Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122 - 180]XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122Praveen Kumar @ Kannan v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123Mariyakutty and Ors. v United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 124Chandramohan K.C. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 125Adv. Kulathoor Jaisingh v. The Chairman and Ors., 2026...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122 - 180]
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Praveen Kumar @ Kannan v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Mariyakutty and Ors. v United India Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
Chandramohan K.C. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
Adv. Kulathoor Jaisingh v. The Chairman and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Appukuttan v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
M/s Grid Engineers and Contractors and Anr. v. Union Bank of India and Anr. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
N.K. Premachandran v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
Binu Das B v Smitha Raj L, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
X v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Ashique v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Shwetha Menon v. State of Kerala and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Adv. P.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
State Nodal Officer and Ors. v. Manoj M.S. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Jayalekshmi L. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Professor M.K. Sanoo v. State of Kerala and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Koshy Abraham v. Shaji and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Sheno Sebastian v Smitha Maxon, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Adv. Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
Alavikutty T.K v State of Kerala and ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Antony Raju v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Ashique Karoth v Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Vineesh v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Director and Ors. v Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
M.M. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Jaisappan Mathai v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
Abdul Hamid Makame v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
Biji Garnet v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
State of Kerala v. Anu and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Jijo Joseph v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Vaibhav Y. Kini and Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
X v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v. Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
K.G. Manjumol v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Linson K. Thomas v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachiriyil Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Vijesh C.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Dhanya Devadas v The Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
Gokul K. v. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Dr. Vinu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
N.P. Kunhikannan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Fazeela R.A and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
N. Prakash v State of Kerala and Connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Thomas M.K v Govt. of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
Judgment/ Orders This Month
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Kerala High Court recently invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to order correction of the name of the father in the birth certificate of a minor child, who was born out of an extra-marital affair of the child's mother.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a writ petition filed by the minor child and her biological parents. They sought to correct the name of the father in the birth certificate from that of her mother's former husband to that of the child's biological father.
Case Title: Praveen Kumar @ Kannan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment wherein it refused to set aside the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code on the ground that there was delay in filing complaint by wife.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha remarked: “Matrimonial cruelty is a continuing offence, as the suffering of the victim does not end with a single isolated incident but continues so long as oppressive conduct persists. Harassment and cruelty within the marriage cannot be viewed in isolation, but must be assessed in the context of continuous conduct.”
Case Title: Mariyakutty and Ors. v United India Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that siblings of a deceased accident victim are not entitled to compensation under a separate head of “loss of love and affection”.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was delivering the judgment in an appeal filed by the mother and siblings of a 21-year-old man who died in a road accident in 2014. While the Court enhanced compensation under the head of loss of dependency, it reduced the amount granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) towards “loss of love and affection,” restricting consortium compensation to the mother alone.
Case Title: Chandramohan K.C. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 5) refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction to re-title the movie 'The Kerala Story 2: Goes Beyond', which was released last week, so as not to include the words “Kerala”/ “Keralam”. A detailed order is awaited.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. orally remarked that similar issues are already pending before a coordinate Division Bench, which is considering appeals against the interim stay granted against the release of the movie.
Case Title: Adv. Kulathoor Jaisingh v. The Chairman and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 5) dismissed the public interest litigation filed by Advocate Kulathoor Jaisingh seeking a direction to drop further proceedings before the Ethics Committee of the Legislative Assembly against Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil that was initiated on the basis of a complaint made by D.R. Murali, MLA of Vamanapuram, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. held that the writ petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
Case Title: Appukuttan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
The Kerala High Court has held that the failure of an investigating officer to identify or record the intellectual disability of a victim during investigation does not vitiate the prosecution case, provided the court is satisfied that the victim is competent to testify and capable of giving rational answers.
Justice A Badharudeen was delivering the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction for rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Case Title: M/s Grid Engineers and Contractors and Anr. v. Union Bank of India and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an intra-court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 is maintainable against an ex parte ad interim order or any order which has affected a party's right to pursue statutory remedy.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. clarified the position of law while considering an intra-court reference preferred by a Single Judge of the Court and a writ appeal challenging the said reference.
