LiveLaw Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: June 2026 [Citations 300 - 352]
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352Nominal IndexGigi Varghese v. The Village Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300Aboobacker Siddique and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 301Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 302Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar v. Dr. Mohan Kunnummal, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 303Rajesh K....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
Nominal Index
Gigi Varghese v. The Village Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
Aboobacker Siddique and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar v. Dr. Mohan Kunnummal, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
Moh Farmaan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
RP 288/2026 in JPP 1/2026, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
Greeny Tomy and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
Sujithra P.A. v. Anishkumar T.R., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
XXX v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State Of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
M/s Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
Union of India and Anr. v. Sreedev Namboodiri and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
XXX and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
Ebin A.V. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
Puthur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sethumadhavan and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
Sreethu v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
Jomon Jaison and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
State of Kerala v. Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev T and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
M.C. Kunhunni Raja and Anr. v. The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Devaki and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
Thomas Poulose and Ors. v. Albin Mathew @ Anto and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
Anish Kumar S v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
The Secretary v K. Kanchana and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
Shijosh v The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
Midhun M. v. Hindustan Latex Limited (HLL) Lifecare Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
Mohammed Hanish v. Kadakampally Manoj, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
Bichathu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
RK v. PK and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
Dr. M.Kodanda Ram v. State and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
Sangeetha K.P. v. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
Rasheed v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
Wei, Chun-Ju and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
T.M. Manju v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
Ahmad Nasir Osmani v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v. Rajesh K. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
Muhammed Firdouz v The State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
M/S. Pharmadude Pharmacy Vannappuram v State of Kerala and Connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
Muhammed Anwar Saidu v. Bar Council of India and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
Gopinath R v Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
Bhageesh Pooradan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
State of Kerala v. Dr. Reena K.J. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
Vijay R. Nair v. Lijitha, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
Abdul Salam v. Moideenkutty and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
A.M. Ariff v. K.C. Venugopal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
Prasobh M. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v Salpriya and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
Rajesh R. and Anr. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
M/S Chicago Constructions International Private Limited v Kerala Water Authority and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
N and Ors. v. S, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
Athul M.C. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
Judgements/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Gigi Varghese v. The Village Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 300
The Kerala High Court has asked gram panchayats in the State that in case they receive genuine complaints, they must swiftly act on it and remove wild vegetation from vacant private property/residential plots where owner is unidentifiable, as such spots can become a breeding ground for snakes posing a threat to life of residents.
In doing so the court held that a Gram Panchayat cannot refuse to remove dangerous nuisances from private property merely because the owner of the land has not been identified. It said that public safety obligations under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994 empower Panchayats to take immediate remedial action and recover the expenses later from the owner once identified.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was delivering the judgment in a case arising from complaints regarding an abandoned plot overgrown with vegetation and wild grass adjacent to the petitioner's residence in Alappuzha district.
Case Title: Aboobacker Siddique and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 301
The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused would be entitled to default bail if the final report was e-filed by the police after 5 p.m. on the last day of the statutory period prescribed.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath reasoned that since, as per Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, e-filings made after 5 pm are deemed to have been instituted on the next working day, the final report would be deemed to have been filed on the day after the statutory period.
Case Title: Hayarunisa Abdul Hakkim v. The Director General of Police and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 302
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 1) directed all the Family Courts in Kerala to follow the Calcutta High Court's guidelines on child custody and parenting plan until a State specific rule is framed.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the order, while disposing of a habeas corpus petition.
The habeas corpus petition was filed by a mother, who is the natural guardian of a minor child on the ground that despite a decree passed by the Family Court granting permanent custody to her, the father of the child illegally removed the child from her custody while the child was in school and without informing her.
Bharat Mata Portrait Row: High Court Closes Contempt Case Against Kerala University VC For Defying Order To Reinstate Registrar
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar v. Dr. Mohan Kunnummal
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 303
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (02 June) closed the contempt petition filed against Kerala University Vice-Chancellor Dr. Mohan Kunnummel for failing to implement the University Syndicate's decision reinstating Professor Dr. K.S. Anil Kumar as the Registrar.
Justice Viju Abraham, closed the contempt petition on the request of the counsel for the contempt petitioner.
“Counsel for the Petitioner submits that no further orders are required in this case. Accordingly, the above contempt case is closed.” the Court ordered.
Case Title: Rajesh K. v. Asokan P.K. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 304
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a statutory demand notice issued under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, must expressly specify the amount demanded to invoke the offence of cheque dishonour.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case involving a cheque for ₹95,000.
