Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 299Nominal IndexDanikutti Philip v. Johnykutty J. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228Sudheer. S and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 229Mini Sunny v. Thuravoor Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 230Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 231Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Nominal Index
Danikutti Philip v. Johnykutty J. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
Sudheer. S and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
Mini Sunny v. Thuravoor Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
Musthafa v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
Vinu Vikraman v. State of Kerala and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
Anil N v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
K.N. Ambika v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devswom Board and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
Pradeep Bharathan. K v. The State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
P.K. Lakshmi and Ors. v Gopi and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v Vernin Varkey @ John, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
Joseph @ Sabu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 250
Sreerosh Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan K.M. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
A.K. Baby v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
C.A. Jaleel v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
Rajesh. K v The Additional District Magistrate and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
Laiju M S v The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
Vijayan P. v. George and Company and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
Lifin Sebastian and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
Shamseera Parambath v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
Alkarsf Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
Nevil John v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
N. Rajendran v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
Harikumar K.K. v. State Election Commission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
Varkey Varghese v Kathreena, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
Raveendra Panicker v. District Collector and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
Eriyad Palli @ Eriyad Mahallu Jama-Ath and Ors. v. Aboobacker K.M. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
Vishnu @ Unni v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
Hari Devageeth v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
Wilfred Jose v Jayapal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
Lawrence and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
A. Raju v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
MRPN Minority Shareholders Customers Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
Anto Augustine and Ors v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The State Public Information Officer and Ors. v. The Kerala State Information Commission and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
Aneesh Babu v. The Secretary, Home Affairs and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
Sreeja v Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
Babu Avarachan v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
Prasobh M v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
M K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
K.N. Sukumaran Nair v. K.E. Parameswara Pillai, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
Union of India and Ors. v Valsala S, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
Ayshath Bunayath and Anr. v The Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Danikutti Philip v. Johnykutty J. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be attracted in cases where part payment has been done only if the presented cheque has recorded indorsement of such payment.
Justice A. Badharudeen clarified the position of law after relying on Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel and Another:
Case Title: Sudheer. S and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that local authorities cannot deny statutory and constitutional rights to establish industrial units merely due to protests lacking factual or legal basis.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observation while delivering a judgment in a writ petition filed by two entrepreneurs whose licensed hot mix plant project had been stalled for years due to resistance from a section of local residents.
Case Title: Mini Sunny v. Thuravoor Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that mere drying of latex sheet in a smoke house does not amount to 'manufacture' and therefore, the same does not require licence from the panchayat.
Justice P.M. Manoj observed that since there is no new or different commodity coming out during smoking of latex sheets, the same would not be 'manufacture' and licence is not required. Moreover, the allegation in the petition is not that sheets are being stored or sold but only dried; therefore, licence would not be required, the Court opined.
Case Title: Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court recently questioned a government circular that mandates approval of local-self body for introducing co-education scheme in single gender schools since it prescribes no procedure that has to be followed by the body.
Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a writ petition filed by Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School, Erattupetta challenging a government circular that insists on local body approval for introducing co-education in single-gender schools.
Case Title: Sudeep K.T. v. Malabar Cancer Centre and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to challenge orders that imposed penalty 'disproportionate' to charges even if appeal remedy available.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a plea preferred by the former Head of the Department (Department of Engineering and Maintenance) of Malabar Cancer Centre challenging his dismissal from service.
Case Title: Shamsudheen C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the results of a tender process for the purpose of conducting tourism activities in Kanjirapuzha dam.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. noted that the participants of the tender had accepted the results and the present PIL preferred by a stranger to the tender process amounted to a 'proxy litigation', intended to delay the project. It went on to impose exemplary costs on the litigant.
Case Title: Mavelipuram Resident's Association v. GCDA and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
The Kerala High Court recently held that public authority cannot initiate eviction proceedings over areas offered for recreational purposes through housing scheme, by citing expiry of lease deed.
Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a writ petition challenging the proceedings initiated under the Kerala Public Buildings (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1968 for evicting persons of the Mavelipuram Residents Association from the recreation hall constructed by them.