Case Title: N.K. Premachandran v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (06 March) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning the proposal to start an MBBS course at the ESIC Model and Super Speciality Hospital, Asramam, Kollam, observing that the project must strictly comply with the National Medical Commission (NMC) regulations before approval is granted.
The Court has directed the proposal of approval to be expedited within four weeks.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M was considering a petition filed by Lok Sabha Member N.K. Premachandran seeking intervention regarding the establishment of the medical college.
Transfer Of Matrimonial Case At Advanced Stage Of Trial Unjustified: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Binu Das B v Smitha Raj L
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a transfer of a matrimonial case at the advanced stage of trial was unjustified and improper while set aside an order transferring a matrimonial case from the Family Court, Kollam, to the Family Court, Punalur,
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment while allowing a transfer appeal filed by the husband in the matrimonial dispute.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
The Kerala High Court has recently issued directions to the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to ensure transparency and better utilisation of the available days for conducting Padi Pooja in Sabarimala temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the directions while considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of monthly report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner regarding the activities undertaken during the Kumbham masa pooja.
Case Title: New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Kerala High Court has held that losses suffered by a bank due to fraudulent ATM withdrawals using debit cards issued by other banks are not covered under a Banker's Indemnity Insurance Policy when the policy expressly excludes losses arising from the use of ATMs.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar set aside a trial court decree that had directed the insurer to indemnify the bank for losses caused by ATM fraud.
Case Title: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Kerala High Court recently closed the public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State to ensure uninterrupted functioning of Out-Patient Departments (OPD) and all essential medical services in Government Medical Colleges in view of the indefinite boycott by the Kerala Government Medical College Teachers' Association (KGMCTA), initiated on February 16.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.R. observed that the medical services is an essential service and it is the State's duty to ensure that the same is uninterrupted.
Kerala High Court Allows Accused To Renew Passport With 5-Year Validity For Overseas Employment
Case Title: Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Kerala High Court recently permitted a person accused in two criminal cases to renew his passport with a validity of 5 years in order to enable him to travel abroad for his new job in Oman.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea wherein the petitioner had filed applications in both the cases before the trial court for permission to renew his passport and to travel abroad. Though these applications were allowed, the trial court did not specify the validity period of the passport.
Case Title: Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
The Kerala High Court recently held that a complaint against a Village Officer cannot be entertained before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea preferred by a Village Officer aggrieved by the proceedings pending against him before the Ombudsman that was initiated on the basis of a complaint.
Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a reasoned opinion by a Medical Board is indispensable in denying disability pension to armed forces personnel.
The division bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John were delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Bail In POCSO Case Can Be Set Aside If Victim Not Heard : Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
The Kerala High Court has held that bail granted to an accused in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be set aside if the victim or guardian is not given an opportunity to be heard before the bail order is passed.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to set aside the bail order granted by the Sessions Court Kottayam to the accused in a case under Section 351 (Criminal Intimation) BNS and sections of POCSO Act.
Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 10) dismissed a plea alleging violation of privacy of government employees and judges by the State by sending bulk messages to their phone numbers, which was illegally accessed from SPARK [Service Pay Roll Administrative Repository for Kerala].
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pronounced in open court:
"Thus, if used for legitimate purposes, including for good governance in a social welfare State, the data collected can be utilised without falling within vice of infringement of the right to privacy of an individual...Since KSITM is a part of government of Kerala and the impugned message was sent through the Whatsapp account registered in the name of KSITM by using the data in its possession, if the nature of the message was not for any illegitimate purpose, such messaging has to be regarded as irreproachable. Hence, the question boils down to whether the data was used for a legitimate purposes...As this Court has already held that, there is neither any material to indicate that any data has been transferred to the Chief Minister's office nor are there any particulars available to conclude that the Chief Minister or his office had any access to such data, there is no merit in this writ petition. The message sent by KSITM informing details about DA and HBA cannot be regarded as violating the right to privacy of the recipients of those messages. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed."