Case Title: Moh Farmaan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 305
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 3) granted transit anticipatory bail to the husband of viral Kumb Mela star, Mohammed Farmaan, who is arrayed as an accused in a crime registered by the Madhya Pradesh police based on her father's complaint.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted a month's time to the first petitioner, Farmaan, to approach the courts in Madhya Pradesh for seeking bail.
Case No: RP 288/2026 in JPP 1/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 306
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 3) allowed a plea by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) seeking to review a judgment that mandated the SHO (Station House Officers) concerned to file affidavits confirming identity of the petitioners in cases seeking defreezing of bank accounts.
When the matter came up for consideration before the Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., Advocate Peeyus A. Kottam, KHCAA President, submitted that the matter can be disposed of by confirming the observations made in paragraphs 11 to 13 of the interim order passed on March 25.
Case Title: Greeny Tomy and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 307
The Kerala High Court has upheld a person's "posthumous bodily integrity" which would include their right to donate their body executed during the person's lifetime, noting that the law strives to honour the wishes of the deceased and protects their interests.
In doing so, the Court upheld a deceased woman's wish to donate her body for anatomical purposes, over subsequent objections raised by family members seeking burial according to religious customs.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. were delivering the judgment in an appeal moved by the woman's children challenging a Single Judge's order while allowed the retention and proposed use of the body of their deceased mother for anatomical purposes. Against this, the children moved an appeal.
Case Title: Sujithra P.A. v. Anishkumar T.R.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 308
The Kerala High Court has observed that delay in challenging Family Court orders on matrimonial disputes, especially on dissolution of marriages, is fatal as parties may alter their marital status.
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed:
“In matrimonial disputes especially in the matters relating to dissolution of marriage, delay in challenging the order of the Family Court is fatal as there are chances of parties altering their status after the appeal period… Great care and caution has to be exercised while condoning the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex parte decrees after the appeal period as it has the effect of affecting the rights of third parties.”
Case Title: XXX v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 309
The Kerala High Court has clarified that persons with Down Syndrome would fall within the purview of the National Trust for the Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a writ petition filed by the father of a Down Syndrome patient after his application to be his daughter's guardian was rejected by the District Collector.
Kerala High Court Rejects Jolly Joseph's Plea Against Order Allowing Examination Of Expert Who Gave Opinion On Allegedly Forged Will
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 310
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (June 4) upheld a trial court order which had allowed State's application to examine an expert witness who had given opinion regarding certain documents, including a Will, which was allegedly forged by the Jolly Joseph accused of murdering her family.
Justice C.S. Dias upheld the trial court order that allowed the prosecution's plea had issued summons to the witness. Against this order, Jolly Joseph had moved the High Court.
Case Title: M/s Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 311
The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 5) dismissed an appeal by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) and its officials challenging an order of the Single Bench that dismissed their plea to quash the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in an alleged case of misappropriation of public funds.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has upheld the single judge's order.
Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v. Sreedev Namboodiri and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 312
The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 4) dismissed as infructuous the appeals filed by the Central government, the CBFC and the producer challenging a single judge's common interim order passed in pleas challenging certification granted to 'Kerala Story 2 - Goes Beyond' film which was released on February 27.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice A.K. Preeta, however, left open the question of law raised by the CBFC and Union regarding maintainability of private interest litigations challenging certification granted to a film alleging disrepute to a State. Earlier this week, the Single Judge had dismissed the writ petitions challenging the certification of the film.
Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 313
In an exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Kerala High Court recently ordered for the addition of father's name in the birth certificate of a child born when parents were living together.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea by the parents of the child, whose birth certificate recorded only the mother's name but left the father's name as 'blank'.
Case Title: Ebin A.V. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 314
The Kerala High Court recently observed that potency test can be conducted on a man, who is accused in a criminal case, without his consent and it is not violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Justice A. Badharudeen rejected the ground raised that the potency test conducted without informed consent violated his right to privacy and bodily integrity guaranteed under Article 21.
Case Title: Puthur Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sethumadhavan and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 315
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the creditors of a co-operative society can recover the amounts deposited by invoking Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the provisions of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1986 do not take away the rights of creditors to invoke the Consumer Protection Act to recover the deposits.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Mother Booked In Balaramapuram Child Murder Case
Case Title: Sreethu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 316
The Kerala High Court on Monday (08 June) granted bail to Sreethu, the second accused in Balaramapuram Child Murder case, who is accused of conspiring with the first accused in the alleged murder of her minor daughter.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, granted the bail upon execution of a bond of ₹1 lakh with two solvent sureties for the like amount.
