Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417Nominal IndexSree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353Central Bureau of Investigation v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala, 2026...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Nominal Index
Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
Central Bureau of Investigation v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
Jojo Jose v. The Chief Secretary and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
X v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Tirur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Moideen M., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Thadevoos v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Superintendent of Police and Anr v. Sankaran Nair (Died) and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
Ramjith Nayak v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
Anil Kumar T v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Janardhana Shenoy K v. Kumbakudi Sudhakaran, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
Henna P.K and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
Adv. Sudheer P.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Sugathan R v. State of Kerala and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Vinu K.S. and Anr. v. Veena Viswan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
Muhammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
Sharestates, Inc. v. Prasad Choorakuzhiyil Gopalan & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
Tenny Joppen v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
Vasantha K. and Anr. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
Farasha Shabnam v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
Union of India v. Jose N.M. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Sukumaran P.N. v. Vimal K. Charles and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
Vinod Valiyatoor and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
K.P. Chandramohan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and Anr. v. Azhar K.M., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
Dr. Manoj T.R. v. University of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
Geetha v. State Police Chief and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
Dilha Jan Govindan v. State Bank of India and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Arun P.K v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
Union of India and Ors. v. K Sub Maj (Hony Capt) Mohnraj TK, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
Lamiya P v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
A v. B. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
C.D. Boby @ Dr. Boby Chemmanur v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
Bahadur Shah Anakkot Nasirali v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala Hockey v. Rajeev P.J. and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Ambika Mohanan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
N. Prakash v. Adv. Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
P. v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
V v. P and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
P. Gopinathan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v. Muhammed and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Shresha N. and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Ismail C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
A v. B., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Naman Ajay v. Union of India and Ors. and Karthika Sivaji v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Mubina Muhamed K.M and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
Anju Mary Francis v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Anil Kumar P.R v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Eruvessy Grama Panchayath v. Tankappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
Dipin Edavana v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Mar Joseph Pamplany v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
Joshy K.J. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
X v. The State Medical Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Judgments / Orders This Month
Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Conferment Of Padma Bhushan To Vellappally Natesan
Case Title: Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 1) refused to interfere with the conferment of Padma Bhushan award to SNDP General Secretary Vellappally Natesan.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a public interest litigation moved by Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi seeking a direction for quashing the conferment of Padma Bhushan to Natesan.
Special Court Under PMLA Is Legally Competent To Try Scheduled Offence After Committal: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is legally competent to try a scheduled offence once the case is committed to it under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act, even if that court is not independently notified to try the particular offence.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging an order transferring a Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) case from the Special CBI Court, Ernakulam, to the Special PMLA Court at Kozhikode for a joint trial with the connected money laundering prosecution.
Case Title: Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
The Kerala High Court has struck down proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, which restrict free supply of information under RTI Act to persons below the poverty line (BPL) to twenty pages.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. found that the proviso to the afore Rule, requiring payment for information above 20 pages, traverse beyond the scope of the parent Act, i.e., the Right to Information Act, 2005 since no such cap is sought to be made on the free information by its provisions.
Case Title: Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is mandatory even when the accused himself produces contraband from his pocket, during body search.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath made the observation in a bail application moved by a sole accused in an NDPS case.
Case Title: Jojo Jose v. The Chief Secretary and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court on Friday (03 July) disposed of the PIL seeking CBI enquiry into the alleged "attack" on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials following the agency's search operation at the residence of former CM Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter on May 27.
The Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar disposed of the petition after taking note of a report by the State observing that "there is satisfactory progress in the investigation".
Case Title: X v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision noted that there is no provision in the Divorce Act, 1869 that enables a wife to prefer petitions in the court having jurisdiction in her place of residence.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that such a provision exists in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and there is no justifiable reason not to incorporate the same in the Divorce Act.