Case Title: Ashique v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an accused, who is already under judicial custody, is arrested in relation to another case following a production warrant under Section 302 BNSS, there is no need to separately inform him of the grounds of arrest.
The reasoning of the Court was that as per Form 37, relating to the order requiring production of a person in prison as per Section 302, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform accused of the contents of the order and to deliver him the attached copy and this amounts to sufficient communication.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, however, clarified that in such cases, it is mandatory to inform the relative of the accused.
Case Title: Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the plea preferred by the editors of Vellinakshatram magazine seeking to quash the criminal complaint initiated against them for allegedly defaming an actor by redisplaying on their website the derogatory comments made against him in a Facebook group.
Justice G. Girish held that the offence of defamation as provided under Section 499 IPC makes no distinction between first time publication of defamatory content and redisplaying it. Unless the impugned act falls within the seven exceptions provided under the provision, redisplaying defamatory content already published on another platform can attract the offence, the Court opined.
Case Title: Shwetha Menon v. State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (March 11) quashed all further proceedings in the FIR and private complaint lodged against Malayalam actor Shwetha Menon for allegedly acting in movies and advertisements containing obscene and vulgar visuals.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea by the actor seeking to quash all further proceedings against her prusuant to the complaint and FIR.
Case Title: Adv. P.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
The Kerala High Court has held that notification inviting application only for Government Pleader cannot be used for the appointment of Public Prosecutor.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Rule 7 of the Kerala Government Law Officers(Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 enables the Government to separate the offices of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors at any Court and make separate appointments.
Case Title: State Nodal Officer and Ors. v. Manoj M.S. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a party invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands, holding that suppression of a prior blacklisting order disentitles a contractor from equitable relief.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. further clarified that public authorities may still be directed to release payments for work already executed, subject to contractual recoveries and claims of secured creditors.
Quantity Of Contraband Not Relevant For Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jayalekshmi L. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the quantity of contraband is not a relevant factor to decide whether a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act) should be passed against a person found engaged in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a plea preferred by the mother of the detenue against whom a detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act ordering him to be detained for a period of one year.
Kerala High Court Orders Removal Of Vellapally Natesan As SNDP General Secretary
Case Title: Professor M.K. Sanoo v. State of Kerala and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 12) ordered the removal of Vellappally Natesan as the General Secretary of the Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam).
Justice T.R. Ravi opined that directors of the Yogam were disqualified since they failed to file audited accounts for 3 consecutive years, in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore, the office bearers, including Natesan, were found to be disqualified.
Case Title: Koshy Abraham v. Shaji and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
The Kerala High Court has held that a decree holder with a charged decree enjoys priority over unsecured decree holders under Section 73 of CPC while challenging court auction sales under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) .
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was delivering the judgment in an appeal challenging the dismissal of an application to set aside an execution sale conducted by the Sub Court, Thodupuzha.
Kerala High Court Upholds Direction To Implead Local SHO In Bank Account Defreezing Petitions
Case Title: Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The Kerala High Court has upheld the a direction requiring petitioners seeking defreezing of bank accounts to implead the local Station House Officer (SHO ) of the police station having jurisdiction over their address as a party respondent in such writ petitions.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment in appeals arising out of orders of the Single Bench dated 10 December 2025 and 15 December 2025.
Case Title: Sheno Sebastian v Smitha Maxon
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
The Kerala High Court has held that an indefinite undertaking by a co-owner agreeing to accept “whatever amount” another party may pay on a future sale of property cannot bar a statutory right to seek partition.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a regular first appeal, affirming a preliminary decree for partition passed by the Principal Sub Court, Palakkad.
