant seeking reservation under the transgender category for admission to the Integrated Five Year LL.B Course in Government Law College, Kozhikode.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, closed the petition when it was informed that the petitioner has acquired admission at the Government Law College, Kozhikode
Case Title: Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to elections of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the Association is neither a public authority nor a body discharging public functions.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgement while dismissing a writ petition filed by a member of the KHCAA challenging the 2026 Association elections, including the voters' list, election notification, and the declaration of results.
Case Title: Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that since Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that Section 438 CrPC regarding pre-arrest bail is not applicable to persons committing offences under the Act, the same can be said about its corresponding provision, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering judgement in an appeal preferred under Section 14A of the Act against the Special Court's order denying bail to two persons accused of committing offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 110, 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.
Case Title: Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
The Kerala High Court has held that the title 'doctor' does not belong exclusively to medical professionals and that physiotherapists and occupational therapists can use the 'Dr.' prefix.
Justice V.G. Arun pronounced the judgment dismissing the pleas preferred by Indian Medical Association, Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) and its Secretary.
Case Title: Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 28) held that denial of compensatory leave to the Gazetted Officers of the High Court is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed:
“In High Court, the functional realities are materially different from other Government Departments. Administrative and judicial work continues even during major holidays such as Onam and Christmas. Even during holidays, vacation sittings are held, which require the full process of filing, scrutiny, allocation of cases, issue of orders and even clearing of pendency. Indexing and processing of disposed files are usually done during this holiday period. The Gazetted Officers of the High Court are required to supervise, coordinate and ensure completion of all such duties… It is declared that denial of compensatory leave to the Gazetted Officers of the High Court under Ext.P1 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Kerala High Court has held that a prosecution for making a false complaint under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is maintainable only if the alleged false information relates to offences under Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault), 5 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault), 7 (Sexual Assault) or 9 (Aggravated Sexual Assault) of the Act.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was delivering judgment in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against two persons who were charged under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for allegedly lodging a false complaint.
Kerala High Court Closes Pleas Against Sprinklr Deal, Says There Was No Data Sharing By State
Case Title: Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (28 January) closed a batch of writ petitions which questioned the data confidentiality of the State government's agreement with US-based data analytics firm Sprinklr Inc. for managing COVID-19 related data.
The division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M, confirmed the earlier directions issued by a division bench of the Court and held that the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic justified the State's actions, though procedural lapses were noted.
Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that casual or angry utterances made during a quarrel, without the requisite mens rea, do not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, was delivering the judgement in a criminal revision petition against a Sessions Court order rejecting the application for discharge.
Case Title: Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a confession made to the police by one accused cannot be used to convict a co-accused in the absence of an independent incriminating evidence.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering a judgment in a criminal revision petition filed by the second accused in a theft case. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 379 (theft) of IPC.
Case Title: XXX v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court recently held that the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) by the Kollam Bar Association was against the objective and requirement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act].
Justice P.M. Manoj reasoned that a bar association is not an 'employer' within the meaning of the Act and therefore, the ICC constituted is not in accordance with the Act.
Case Title: Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Kerala High Court has held that an order issued under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order), even if it permits cultivation of crops other than paddy, cannot be construed as permission under Clause 6(2) for conversion of land or for alteration of land tenure in revenue records
Justice P.M. Manoj was delivering a judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner claimed that an order issued under Clause 7 of the KLR Order would constitute a valid permission under Clause 6(2) of the Order.
Case Title: Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the Zamorin royal family, holding that disputes relating to rights arising from pre-Constitution covenants are barred from judicial scrutiny under Article 363 of the Constitution Of India.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar further held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain such a challenge and that none of the reliefs sought could be granted in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition with costs of ₹10,000.
Case Title: T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 30) granted pre-arrest bail to the chief editor of Crime Online, a YouTube Channel, who is accused of posting an obscene content involving Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to T.P. Nandakumar, who is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) for posting a video with a caption in Malayalam that translates to “What exactly did Pinarayi do by lifting Saritha Nair's skirt...the video is out”.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 29) issued guidelines for the effective and prompt reporting of the lapses, misconduct and malpractices in the religious institutions under the Travancore Devaswom Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of the report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner relating to the submission of periodical status report of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board.
Compromise Without Pre-Existing Rights Invalid In Service Inam Land Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the claimants who possess no pre-existing legal rights over Service Inam lands cannot enter into a binding compromise inter se, under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981. It has further held that the statutory authorities cannot abdicate their adjudicatory role by merely recording such settlements.
Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgement in a petition challenging a settlement order issued under Service Inam Lands Act.
Case Title: Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “desertion” under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 must be understood as desertion without reasonable cause, despite the absence of an express statutory qualifier.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar were disposing of matrimonial appeals arising from a common judgment of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.
Case Title: The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education v. Karthik Dev R. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
The Kerala High Court has held that the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala, being a statutory body exercising adjudicatory functions under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, cannot be treated as an “aggrieved person” entitled to maintain a writ appeal against a judgment setting aside its quasi-judicial orders.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that a quasi-judicial authority cannot challenge an order passed by a superior court interfering with its decision.
Case Title: Umesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man and his mother for allegedly committing the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after noting that there was no valid marriage between him and the complainant in view of the annulment made by a competent court.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a plea preferred by the husband and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant seeking to quash the proceedings against them.