Employee Cannot Invoke Consumer Forum For Gratuity Claims Against Employer: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Tirur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Moideen M.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court has held that an employee claiming gratuity from an employer cannot be treated as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and, therefore, consumer commissions lack jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered the judgment in a petition seeking to quash an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram, which had directed the bank to pay the balance gratuity on a complaint by the respondent employee.
Case Title: Thadevoos v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, considered the question as to whether the owner of a vehicle involved in a motor accident can get interim custody by furnishing property as security if there is no third-party insurance coverage.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea by a vehicle owner alleging that the condition imposed by the Magistrate asking him to deposit cash security equivalent to the assessed value of the vehicle, for getting interim custody was onerous.
Case Title: Superintendent of Police and Anr v. Sankaran Nair (Died) and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court on Monday (06 July) closed the petition relating to eviction of families residing in the contentious Malayodamthuruthu in Ernakulam district, after the court was informed that a settlement has been reached by the parties involved.
During the hearing on Monday, Justice T R Ravi, after noting the submissions directed the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor to defer, for a year, orders in the execution proceedings regarding eviction pending before it.
Case Title: Ramjith Nayak v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
The Kerala High Court has held that when an accused is released owing to an infraction of Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) of the Constitution, he can be subjected to a fresh arrest for the same offence provided the subsequent arrest is not automatic and is preceded by judicial scrutiny.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of bail applications arising out of prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
Case Title: Anil Kumar T v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court has held that bail cannot be granted on the sole ground of non-intimation of grounds of arrest when the arrestee refuses to accept the grounds of arrest when it's intimated to him.
Justice A. Badharudeen, made the observation in a bail application seeking regular bail.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court has held that a settlement reached between parties in an offence involving rash and negligent driving cannot constitute a ground for setting aside the conviction recorded against the accused.
Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a criminal revision petition challenging a judgment which convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of IPC.
Case Title: Janardhana Shenoy K v Kumbakudi Sudhakaran
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (08 July) closed the contempt proceedings initiated against Congress MP K. Sudhakaran, for his comments on judges for declining CBI probe into murder of Youth Congress worker, Shuhaib.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V Jayakumar closed the case on receiving his unconditional apology.
Case Title: Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) closed the contempt plea initiated by film producer Sheela Kurian over non-compliance of direction to consider her representation seeking action against Deputy Superintendent of Police Madhu Babu for his alleged misbehaviour towards her.
Justice Jobin Sebastian closed the matter.
Case Title: Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) directed CorroHealth Infotech Pvt. Ltd., employees and the State to attempt to resolve disputes in the wake of large-scale lay off in the company by resorting to conciliation as contemplated under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Justice P. Gopinath was considering a writ petition filed by Corrohealth challenging the communication issued by the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam directing it to maintain status quo on the decision to close down operations in Kerala and to discharge employees.
Case Title: Henna P.K and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), dealing with service recruitment disputes, cannot bypass the statutory procedure of serving notice on affected candidates by directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) to publish pleadings and orders on its website or candidate dashboards.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an original petition challenging an interlocutory order of the KAT refusing alternative modes of service in a recruitment dispute concerning the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II).
Case Title: Adv. Sudheer P S v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (08 July) approved State's draft circular governing the appointment of Public Prosecutors, while directing that the opinion of the District Judge must receive "due primacy" in the preparation of panel candidates. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 369]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment while disposing of public interest litigations challenging aspects of the State's proposed mechanism for appointing Public Prosecutors.
Case Title: Sugathan R v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court on Monday (13 July) directed the State to enable detained Thiruvananthapuram Councillor Sugathan R, to take oath of office from inside the Prison.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the order on a petition moved by the BJP Councillor detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
"Since the petitioner is detained under the KAAPA, this Court cannot release the petitioner to attend the swearing-in ceremony," the Court said. However, adding that "in a Democracy, the people's mandate is to be respected," it allowed him to take the oath inside the jail.