Kerala High Court Upholds Non-Maintainability Of Writ Petitions In Bar Association Election Disputes
Case Title: Adv. Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
The Kerala High Court on Monday (16 March) reaffirmed that disputes concerning elections to Bar Associations are matters of internal administration and cannot be challenged through writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was delivering the judgment in an appeal against dismissal of a writ petition which challenged the 2026 Executive Committee Election to the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA)].
Case Title: Alavikutty T.K v State of Kerala and ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
The Kerala High Court has held that government officers exempted from personal appearance for document registration under Section 88 of the Registration Act, 1908 retain that exemption even when the document is registered in another State.
Justice P.V Balakrishnan delivered the judgment in a writ petition, where the Court examined whether a registering authority in one State can insist on the personal appearance of an executing officer of another State, despite an exemption granted under Section 88 of the Registration Act.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Suspend Ex-MLA Antony Raju's Conviction In Evidence Tampering Case
Case Title: Antony Raju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (17 March) dismissed the plea preferred by former MLA Antony Raju seeking to set aside the order of the District and Sessions Court, Thiruvananthapuram that rejected his application to suspend his conviction in the Evidence Tampering case.
Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner of Customs v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Kerala High Court recently passed an order whereby it directed the Deputy Commissioner of Customs to furnish the duty register of customs officers on duty at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) to facilitate investigation into a crime relating to smuggling of methamphetamine from Muscat to India.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that in heinous offences under the NDPS Act, cooperation of State and its instrumentalities was necessary.
Kerala High Court Rejects PIL Challenging Use Of 'Indian Premier League' Name For IPL
Case Title: Ashique Karoth v Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
The Kerala High Court has refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) questioning the legality of name “Indian Premier League” used by the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) for conducting IPL.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M disposed of the petition noting that there is no merit in the argument by the petitioner.
Case Title: Vineesh v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a person can be prosecuted for illegal removal or transportation of river sand as per the Kerala Protection of River Banks and Regulation of Removal of Sand Act, 2001 in addition to the offence of theft under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that his earlier decision in Mohammed Noufal v. State of Kerala was rendered without noticing the relevant provisions under the Sand Act and the General Clauses Act as well as the precedents rendered by the Apex Court and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Case Title: The Director and Ors. v Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (18 March) disposed of the appeal preferred by the Enforcement Directorate against a Single judge's interim order staying the show cause notice issued against Kerala Infrastructure Investment Fund Board (KIIFB) under the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), relating to the utilisation of funds raised through masala bond.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar disposed of the appeal noting that the interim order challenged had since expired.
Case Title: M.M. Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (19 March) disposed of a public interest litigation challenging the naming contest announced by Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation (BEVCO) and Malabar Distilleries Ltd. inviting the public to suggest a name and logo for a proposed premium brandy product.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M disposed of the petition upon noting that the respondents have withdrawn the contest.
Case Title: Jaisappan Mathai v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
The Kerala High Court has directed the State government to revisit its compensation framework for families affected by the 2020 floods.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the directions while disposing of a writ petition seeking disbursal of balance amount to the remaining 3,232 families of Kuttanadu area in Alappuzha district.
Case Title: Abdul Hamid Makame v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Kerala High Court recently held that when the accused is a foreign national, it is not necessary to communicate the grounds of his arrest to his relatives if the accused has been duly informed along with the Foreign Regional Registration Officer or his embassy or consulate.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath was considering a bail application preferred by a Tanzanian national residing in India and arrayed as accused no. 5 in a crime registered by the Kunnamkulam Police for the offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
Case Title: Biji Garnet v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a plea filed by an accused seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for allegedly posting provocative statements on Facebook, compelling people to violate the restrictions imposed by the government during Covid-19 pandemic.
Justice G. Girish delivered the judgement.
Kerala High Court Cancels Bail Granted To 8 Accused In Walayar Mob Lynching Case
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Anu and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 19) cancelled the bail awarded to all the accused in the Walayar mob lynching case in which Ram Narayan Bhagel, a native from Jharkhand belonging to a scheduled caste community, was brutally attacked and killed by 8 men on December 17, 2025.