Case Title: Jomon Jaison and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 317
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 8) rejected a plea filed by CBSE students challenging the State Government's 2026 Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses with respect to the standardisation formula for preparing ranklist to Engineering courses.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that the introduction of the new scheme of standardisation of marks is a matter of policy of the government and courts, not being experts in academic matters, can interfere only in exceptional circumstances of arbitrariness, mala fide or prejudice caused to students.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev T and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 318
The Kerala High Court has recently expunged the the remarks made by the Special Judge against the investigation of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Sabarimala Gold Theft case while granting bail to accused Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev Thantri.
Justice A Badharudeen, expunged the remarks while disposing of the petition by the State to cancel the bail granted to to Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev Thantri, who is arrayed as an accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case. The court however did not cancel Rajeev Thantri's bail.
Case Title: M.C. Kunhunni Raja and Anr. v. The Commissioner, Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 319
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, directed the Malabar Devaswom Board to formulate within three months a new scheme for the effective administration of Sree Thirumandhankunnu Bhagavathy Temple in Malappuram district.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar remarked that the present scheme framed in 1966 is ineffective, and ordered that a new scheme be drafted and be placed before the Court for approval.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Company Limited v. Devaki and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 320
The Kerala High Court recently held that a sibling is entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency if dependency is established by adducing evidence before the Tribunal in motor accidents claims.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen upheld the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to an unmarried and unemployed sister of the deceased, who had deposed and gave evidence regarding her dependency.
Case Title: Thomas Poulose and Ors. v. Albin Mathew @ Anto and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 321
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that in motor accident claims cases, contribution of a deceased as a homemaker, who also was a salaried employee, cannot be added to monthly income unless proved by evidence.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen was considering an appeal filed by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Case Title: Anish Kumar S v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 322
The Kerala High Court has held that government employees are not entitled to claim hostel subsidy under the Children Education Allowance (CEA) Scheme merely because a school mandates hostel accommodation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a challenge to an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, which had rejected the employee's claim for hostel subsidy.
Case Title: The Secretary v K. Kanchana and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 323
The Kerala High Court has held that a person engaged through a quotation or tender process may still qualify as an “employee”under Employees Compensation Act , 1923 and entitled to compensation if he personally participates in the execution of the work.
Justice S. Manu delivered the judgment in an appeal against the direction of the Industrial Tribunal and Employees Compensation Commissioner.
Case Title: Shijosh v The State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 324
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the statutory presumptions available to complainants in cheque dishonour prosecutions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, can be invoked only after the complainant first establishes the underlying transaction and execution of the cheque through competent evidence.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment, while considering an appeal against an acquittal in a cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
Case Title: Midhun M. v. Hindustan Latex Limited (HLL) Lifecare Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 325
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the police cannot decide whether or not a person is suitable for appointment while issuing a verification report containing criminal antecedents under Section 53 of Kerala Police Act, 2011.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:
“In a report verifying the antecedents of an applicant for employment, it is not open for a police officer, even of the stature of the third respondent [District Police Chief/Verifying Authority], to state whether that person is suitable for appointment or not. The verification report can only contain the details of the criminal antecedents of an applicant. Suitability or otherwise of an applicant to a post, based on the criminal antecedents if any, is the prerogative of the employer. It must always be open to the employer to decide whether the existence of any criminal case would render an applicant unsuitable or not. In other words, the suitability of an applicant to a post cannot be decided by the police.”
Case Title: Mohammed Hanish v. Kadakampally Manoj
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 326
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 15) dismissed an appeal filed by Mohammed Hanish, the Principal Secretary of the Industries Department (Cashew) of the State government challenging an order of the Single Bench directing his personal appearance in a contempt case initiated for refusing sanction to the CBI to prosecute allegedly corrupt ex-officials of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John heard detailed arguments on behalf of the counsel appearing for Hanish and for Kadakampally Manoj, who had filed the writ petition after sanction was refused for the first time. Manoj then filed a contempt plea after no positive action was taken.
Case Title: Bichathu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 327
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the procedural safeguards under Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act applies only to the personal search of an individual and not to the search of plastic bags carried by the person.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant in an NDPS case.
Can Family Court Decide Marital Status After Alleged Husband's Death? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: RK v. PK and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 328
The Kerala High Court has held that Family Courts do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the validity of a marriage or matrimonial status when one of the alleged spouses had died before the proceedings were instituted.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. further held that such disputes are ordinary civil disputes to be decided by civil courts.