Case Title: Vinu K.S. and Anr. v. Veena Viswan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court has held that courts adjudicating matrimonial disputes cannot presume that a bride entrusted her gold ornaments or money to her husband or in-laws merely on the basis of prevailing social customs or general practices.
Observing that assumptions drawn from past precedents may no longer reflect contemporary realities, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. underscored that claims for return of gold or cash must be founded on proved facts—oral, documentary or circumstantial—from which entrustment and subsequent misappropriation can reasonably be inferred.
Case Title: Muhammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 14) dismissed the plea preferred by 5 persons accused of the murder of SFI leader Abhimanyu, seeking to stay the trial pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Abhimanyu was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharaja's College in Ernakulam. Presently, trial is pending before the Sessions Court against 16 accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 16) whereas investigation is ongoing against 10 accused (Accused Nos. 17 to
Justice G. Girish refused to halt the trial against the 16 accused.
Case Title: Sharestates, Inc. v. Prasad Choorakuzhiyil Gopalan & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that foreign advocates cannot examine or cross-examine witnesses before a court-appointed advocate commissioner in India.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that recording of evidence before a Commissioner is a litigious act, forming part of the practise of law in India, from which the foreign lawyers stand excluded.
Case Title: Tenny Joppen v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 15) removed the name of Tenny Joppen, who was a staff of former Chief Minister late Oommen Chandy, from the list of accused in the solar scam case.
The case arose out of a complaint made by businessman Sreedharan Nair, who claimed to have been cheated of Rs. 40 lakhs, by prime accused Saritha S. Nair and Biju Radhakrishnan. Joppen was accused of facilitating the crime.
Justice C.S. Dias allowed the plea filed by Joppen seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the case, after noting that the case has been amicably settled.
Case Title: Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
The Kerala High Court has sounded a note of caution for young lawyers frequently appearing in bank account-unfreezing cases.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that while such litigation appears to offer “effortless practice and assured orders”, many such cases are linked to cyber fraud.
Case Title: Vasantha K and Anr. v Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that while a second wife in a void marriage is not entitled to the service and pensionary benefits of a deceased government employee, the children born from such a relationship are legitimate under the Hindu Marriage Act and are entitled to an equal share in the employee's death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension, till the age of majority.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen delivered the judgment in a writ petition seeking to resolve a dispute over the terminal benefits of a KSRTC employee who died while in service.
Case Titles: Farasha Shabnam v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court permitted three CBSE students to upload their revalued marks on the KEAM (Kerala Engineering Entrance Examination) portal amid controversy surrounding errors in the evaluation by the Board.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted relief to the students by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, after taking note of the exceptional circumstances, including delayed publication of their revalued marks.
Case Title: Union of India v. Jose N.M. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
The Kerala High Court recently set aside the compensation granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal to the children of a deceased train passenger, who was hit by another train while he was walking on railway track.
Justice S. Manu noted that the deceased was a passenger of Maveli Express whereas he was hit by another train, Antyodaya Express. Since he was hit by a train in which he was not a bona fide passenger, the strict liability would not be attracted, the judge reasoned. He took the view that since it is an offence to trespass on railway track, which the deceased had done, compensation cannot be granted.
Case Titles: Sukumaran P.N. v. Vimal K. Charles and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed two second appeals preferred by a police officer, who was directed to pay compensation to a lawyer who he had assaulted in 2010.
Justice Easwaran S. observed that there are no substantial questions of law raised in the regular second appeals and that the same were bereft of merits.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Directing FIR Against Three Police Officers In Ponnani Rape Case
Case Title: Vinod Valiyatoor and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 17) dismissed the plea preferred by three police officers challenging a Magistrate order directing registration of FIR against them in relation to the Ponnani rape case.
Justice Jobin Sebastian upheld the order of the Magistrate, which had acted upon a private complaint preferred by a lady.
Case Title: K.P. Chandramohan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Kerala High Court has declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act 2021 as unconstitutional, holding that the State cannot vest ownership of privately owned mineral rights in itself without providing compensation or complying with the constitutional safeguards under Article 300A.