Justice A. Badharudeen allowed the State's appeal to cancel bail after hearing the accused, the State and the brother of the deceased.
Case Title: Jijo Joseph v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
The Kerala High Court has recently (18 March) disposed of a public interest litigation concerning the Angamaly–Sabari railway line, as the Ministry of Railways has submitted that the project has been defreezed.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M. disposed of the petition following the submission that the project has been defreezed following a meeting held on 18 February, 2026.
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Kerala High Court has recently (17 March) declined to restrain the release of the web series “Anali” on the OTT platform JioHotstar. The Court held that the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the plea moved by Koodathayi murder accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly against the release of the web series while reserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue appellate remedy under Rule 12 of the Information Technology Rules 2021.
Case Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 23) held that the practice of endogamy among the Knanaya Christians is not an essential religious practice and excommunicating members for marrying outsiders violates their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Easwaran S. dismissed the appeals filed by the Archeparchy of Kottayam and the Knanaya Catholic Congress, and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
Case Title: Vaibhav Y. Kini and Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court recently extended a helping hand to a few law students of St. Dominic's College of Law, after they were barred from writing their examinations due to attendance shortage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that the college failed to conduct requisite number of classes and if it had the minimum number of hours, the students could have made up for the shortage in attendance or at least reached the condonable limits.
Kerala High Court Calls For 'Child-Centric' Custody Approach, Urges Parents To Rise Above Conflict
Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Kerala High Court has recently underscored the urgent need to shift from a parent-centric to a child-centric approach in custody disputes, highlighting the severe emotional toll such litigation imposes on children.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha made the observation while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother alleging illegal detention of her two minor children by their father.
Case Title: Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v. Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 24) allowed the appeals filed challenging a 2024 order of the Single Judge directing the Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad districts to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction feud.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. pronounced the order in open court:
"In a dispute relating to the religious affairs of a church, which is a parish church governed by the 1934 Constitution, the High Court cannot direct the civil administration to take over possession of the church. In appropriate cases where repeated disobedience of the decree passed by the competent court has resulted in a law and order situation, the High Court, being the constitutional court, can render justice by granting police protection to ensure that there is no law and order issues in the conduct of religious services and other affairs to said church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution as held by the Apex Court..."
Case Title: K.G. Manjumol v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a widow is not disentitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency for the reason that she is employed or remarried subsequent to her husband's death in a motor accident.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen held:
“The material date for deciding the compensation is the date of accident/death. Any subsequent act cannot deprive her from compensation. Though she had a job at the time of accident, that cannot be a reason to deprive her from dependency compensation because, the claim petitioner was also in her young age at the time of accident and death of the husband has resulted into loss of dependency…a view is taken by the court disentitling a woman on account of her remarriage, the court will be discouraging the widow from remarrying, after her husband's death.”
Case Title: Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (24 March) directed the Central Government to take a time-bound decision on a representation alleging violations of the Union Government's Broadcasting guidelines in the operation of Malayalam news channel 'Reporter TV'.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the petition.
The petitioner, who is the president of the political party Twenty20, had approached the Court seeking a limited relief namely, a direction to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to act upon a representation submitted on February 2, 2026.
Case Title: Linson K.Thomas v Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory confidentiality provisions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be invoked to deny an accused employee access to relevant documents in disciplinary proceedings.
Justice N. Nagaresh, delivered the judgment.
The present petition was filed seeking to quash the order transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram Region to Karnataka Region and subsequently to Andhra Pradesh Region.
Case Title: Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachiriyil Joseph
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
The Kerala High Court has held that that right to seek rescission of a contract accrues upon the expiry of the time stipulated in the decree for deposit of balance consideration and not upon the receipt of notice of the subsequent proceedings.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment in an original petition in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immoveable property.