Dental Student Suicide: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To College HOD Dr. Kodanda Ram In Abetment Case
Case Title: Dr. M.Kodanda Ram v. State and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 329
The Kerala High Court on Friday (June 19) dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Dr. M. Kodanda Ram seeking pre-arrest bail in the suicide abetment case of dental college student Nithin Raj.
Justice A. Badharudeen opined that there was prima facie commission of offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the statutory bar against grant of anticipatory bail would apply.
Does A Recruitment Freeze Apply To Compassionate Appointments? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: Sangeetha K.P. v. The Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 330
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that a ban on regular appointments would not automatically act as a bar for compassionate appointments.
Justice Viju Abraham referred to two decisions rendered by the Bombay High Court that took a similar view and reasoned that the compassionate employment scheme is an exemption to help a family to survive sudden financial destitution.
Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's POCSO Conviction For Sexually Assaulting Minor Boy
Case Title: Rasheed v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a madrassa teacher, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor student.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal preferred assailing the conviction for the offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(2) r/w. 3(d), 6(1) r/w. 5(f), 5(m), 8 r/w. 7, 10 r/w. 9(o) and 9 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act [Punishment for cruelty to child].
Case Title: Wei, Chun-Ju and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 332
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision allowed two foreign crew members of MV Wan Hai 503, which was involved in a maritime accident last year near to Azheekal, to leave India for their home countries.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas allowed the writ petition filed by Taiwanese national Wei, Chun-Ju and Chinese national Tao Peng, who respectively the Master and Chief Officer of the vessel that suffered a fire onboard on June 9, 2025.
Case Title: T.M. Manju v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 333
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (17 June) upheld a Single Judge's decision that held that a registered homeopathic medical practitioner cannot seek enrolment as an advocate while continuing to remain on the register of practising medical professionals.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. delivered the judgment while dismissing the appeal against the Single Judge decision.
Case Title: Ahmad Nasir Osmani v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 334
The Kerala High Court has recently (11 June) directed immigration authorities to process an Afghan national's application for compounding of offences under the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, holding that the absence of a prescribed application form cannot prevent consideration of such a request.
Justice G. Girish passed the order in a writ petition filed by the Afghan national currently detained at the Detention Centre (Transit Home) in Kollam.
Case Title: The Travancore-Cochin Medical Council v. Rajesh K. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 335
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment clarified that the practice of Electro-Homeopathy is not unregulated.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. observed that the practice of alternative medicine is, in fact, regulated by the provisions of the the Kerala State Medical Practitioners Act, 2021 and before that, by Travancore-Cochin Medical Practitioners Act, 1953.
Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Free Bus Travel For Women, Transgender Persons
Case Title: Muhammed Firdouz v The State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 336
The Kerala High Court on Monday (22 June) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutional validity of the State Government's recently launched "Priyadarshini Scheme," which provides free travel for women and transgender persons in ordinary Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) buses.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment.
Case Title: M/S. Pharmadude Pharmacy Vannappuram v State of Kerala and Connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 337
The Kerala High Court has upheld the authority of the State Drugs Controller to require pharmacy licence applicants and renewal applicants to undertake that they will not display misleading discount boards relating to the sale of medicines.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging a circular issued by the Drugs Controller on September 4, 2024.
Case Title: Muhammed Anwar Saidu v. Bar Council of India and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 338
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 22) closed the plea filed relating to the issue of lack of Bar Council of India (BCI) affiliation for the Government Law College, Kozhikode after noting that provisional affiliation was granted to the college.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas closed the plea after noting that the BCI has issued a letter granting 6-months' affiliation to the college.
Case Title: Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 339
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 22) allowed the plea filed by the Tritvam Apartment Owners Association against the proposed construction of 20 commercial kiosks in the Queen's Walkway.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pronounced that the Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) do not have any right to construct, install or operate commercial kiosks on the Queen's walkway as it would affect the legal rights of the pedestrians:
Kerala High Court Asks Neighbours Fighting Over Coconut Tree To Settle Dispute 'Over A Cup Of Tea'
Case Title: Gopinath R v Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 340
The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition arising from a dispute between two neighbours over a coconut tree, observing that the matter represented an unnecessary escalation of a trivial neighbourhood disagreement.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, deciding a writ petition, remarked that if the coconut tree at the centre of the dispute “had the capacity to laugh,” it might have laughed at the neighbours' quarrel.