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., delivered the judgment in a batch of writ appeals challenging the validity of the 2021 Act and the demand for royalty from landowners— for granite extracted from the land prior to 2021 Act. The single judge had upheld the constitutionality of the law.
Procedural Interim Orders Not Appealable Under Section 5 Of Kerala High Court Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and Anr. v. Azhar K M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a purely procedural interim order passed by a Single Judge does not qualify as an appealable order under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, unless it substantially affects the rights or liabilities of the parties.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered the judgment in a writ appeal filed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.
Case Title: Dr. Manoj T.R. v. University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 20) closed the plea filed challenging the appointment of Advocate Girija Gopal as standing counsel for the Kerala University by its Vice-Chancellor after removing Advocate Thomas, who was appointed by the Syndicate in 2016.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the plea has become infructuous since Advocate Thomas Abraham had resigned.
Case Title: Shiny S Nair v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has held the mere fact that a cheque is typewritten is not a legally sustainable ground to doubt its genuineness or refuse to invoke the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara.
Case Title: Geetha v State Police Chief and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State Police Chief to constitute special squads in every district to trace offending vehicles and offenders involved in hit-and-run accidents, observing that such cases are often pushed to the back burner unless they attract media attention. The Court also urged the Union Government to overhaul the compensation framework for hit-and-run victims by studying the models followed in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Justice G. Girish issued the directions while disposing of three writ petitions arising from separate hit-and-run incidents in which the offending vehicles remained untraced despite prolonged police investigations.
Case Title: Aboobacker v State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused grabbing a child's chest with sexual intent would satisfy the requirement of sexual assault prescribed under Section 7 POCSO Act, and that the anatomical different between chest and breast is immaterial.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while partly allowing an appeal by a man convicted by the Special POCSO Court, Manjeri.
Case Title: Dilha Jan Govindan v. State Bank of India and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has ruled that banks can refuse education loan to students if their parent, who signs the loan as a co-borrower, has a poor credit score.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim dismissed a batch of petitions filed by students challenging the banks' refusal to grant them educational loan.
Patients Cannot Dictate Diagnostic Tests, Must Follow Doctor's Medical Advice: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Arun P.K v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court has held that patients cannot insist on specific diagnostic tests such as CT or MRI scans, observing that the decision to prescribe such investigations lies within the medical judgment of treating doctors.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while disposing of a writ petition filed by a retired Indian Air Force veteran, who sought a direction to the Health Department and doctors at General Hospital, Ernakulam, to conduct a proper medical examination and order diagnostic tests, including CT and MRI scans, for persistent head pain and abnormal sensations.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v K Sub Maj (Hony Capt) Mohnraj TK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court has held that the mere characterization of diabetes and hypertension as "lifestyle diseases" cannot, by itself, justify denial of disability pension to an armed forces personnel invalided out of service.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order directing grant of disability pension to Honorary Captain Mohanraj T.K., who had been invalided out of service after being diagnosed with Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension.
Case Title: Lamiya P v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the State Government has an independent constitutional obligation to consider a representation by a person detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) expeditiously, which cannot be kept pending subject to Advisory Board's decision.
It further held that the State has violated Article 22 (5) of the Constitution by keeping the detenu's representation pending until after receiving the Advisory Board's opinion.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment.
Case Title: A v. B. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court has held that the property, purchased under the joint names of both spouses cannot be claimed by the husband alone by claiming that he paid the entire amount, unless theres is evidence to show that the property was held on trust or that the property was fraudulently purchased in the name of one spouse.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. allowed a wife's appeal challenging the Family Court's order declaring her husband as the absolute owner of the property purchased in their joint names.
Case Title: C.D. Boby @ Dr. Boby Chemmanur v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 23) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against businessman Boby Chemannur in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam movie actress in 2025. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 392]
Justice Jobin Sebastian today allowed the plea filed by Chemmanur to quash the proceedings pending before Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam after noting that a settlement has been reached between the parties.