Case Title: Vijesh C.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
The Kerala High Court has held that temporary surrender of land for a public infrastructure project does not amount to a transfer requiring prior statutory sanction under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act, 1951.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, were delivering the judgement in a writ petition challenging the road widening project leading to the Madayikavu Bhagavathy Temple in Kannur District.
Case Title: Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that it is not necessary to mention the exact quantity of contraband seized in the notice communicating the grounds of arrest if it is specified that the nature of quantity is small or intermediate or commercial.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the intention behind mentioning the quantity is to enable the accused to know whether the offence if bailable or not and if the nature of quantity is mentioned, then it amounts to substantial compliance of the requirement under law for communicating arrest grounds.
Case Title: Dhanya Devadas v The Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the State Election Commission (SEC) must mandatorily issue a show-cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing, before disqualifying candidates for failure to file election expense accounts under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the common judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging disqualification orders issued under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Case Title: Gokul K. v. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
The Kerala High Court on Friday (27 March) directed the Chief Election Commission of India to consider a representation filed against BJP leader B.Gopalakrishnan for making alleged communal remarks during a campaign in Guruvayur constituency amid the upcoming State assembly elections.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the ECI to decide the representation in two months.
The Court was considering a writ petition moved by Kerala Students' Union (KSU) leader Gokul.
Case Title: Damodaran K. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgement, upheld the finding of guilt of a landlord who had trespassed into his tenant's room and vandalized it.
Justice Jobin Sebastian held:
“It is well settled that offences such as criminal trespass and house trespass are offences against possession and not against ownership. Therefore, even a true owner cannot, under the guise of ownership, unlawfully enter premises in the lawful possession of another with the intent to commit an offence. In the present case, the mere fact that the accused is the owner of the room does not, ipso facto, absolve him of criminal liability when such entry is effected with the intention to commit an unlawful act.”
Case Title: Dr. Vinu Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
The Kerala High Court has recently (26 March) dismissed a writ petition challenging the appointment of Dr. V.A Arun Kumar,son of the late former Chief Minister V.S. Achuthananthan as the Director In-Charge of the Institute of Human Resources Development.
Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment in a plea filed by Dr. Vinu Thomas, Dean (Academic) and Controller of Examinations (in charge) at APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University.
SHO Cannot Mandate Surrender Of Firearms Via Phone Calls Ahead Of Elections: Kerala High Court
Case Title: N.P. Kunhikannan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
The Kerala High Court has held that Station House Officer (SHO) cannot mandate surrender of licensed firearms through phone calls ahead of Legislative Assembly Elections in the State.
The Court added that the proper decision-making process and individual assessment must be carried out for surrendering licensed firearms.
Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgment while allowing two writ petitions who challenged directives issued by local SHOs requiring them to deposit their arms ahead of elections.
Case Title: Fazeela R.A and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Ker) 178
The Kerala High Court has set aside a Government order that proposed transferring a substantial portion of land from a Government UP School in Ramavarmapuram for the construction of a Music College citing lack of proper consideration.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas examined whether the State's decision to transfer a government school playground for constructing a music college was legally sustainable.
Kerala High Court Upholds 2024 Amendment To Kerala Lok Ayukta Act
Case Title: N. Prakash v State of Kerala and Connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (31 March) upheld the amendments made to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act in 2024.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M delivered the judgment.
"We have upheld the constitutionality of the amendments ...but we have said that having regard to Section 12, the provision which has been amended, should be read as deemed acceptance if it is not considered within 90 days..." the Court orally said.
Case Title: Thomas M.K v Govt. of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal challenging the constitutional validity of State co-operative banking laws including the Kerala State Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1984.
A Division Bench comprising Justice N. Nagaresh and Justice Johnson John delivered the judgment.
The appellant approached the Court seeking to declare State legislations, namely the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 and the Kerala State Co-operative Agricultural Development Banks Act, 1984 as unconstitutional for enabling co-operative societies to conduct banking activities, a subject falling under Entry 45 (Banking) of the Union List.