Case Title: Bhageesh Pooradan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 341
The Kerala High Court has held that caste-based abuse uttered in the presence of multiple persons in a private place can satisfy the requirement of occurring “within public view” under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal challenging the rejection of anticipatory bail by the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act cases, Thrissur.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Dr. Reena K.J. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 342
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (June 23) allowed the appeal filed by the State challenging the interim order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that permitted Dr. Reena K.J. to continue as Director of Health Services (DHS) by staying, for two weeks, the orders transferring her from the post.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. remarked that the Tribunal cannot undo an already completed administrative action whereby the 2nd respondent, Dr. Meenakshy V., had already taken additional charge of the post with effect from June 13, even before the original application was filed before the Tribunal.
Case Title: Vijay R. Nair v. Lijitha
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 343
The Kerala High Court has recently considered a question as to whether the remarriage of a party during the pendency of divorce appeal under the Hindu Marriage Act, in which delay was condoned, would be void.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed by a husband/appellant challenging a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court to his wife/respondent.
Case Title: Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (24 June) allowed a writ petition challenging the oath taken by the Councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation in the name of various deities, martyrs and political movements.
Justice P.V Kunhikrishnan directed the State Election Commission to make necessary arrangements to facilitate respondent no.4 to 23 (councillors) to take the oath once again, within four weeks.
Case Title: Adv. S P Deepak v The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 344
The Kerala High Court has held that elected representatives cannot expand or modify the statutory form of oath by invoking specific deities, political martyrs, organisations or public figures, observing that such departures could lead to limitless variations and undermine the uniformity intended by law.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while holding that oaths taken by representatives in the local self government in the name of deities, Martyrs and political movements as invalid.
Can State Minority Commission Pass Eviction Orders? Kerala High Court Answers
Case Title: Abdul Salam v. Moideenkutty and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 345
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the finding of a Single Bench on the point that the State Minority Commission cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court and pass eviction orders.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed challenging a decision of the Single Judge that set aside an eviction order passed by the Minority Commission (2nd respondent) and directed that the evictee/writ petitioner (1st respondent) be put back in possession of the property.
Case Title: A.M. Ariff v. K.C. Venugopal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 346
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (June 24) rejected the election petition filed challenging the win of Congress MP K.C. Venugopal from Alappuzha constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Justice G. Girsh pronounced the judgement.
Kerala High Court Rejects Expelled Palakkad Councillor's Appeal Seeking Bail In Sexual Assault Case
Case Title: Prasobh M. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 347
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 29) dismissed the appeal filed by Prasobh M., former Congress councillor of the Palakkad Municipality, challenging denial of regular bail by the Special Court for SC/ST cases (Mannarkkad) in a sexual assault case.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that bail cannot be granted at the present stage, when the investigation is still primitive as there are chances to impede the same and to threaten the victim.
Positive Alcohol Test Alone Cannot Defeat Accident Insurance Claim: Kerala High Court
Case Title: United India Insurance Company Co. Ltd. v Salpriya and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 348
The Kerala High Court has held that the mere presence of alcohol in a deceased person is insufficient to deny insurance benefits unless the insurer proves that the person was "under the influence of alcohol" as required by the policy.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by United India Insurance Company challenging an award of the Permanent Lok Adalat directing payment of ₹15 lakh to the legal heirs of a deceased policyholder.
Case Title: Rajesh R. and Anr. v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 349
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that challenged the discontinuation of the benefit of admission granted to single girl child and twin girl children over and above the approved class strength in Kendriya Vidyalaya schools.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas rejected the petitioners' argument that the discontinuation of the scheme, that treated twin children as a single admission, with effect from 2022-23 was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Case Title: M/S Chicago Constructions International Private Limited v Kerala Water Authority and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 350
The Kerala High Court has held that contractors executing Jal Jeevan Mission projects for the Kerala Water Authority (KWA) are bound by tender conditions limiting interim payments for supplied materials to 80% of the estimated rate or the quoted rate, whichever is lower.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A was considering a batch of writ petitions filed by contractors who argued that KWA had unlawfully restricted payments for pipes and other materials supplied at project sites by calculating the interim payment on the basis of the estimated rate instead of the higher quoted rate.
Case Title: N and Ors. v. S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 351
The Kerala High Court recently set aside two conditions imposed by the Family Court on a mother, who wanted to take her minor child to United Kingdom for better education and proper care for him.
The Family Court had ordered the mother to furnish security of Rs. 75 lakhs for taking the child to UK.
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that conditions imposed by courts must not be “illusory” and the primary consideration must be the welfare of the child.
Case Title: Athul M.C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 352
The Kerala High Court on Monday (June 29) closed the plea by the 1st accused seeking supervised investigation by a senior police official to look into the alleged assault on former Health Minister Veena George at Kannur Railway Station.
When the matter came up before Justice G. Girish, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the plea.