Case Title: Bahadur Shah Anakkot Nasirali v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court has upheld the Aadhaar-based OTP authentication for online tatkal ticket booking in trains on IRCTC platform.
The Court, however, asked the IRCTC to consider whether an option can be provided to users to choose between PAN card and Aadhar-based OTP authentication.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment.
Case Title: The Kerala Hockey v Rajeev P.J and Ors and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court has clarified that although the recognition of Kerala Hockey remains suspended pending proceedings under Section 31A(2) of the Kerala Sports Act, the association will continue to serve as the official channel for forwarding player nominations to Hockey India through a court-appointed technical committee.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar issued the clarification while disposing of review petitions filed by Hockey India and Kerala Hockey against the court's earlier judgment in writ appeals concerning the governance of hockey in the State.
Case Title: Ambika Mohanan v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that repeated offences involving theft, house-breaking, and lurking house trespass could create fear and insecurity among the public, thereby affecting public order within the meaning of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a petition challenging the preventive detention under KAAPA.
Case Title: N. Prakash v. Adv. Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court recently refused to take contempt action against a lawyer, who participated in a channel discussion and said that a judge made unnecessary comments to attract media attention and to become popular.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment.
Case Title: P. v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, observed that married life must be reviewed as a whole and that a few instances would not amount to cruelty.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. made the observation while dismissing a matrimonial appeal preferred by a husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition.
Case Title: Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression "persons distinguished in the field of visual arts" under the Regulations governing the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, must receive a broad, contextual interpretation and cannot be confined to its dictionary meaning, observing that the Government must have flexibility in constituting award juries.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while delivering the judgment in writ challenging the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022.
Case Title: V v. P and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court has held that a husband's failure to pay maintenance to his wife and child constitutes economic abuse amounting to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging concurrent orders directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter under Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court recently closed suo motu proceedings concerning the procurement of pooja materials for Sabarimala rituals after the Travancore Devaswom Board's (TDB) decision to end the long-standing practice of Administrative Officers procuring Vazhipadu (offerings) materials.
Calling the arrangement a "grossly unholy practice in a holy place", the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar directed the Board to implement similar procurement reforms across all temples under its administration.
Kerala High Court Upholds Law That Limits Interest On Delayed Gratuity To Gratuity Amount
Case Title: P. Gopinathan v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, holding that the statutory cap restricting recoverable interest on delayed gratuity to the amount of gratuity itself is a matter of legislative policy and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition filed by a retired employee challenging the provision after he was denied a portion of the interest recovered from his employer through revenue recovery proceedings.
Case Title: Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v Muhammed and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court has held that a power of attorney (PoA) executed by a person residing abroad in favour of a person in India relating to an immovable property, must be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908, before it is used to sell the said property.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K delivered the judgment in a writ appeal filed by the State of Kerala against separate judgments of a Single Judge.
Case Title: Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, clarified that in motor accident cases, the compensation awarded to a pillion rider cannot be reduced because the motorcycle rider is liable for contributory negligence.
Justice Anil K. Narendran rendered the finding in an appeal filed by a pillion rider challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award in an accident involving a two-wheeler and a stage carriage.
Case Title: Shresha N. and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court denied pre-arrest bail to six DYFI leaders, who were booked for assaulting police officers during protest march against the State's liquor policy.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath found that the allegations against the applicants were very serious and that custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation, which is still in the preliminary stage.
Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked For Hurling Bomb At Wrong House
Case Title: Ismail C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man, who is booked for hurling a bomb, albeit at the wrong house.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by the man, who was arrayed by the Kannur Kuthuparamba police in a crime.
Wife's Offer To Resume Cohabitation Can't Defeat Husband's Divorce Plea After Failed Reconciliation Attempts: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A v. B.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision observed that a husband cannot be denied divorce merely because his wife stated that she is ready and willing to resume cohabitation, when the many attempts at their reconciliation failed.