Writ Jurisdiction Can't Be Invoked When Contract Provides Arbitration Remedy: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/S RCC-ACC (JV) v. Board of Major Port Authority for Port of Cochin and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy, particularly arbitration, will ordinarily dissuade courts from exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering the judgment in a writ appeal challenging the termination of an EPC contract by the Cochin Port Authority.
Case Title: Moosantepurakkal Manaf v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the manner of attack and injury of the victim are relevant for ascertaining if the accused had intention or knowledge that the same would cause death.
Justice A. Badharudeen found that causing only one injury on the shoulder of the victim would not be sufficient to conclude that an accused intended to cause murder to attract the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
Case Title: Musthafa v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, refused to set aside a conviction in a POCSO case that was challenged alleging anomaly in the prosecution case due to minor discrepancies regarding the date of occurrence.
The appellant before Justice A. Badharudeen had contended that since the child victim failed to disclose the actual date of occurrence in FIS and in statement before Magistrate but disclosed later in his chief examination before court, the prosecution case was doubtful.
Case Title: Rajkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who was accused of stealing a case bundle from the trial court.
Justice C.S. Dias noted that the trial court ought not to have taken cognizance of the complaint, which was filed by a third party, when the statutory mandate under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was for the officer of the Court or an authorised person to do so.
Case Title: Vinu Vikraman v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 5) directed the Sub-Registrar/Marriage Officer of Mavelikkara to process and solemnize the marriage of an Indian man and a Sri Lankan woman as per the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without insisting on an NOC from the Embassy.
Justice Easwaran S. relied on a 2019 decision of the High Court [Saranya R. A. v. State of Kerala and Others], wherein it was clarified that there is no prohibition under the Special Marriage Act to solemnize a marriage between an Indian and a foreigner.
S.377 IPC Continues To Apply In Cases Involving Minors: Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction For Oral Sex
Case Title: Anil N v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
The Kerala High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under Section 377 of the Indian Penal code (IPC) for committing sexual offences on an 11-year-old girl, reaffirming that the provision continues to apply in cases involving minors.
Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering the judgment in a criminal appeal filed against conviction under Sections 450 (house-trespass to commit offence), 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 377 (unnatural offences) IPC.
Case Title: K.N. Ambika v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 241
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that family pension cannot be denied to the wife of a deceased employee merely because she is employed or receiving another pension.
Justice P.M. Manoj observed that as per the Kerala Service Rules (KSR), if the surviving wife has not remarried, she is entitled to receive family pension whether or not she was dependent on her deceased husband.
Case Title: The District Collector and Ors. v. Sujaya A.B.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 242
The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, expressed strong disapproval towards the careless manner in which a government official handled a citizen's application for changing the nature of her property.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal against a Single Bench's order imposing Rs. 10,000 costs upon a Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO).
Case Title: Kannur District Panchayath Employees and Pensioners v. Kannur District Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 243
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the Ombudsman for Local-Self Government Institutions has a duty to conduct a proper and effective enquiry into complaints regarding maladministration and losses caused to panchayat, and it cannot relegate the same to courts.
Justice P.M. Manoj set aside an order of the Ombudsman that relegated, to the Rent Control Court, a complaint raising issues of maladministration and loss caused to the Panchayat due to renting of a premise at a lower rate than that offered by the petitioner association.
Case Title: Edamana Vasudevan Namboothiri v. Malabar Devswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 244
The Kerala High Court has held that the Malabar Devaswom Board cannot invoke its general supervisory powers under Section 20 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act to effectively take over temple administration by appointing a full-time Executive Officer.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, issued the order in a writ challenging the appointment of an Executive Officer by the Malabar Devaswom Board in a temple managed under a hereditary trusteeship scheme.
Case Title: Pradeep Bharathan. K v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 245
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a donee of an undivided share in a co-owned property becomes a co-owner and would be entitled to seek registration of a deed partitioning the property by paying stamp duty applicable to partition deeds.
Justice Basant Balaji was considering a writ petition challenging the refusing of registration of a partition deed executed by a co-owner and the son of another co-owner, who had received the undivided share in the property by a gift deed.
Case Title: M/s. Panjos Builders Private Limited & Anr. v. Panjos Garden Apartment Owners Association & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 246
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 22C of the Legal Services Act, Permanent Lok Adalats must comply with the mandate of conciliation before adjudicating a dispute on merits and that delay in remitting costs to set aside ex parte order cannot be cited to forego conciliation.
Justice P.M. Manoj further observed that the Adalat cannot adjudicate a dispute which is already seized by a court.
Case Title: Moideenkutty v. Kerala State Minority Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 247
The Kerala High Court recently held that the State Minority Commission cannot bypass the jurisdiction of a civil court to pass eviction order against a person belonging to a minority community.
Justice Easwaran S. remarked:
“what is attempted is to bypass the civil remedy by filing an application before the Commission and that the Commissioner has overstepped its jurisdiction and issued…order requiring the petitioner to be evicted from the premises… Still further, the extent of overstepping of the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is evident from the fact that the Commissioner has gone ahead and instructed the revenue authorities as well as the police authorities to take such steps to evict the petitioner. The aforesaid action is clearly without jurisdiction and hence void and liable to be interfered with by this Court.”
Case Title: P.K. Lakshmi and Ors. v Gopi and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 248
The Kerala High Court has held that a life estate granted to a Hindu widow under a Will enlarges into absolute ownership under Section 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. It further noted that the absolute ownership would render any subsequent bequest in the same Will ineffective.
Justice Easwaran S., was delivering the judgment in a batch of connected second appeals.
The dispute arose over the management rights of the Mooriyad Central Upper Primary School in Kannur district. Under a 1955 Will executed by Koran Gurukkal, management of the school was first vested in his wife, Bachi @ Janaki, during her lifetime, with a further clause providing that the right would pass to their son Gopi after her death.
Case Title: Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v Vernin Varkey @ John
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 249
The Kerala High Court has held that a Family Court cannot refuse a decree of divorce by mutual consent merely because spouses state that they are living separately “without any reason,” so long as both parties continue to consent to dissolution of marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.
A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen delivered the judgement in matrimonial appeal, and set aside a Family Court order that had rejected a joint plea for divorce by mutual consent.
Case Title: Joseph @ Sabu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 250
The Kerala High Court has held that in prosecutions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), conviction may be sustained even in the absence of documentary proof of age when the oral testimony of the child victim and her mother regarding the age of the Victim remain unchallenged during trial.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging conviction under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Sreerosh Developers Private Limited v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 251
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the District Disaster Management Authority or its Chairperson cannot issuse a stop memo to a person barring all construction activities under the Disaster Management Act.
The court was considering whether the Disaster Management Authority or the Chairperson invoking the powers under Section 26(2) can issue direction or stop memo in exercise of the powers under Section 30(2)(v) of the Act. Section 30(2)(v) underlines power of the District Authority to give directions to different authorities at the district level and local authorities to take such other measures for the prevention or mitigation of disasters as may be necessary.
Justice C. Jayachandran held that the Act does not confer any powers upon the District Authority or its Chairperson, the District Collector, to directly take any measures but only to give necessary directions to the competent authorities.
Case Title: Star Health And Allied Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan K.M. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 252
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court refused to set aside a Lok Adalat order that directed an insurance company to pay compensation to a toddy tapper, who was injured in a fall from a coconut tree, even though the order recorded non-submission of insurance claim.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that writ courts can refuse to interfere with orders with technical discrepancies, if the writ sought to be enforced would affect another person's right to life.
Case Title: A.K. Baby v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 253
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that managers of aided schools do not have the authority to disregard the findings of a statutory enquiry officer who exonerates a teacher and thereafter impose a major penalty on their own.
Justice Viju Abraham delivered the judgment while considering a writ petition filed by the manager of an aided school challenging a government order granting service and salary benefits to a retired teacher who had earlier been compulsorily retired from service.
Case Title: C.A. Jaleel v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 254
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment whereby it set aside an order passed by the Chairperson of the District Disaster Management Authority that called upon the Secretary of the Panchayat concerned to demolish a dilapidated building.
Justice C. Jayachandran passed the judgment in a petition by a tenant of the building that was under the ownership of the Panchayat.
Case Title: Rajesh. K v The Additional DIstrict Magistrate and Ors.
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 255
The Kerala High Court has held that Indian Roads Congress (IRC) guidelines cannot be treated as mandatory while considering applications for No Objection Certificates (NOCs) for petroleum retail outlets under the Petroleum Rules, 2002.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim delivered the judgment in a writ by a dealer of Petroleum Retail outlet.
Case Title: Laiju M S v The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 256
The Kerala High Court has held that a person conducting business on government puramboke land under a valid municipal licence cannot be treated as an “encroacher” for the purpose of denying rehabilitation and resettlement compensation when displaced by a public infrastructure project.
Justice Viju Abraham was delivering the judgment in a writ petition challenging a government order that stated that the petitioner, who owned a bunk shop in a puramboke area with statutory licence is not entitled to the compensation payable to tenants under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act).
Case Title: Vijayan P. v. George and Company and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 257
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, has clarified that joint trial of dishonour of multiple cheques is permissible when the cheques in question were issued as part of same transaction.
Justice Johnson John was considering a criminal revision petition filed by the accused in a cheque bounce case challenging the concurrent findings of guilt passed by the trial court and the appellate court.
Case Title: Lifin Sebastian and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 258
The Kerala High Court recently granted relief to two persons, who wanted to erect a gate on a government property that lied in between their property and the main road, by asking them to approach the Tahsildar concerned with an application as per the Kerala Land Conservancy Act and Rules.
Justice Viju Abraham ruled that a Tahsildar is empowered to grant permit for erecting wall, fence, building, etc. on government property following procedures and conditions in accordance with the Act and Rules.
Case Title: Shamseera Parambath v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 259
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court held that a contractual employee working under the MGNREG Scheme can be removed only in accordance with the procedure laid down by the guidelines issued by the government.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the employee cannot be removed merely on the basis of a recommendation made by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
Case Title: Alkarsf Apparels Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 260
The Kerala High Court has held that the provisional attachment under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit (BUDS) Act cannot continue indefinitely and the attachment won't exist beyond the statutory period within which by the Competent Authority is mandated to file a confirmation application before the Designated Court as per Section 14.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Nevil John v. Kerala Water Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 261
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, observed that possibility of misuse cannot be a reason to interpret a statutory provision contrary to what is explicitly provided.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition where the main issue was as to the meaning of the term 'multi stories building' provided under Section 2(xva) of the Kerala Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1986.
Case Title: N. Rajendran v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 262
In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court has clarified that the Disaster Management Authority is bound to pay rent for all rooms in the building that was taken over by it irrespective of whether or not all the rooms were in its occupation.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a plea challenging the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 being aggrieved by the quantum of compensation granted to the petitioner in respect of his building requisitioned for institutional quarantine/COVID containment.
Case Title: Harikumar K.K. v. State Election Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 263
Recently, the Kerala High Court held that as per Article 243K of the Constitution, the State Election Commission does not have any power to interfere once the election process to the panchayat is over and therefore, it cannot pass an order cancelling election result.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea by the Vice-President electee of Kottungal Grama Panchayat who had contested the election to the panchayat as a candidate of the BJP.
Settlement Deed Clause Divesting Daughter Of Property Upon Marriage Is Void: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Varkey Varghese v Kathreena
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 264
The Kerala High Court has held that a clause in a settlement deed providing that a daughter would lose her rights over gifted property if she married is void as being contrary to law and public policy.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in a regular second appeal.
Case Title: Raveendra Panicker v. District Collector and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 265
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the provisions of the Kerala Land Conservancy Act cannot be invoked to evict alleged encroachers of private temples, which are not coming under the control of the Devaswom Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar dismissed a batch of writ petitions that prayed for a direction to the State to remove private persons, who had alleged encroached upon the properties of private temples.
Case Title: Eriyad Palli @ Eriyad Mahallu Jama-Ath and Ors. v. Aboobacker K.M. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 266
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that once a Waqf Tribunal is established by the State, a Muttawalli interest in a waqf or any person aggrieved by an order made under the Waqf Act must approach the Tribunal instead of the High Court.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. added that writ jurisdiction of High Court can be invoked only in cases where there is no Tribunal established or the Tribunal is not functioning.
Case Title: Vishnu @ Unni v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 267
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a man's conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, despite non-seizure of the mobile phone used to show sexually explicit videos to child, noting that no challenge has been raised regarding the non-seizure, during cross-examination.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in an appeal challenging conviction under Sections 4, 6, 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, including a charge under Section 11(iii) relating to showing pornographic material to a child.
Kerala High Court Allows Transgender Man To Preserve His Eggs
Case Title: Hari Devageeth v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 15) allowed a transgender man to cryopreserve his eggs by permitting him to approach an ART bank of his choice.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen pronounced the order.
Case Title: Sabu K.S. v. Central Bureau of Investigation and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that a person seeking to transfer a case from one Special Court to another Special Court can directly approach the High Court without first approaching the Sessions Court.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment.
Case Title: All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Kerala High Court has held that LPG distributors do not possess a vested legal right over customer bases built during the course of distributorship operations.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim was considering two writ petitions filed by a registered All India Association of LPG Distributors and other individual LPG Distributors in various parts of the State of Kerala.
Case Title: Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 18) dismissed the bail application preferred by astrologer Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri, who was arrested on February 9 for allegedly raping a minor girl on the pretext of conducting an 'exorcism' on her.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:
“A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The available medical records would show that bite marks were seen on the lips of the minor victim. The victim has narrated the entire incident in the FIS. I see no reason to disbelieve the same. That apart, the blood stains belonging to the victim were recovered from the place of occurrence along with her bloodstained dress. It is true that the final report has already been filed. However, considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.”
Case Title: Rahiman v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
The Kerala High Court recently held that omission to sign the First Information Statement (FIS) by the informant alone would not make it inadmissible in evidence if the informant gives evidence in tune with the statement given in the form of first information.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“omission to get signature of the informant in the FIS alone would make the FIS totally inadmissible in evidence, is the question, in fact, poses for consideration. In response to this query, it is held that the mere failure or omission on the part of the informant to put signature in the FIS is not a reason to disbelieve the FIS or the entire prosecution case, when the informant while giving evidence admits and supports the case of the prosecution in tune with the statement in the form of first information given by the informant.”
Case Title: T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Kerala High Court has held that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner cannot enrol as an advocate unless she first cancels her registration as a medical practitioner.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while dismissing a challenge against the Bar Council of Kerala's refusal to enrol a Homoeopathic doctor as an advocate while her name continued in the register of medical practitioners.
Case Title: Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Kerala High Court recently held that power of attorney holder's incompetence to institute a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be raised as a ground to assail conviction at the stage of revision, if not raised earlier.
Justice G. Girish referred to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides when the finding or sentence passed by a competent court is reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.
Case Title: Wilfred Jose v Jayapal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that in cheque bouncing prosecutions, the initial burden rests upon the complainant to prove the transaction and once this burden is discharged, the complainant can avail the presumptions in its favour laid down in Section 139 NI Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a criminal appeal filed against the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case involving ₹3 lakh.
"Now it is necessary to address how the complainant in a prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act would be able to discharge his initial burden in the matter of transaction and execution of cheque alleged to be dishonoured, so as to avail the presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act.”
Case Title: Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
The Kerala High Court has said that an institution's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) can inquire into sexual harassment complaints against the institution's Director if he does not have control over the affairs and management of the institution and is an “employee” appointed by the institution's executive committee.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering an appeal challenging the decision of the Single Judge, who dismissed a plea by the Director of Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC).
Case Title: M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the Syndicate of a University cannot challenge the orders passed by its Chancellor, who is exercising powers of appeal, as the same would be against institutional hierarchy and discipline.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the Chancellor is the head of the University as well as the appellate authority with respect to the decisions taken by the Syndicate in matters of disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the Syndicate has to give effect to the orders passed by the Chancellor, being the superior authority.
Case Title: Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (May 21) dismissed the appeal challenging dismissal of a plea to stall release of the movie 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha' that is allegedly inspired by the sensational Venjaramoodu Mass Murder case.
When the matter came up today before the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., Advocate Sajju V. appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal has become infructuous since the movie has already been released. He then prayed for withdrawing the appeal.
CrPC | Accused Has Absolute Right To Use Section 161 Statements To Contradict Witnesses During Cross-Examination: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lawrence and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that an accused has an absolute right to use the previous statements given by the witnesses to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of shaking the veracity of their evidence and making it untrustworthy.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“it is the absolute right of the accused to use previous statements during cross-examination of the maker of the same for the purpose contradicting the maker to shake the veracity of the evidence spoken by him and to make it as untrustworthy of credit, and the same is the main purpose of cross-examination as well.”
Tribunals Can't Dispose Appeals Through 'Cryptic Orders', Must Record Reasons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
The Kerala High Court has held that quasi-judicial tribunals cannot dispose of appeals through cryptic conclusions and are legally bound to issue reasoned, speaking orders that disclose the basis of their decisions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgement while setting aside an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions that had upheld a Panchayat's refusal to regularise a building and assign it a number.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
The Kerala High Court recently closed the suo motu case initiated in the light of an unauthorized helicopter movement over Sabarimala temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar noted that a crime has been registered at the Pamba Police Station for the offence under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act [Penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger] and that investigation revealed that the same belonged to the Indian Coast Guard.
Periodic Replacement, Maintenance Cost Of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Factored Into Motor Accident Compensation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
The Kerala High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted to a person, whose leg was amputated following a motor accident, so as to give him a just compensation for the purpose of maintenance and periodic replacement of his prosthetic leg.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha granted Rs. 30 lakhs for periodic replacement and maintenance after noting that artificial leg is not a one-time expense:
“A prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense. It requires periodic replacement, maintenance, physiotherapy and adaptation over the claimant's lifetime. Therefore, the Courts/Tribunals must adopt a humane and realistic approach while assessing compensation. Merely awarding the present cost of an artificial limb would be wholly inadequate. A young person will require several replacements in the course of his life, particularly because prosthetic technology advances and wear and tear make periodic renewal inevitable. Compensation must accordingly include future medical expenses, recurring replacement costs, rehabilitation expenses and loss of amenities of life.”
Case Title: A. Raju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted a man, who was convicted of offences under the Abkari Act, observing that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt since there was no signature or seal of the Magistrate who certified the correctness of the inventory as required under Section 53A.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“In the present case,… there is nothing to indicate that the Magistrate had verified and certified the correctness of the inventory, particularly when neither the signature nor the seal of the Magistrate is found in such a crucial document. When the procedure prescribed under Section 53A of the Abkari Act is not strictly complied with, and when the residue of the contraband after drawing sample is not produced before the court, coupled with the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding its lawful destruction or disposal, the very seizure of the contraband becomes doubtful. In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
Case Title: MRPN Minority Shareholders Customers Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
The Kerala High Court recently closed a plea preferred by the shareholders' association of Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. seeking further action on the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)'s Final Report.
The company is part of the Popular Finance Group that orchestrated the ₹2000 crore scam, known as the “Popular Finance Scam”.
Justice Viju Abraham closed the writ petition recording the submission that the Centre has already filed criminal complaints before the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam and that it has also initiated winding up proceedings of the company.
Case Title: Anto Augustine and Ors v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
The Kerala High Court has held that social media intermediaries cannot be compelled to remove allegedly defamatory content unless a competent court or authorised government agency first determines the content to be unlawful.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by M/s Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd., a news and current affairs content broadcasting channel.
Case title: Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 25) acquitted Hussain, the first accused in the murder of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, who was brutally lynched to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Palakkad in February 2018.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the verdict in the appeal preferred by the convict.
The State and the victim's mother had also preferred separate appeals challenging acquittal of two.
Madhu Lynching Case: Kerala High Court Sentences 12 Convicts To Life Imprisonment
Case title: Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 286
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 25) awarded life imprisonment to the 12 persons convicted of the murder of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, who was brutally lynched to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Palakkad in February 2018.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar heard the convicts regarding sentencing and passed the order.
Case Title: The State Public Information Officer and Ors. v. The Kerala State Information Commission and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 287
The Kerala High Court recently held that there is no unrestricted right under the proviso to Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act to seek every information that would have been supplied to the legislature.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. further clarified that with the introduction of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, the disclosure framework founded upon balancing of public interest is also materially curtailed, and had the effect of doing away with the above proviso.
Case Title: Aneesh Babu v. The Secretary, Home Affairs and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 288
The Kerala High Court on Monday (25 May) declined to transfer an ongoing criminal investigation alleged against Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer Shekhar Kumar to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), holding that the matter is still under active probe by the Vigilance authorities and that it would be premature to order a central agency investigation at this stage.
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order.
Case Title: Sreeja v Malabar Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 289
The Kerala High Court has held that the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 does not completely govern land acquisitions undertaken under the National Highways Act merely because of the Central Government notification issued under Section 105 of the 2013 Act.
Justice Easwaran S., delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Babu Avarachan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 290
The Kerala High Court recently held that a person, who is charged with hurt to defer public servant under Section 332 IPC, cannot be convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt by dangerous means/weapons unless a specific charge is made out as required under Section 222 CrPC.
Justice Jobin Sebastian added that conviction under Section 323 IPC for simple hurt would sustain if Section 332 IPC is charged as the former is a 'minor charge'.
Kerala High Court Dismisses CMRL's Plea To Quash ED Case Alleging Misappropriation Of Public Money
Case Number: M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (May 26) dismissed the petition filed by the Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited (CMRL) seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the Enforcement Directorate in view of the bribery and money laundering allegation against the company.
Justice T.R. Ravi observed that the present plea, made at the stage of issuance of summons, was premature.
FIR For Scheduled Offence Not Necessary For ED Investigation : Kerala High Court In CMRL Case
Case Number: M/S. Cochin Minerals and Rutile Limited and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 291
The Kerala High Court has held that the absence of an FIR for a scheduled offence does not bar the Enforcement Directorate (ED) from initiating investigation proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
Justice T.R. Ravi dismissed a writ petition filed by Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd (CMRL) and its officials challenging the ED proceedings initiated in connection with the alleged CMRL-Exalogic transactions.
Case Title: Prasobh M v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 292
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (26 May) dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Prasobh M, former Congress councillor of the Palakkad Municipality, challenging denial of Anticipatory Bail by a Special SC/ST Court in a sexual assault case.
Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: M K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 293
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the constitutional validity of Section 104(1A) of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, and held that the provision enabling existing labour adjudicatory forums to continue functioning until new tribunals are constituted is a lawful transitional mechanism and not “manifestly arbitrary.”
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji dismissed a writ appeal challenging the judgment of a Single Judge which had earlier upheld the amendment to the Industrial Code.
Case Title: K.N. Sukumaran Nair v. K.E. Parameswara Pillai
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 294
The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not necessary to schedule the property of the defendant in suits for determination/fixation of boundary as per Order VII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar clarified that the mandate is that the plaint must describe the plaintiff's property and mention that the adjoining property of the disputed boundary belongs to the defendant.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v Valsala S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 295
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that armed forces personnel invalided out of service due to schizophrenia are entitled to the benefit of statutory presumptions under military pension rules unless the authorities provide reasons to deny disability pension.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John dismissed a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order granting disability pension to the widow of a deceased ex-serviceman.
Case Title: Ayshath Bunayath and Anr. v The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 296
The Kerala High Court has held that passport authorities cannot insist on a court-issued divorce decree for deleting a spouse's name from a passport when the marriage has already been dissolved through a legally recognised form of extra-judicial divorce under Muslim personal law.
Justice Murali Purushothaman was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by a divorced Muslim woman seeking reissue of her passport after dissolution of marriage through Mubaraat.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 297
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 29) closed the suo motu petition initiated to address the issue of dumping of Sabarimala pilgrims' clothes in the River Pamba after noting that 97% of the waste dumped has been removed.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and local authorities concerned to ensure that dumping of clothes is prohibited and its earlier directions in the case are complied with.
Case Title: P.V. Surendran v. Kavitha Rajendran and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 298
The Kerala High Court has said that under Section 17 CPC if immovable properties are situated in the jurisdiction of different Courts, then a partition suit can be instituted in any of the Courts within whose jurisdiction any portion of the property or one or more properties may be situated.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar examined Sections 16 and 17 CPC as well as the Apex Court decision in Shivnarayan (D) By Lrs. v. Maniklal (D) Thr. Lrs. and others.
Case Title: Balamurali Krishna M. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 299
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, laid down that denial of disability pension to an ex-army personnel based on a medical opinion that is not fully supported by reasons is not valid.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a writ petition that challenged an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that rejected the claim of the petitioner for disability pension.