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen dismissed a wife's appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage granted to the husband by the Family Court.
Case Title: Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case. This, according to the Court, did not satisfy the legal requirement under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Case Titles: Naman Ajay v. Union of India and Ors. and Karthika Sivaji v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 29) held that salary income of the parents must be included while deciding whether a person falls under Creamy Layer or not for the purpose of reservation in professional colleges.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed two writ petitions filed by KEAM and NEET aspirants praying for a declaration that they fall under the Non-Creamy Layer after their applications were declined for high income.
Case Title: Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to consider the representation preferred by the women conductors of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) seeking two days' paid menstrual leave.
Justice Viju Abraham directed the State government to consider and pass orders on the petitioners' representation without delay, within 3 months from the date of receipt of the judgment after affording them an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: Mubina Muhamed K.M and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court has observed that the existence of a complaint cannot be used by the police to compel the opposite parties to settle or abide by any demands of the complainant. The Court further added that such an action or conduct cannot be resorted to under the guise of any inquiry.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a petition alleging harassment by the police by compelling the appearance of the petitioner before the police without any basis.
Case Title: Anju Mary Francis v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot deny the facility of a scribe to an eligible candidate merely because she does not have a benchmark disability of 40% or more under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment in writ petition filed by a 21 year old woman challenging KPSC's refusal to provide her with a scribe for the LD Typist examination.
Kerala High Court Upholds 60 Years Age Bar On Reappointment Of Government Law Officers
Case Title: Anil Kumar P.R v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Kerala High Court has held that a Government Law Officer who accepted an appointment subject to the condition that his tenure would end on attaining the age of 60 years cannot subsequently challenge that condition and seek reappointment or extension after crossing the prescribed age limit.
Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta, challenging the State Government's refusal to consider his request for reappointment by granting age relaxation.
Case Title: The Eruvessy Grama Panchayath v Tankappan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court has held that a Grama Panchayat can be held liable to pay compensation to victims of stray dog attacks where the injury is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of its failure to discharge statutory duties imposed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Animal Birth Control framework.
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a regular second appeal, resolving conflicting Single Bench decisions on whether local bodies incur civil liability merely because a person is bitten by a stray dog.
Case Title: Dipin Edavana v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has held that when a complainant levels serious allegations against a public official, compelling the complainant to participate in a joint hearing with the very officer accused of misconduct violates the principles of fairness and natural justice.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition challenging a compliance report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Vigilance Department, which had concluded that the petitioner's allegations against senior police officer S. Sreejith, IPS, were "false and vexatious."
Case Title: Mar Joseph Pamplany v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has recently (27 July) closed a writ petition filed by Mar Joseph Pamplany, seeking police intervention to prevent alleged criminal trespass inside St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica, Broadway, Ernakulam, after the petitioner informed the court that no further relief was required.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order, making it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice the rights of any party in the civil disputes pending between them.
Case Title: Joshy K.J. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that putting a vibrating machine on the victim's vaginal opening amounts to 'penetrative sexual assault' punishable under the POCSO Act as well as rape punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen referred to Section 3 of the POCSO Act [Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act], which defines penetrative sexual assault and Section 375 IPC, and opined:
“Here M.O2 vibrator fixed with M.O1 penis like structure was placed on the vagina of the victim in vibrating mode…placing a vibrating machine on the orifice of the vagina viz., labia majora, or vulva, by itself would be sufficient to find insertion of M.O1 on the vagina and the same is sufficient to hold that a person committed penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3(b) punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Similar is the position with regard to the offence of rape defined under Section 375(b) of the IPC.”
Case Title: X v. The State Medical Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court recently held that a person under the MEDISEP scheme cannot be denied reimbursement of treatment expenses merely because he went to a non-empanelled hospital.
Justice Viju Abraham allowed the plea seeking expeditious consideration of his application for reimbursement of treatment expenses for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia.