Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: January - March, 2026 [Citations: 1 - 180]

Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1

Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3

Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7

Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9

XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10

Suresh K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11

The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17

Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21

V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr. , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37

Hari v. The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

Esai Clara v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47

Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50

Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51

Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52

Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 53

XXX v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 54

Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 60

The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education v. Karthik Dev R. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 61

Umesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

Kamal Kumar Mandal v. State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

Suo Motu v Union Government and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

Lunar Rubbers v Kerala Head Load And Timber Workers And Factory Workers Union(KTUC and ors and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

M R Ajayan v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

K V Sabu v Registrar of Co-Operatives Societies and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

Prasad Somarajan v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

Rajendran P. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

Pattasseril Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

Nowfal v. The Secretary, Angadippuram Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

Kunhikrishnan V. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

Abid v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

R. Ragavendran and Anr. v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

V.J. Joseph v. The India Cements Limited and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

Moithunnykutty and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors. & Ma'din Knowledge Garden Public School v. Assistant Educational Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

Havildar B. Manikuttan v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

Venkatraman Bhat and Ors v Anantha Bhat and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

State of Kerala and Ors. v Niradeepam Roller Flour Mill, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

Sibin S.V. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

Ummu Sulaim (Minor) and Ors. v The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

C.J. Mathews v. District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing & Allied Health Science Institution v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

XXX v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 91

Dr. Haiderali Kalliyath v. XXX and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 93

Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 94

Menon P.S. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

Liji v State of Kerala and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 97

T.O. Abraham v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 98

Sivakumar S. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 99

Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

Suo Motu v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 101

Pankaj Kumar v. The Station House Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

M/S. Kosamattam Finance Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

State of Kerala and Ors. Kurien E Kalathil and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

Nishad and Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

M K Suresh Kumar and Anr v The Union of Indian and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

Mubas M.H. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Aloshious Xavier v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

Greevas Job Panakkal v Traco Cable Company Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

Vijayan and Anr. v Appukutta, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

Shameem v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

Lucy Kuriakose and Anr. v State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

Balachandran v Sajan Mathew and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

I Bindhu v Thiruvanathanpuram Service Co-Operative Bank and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

xxx. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

Sabu Stephen v. State Election Commission, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

Prasanthan M. v. Kannur Corporation and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

Satkunam @ Sabesan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

Jithusooraj S.K. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

Basheer Thaliyil v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

P.B. Satheesh v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

M.R. Anagh v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

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

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

Judgments

Kerala High Court Asks Centre To Decide Whether SNDP Yogam Is Governed By Companies Act Or Kerala NTC Act

Case Title: Binu Surendran and Anr. v. V. Vijayakumar and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 1

The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, directed the Union government to comply with a 2009 Delhi High Court order and decide if the Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam) is governed by the Companies Act or the Kerala Non-Trading Companies Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha set aside the Single bench judgment, which had set aside a 1974 government order that granted exemption to the Yogam, a company registered under the 1882 Companies Act.

KAAPA | Minimal Delay In Passing Externment Order Not Fatal When Procedural Safeguards Followed: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Praveen@ Poocha Praveen v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 2

The Kerala High Court has held that a reasonable delay in initiating proceedings under Section 15(1)(a) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) does not snap the statutory “live link” required for externment.

A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a writ petition challenging an externment order issued against a person classified as a “known goonda”.

Flood Control Measures Can't Ignore Ecological Impact: Kerala High Court On Thottappally Spillway Sand Removal

Case Title: Green Roots Nature Conservation Forum and Anr v. Government of India and Ors. and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 3

The Kerala High Court has recently directed the State Government to constitute a multi-departmental committee to regulate and monitor sand and soil removal at the Thottappally Spillway in Alappuzha, stressing that flood-control measures cannot be carried out at the cost of ecological destruction, particularly in sensitive coastal zones and turtle nesting habitats.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. disposed of two connected writ petitions which challenged an order issued by the Alappuzha District Collector under Section 30 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, permitting large-scale removal of sand and vegetation from the Thottappally Spillway to facilitate flood mitigation in the Kuttanad region.

Kerala High Court Directs Railway Claims Tribunal To Annex Details Of Evidence, Witnesses To All Its Orders

Case Title: Sidharth K. Bhattathiri v. Union Of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 4

In an exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Kerala High Court recently directed the Railway Claims Tribunal to follow Rules 181 of the Civil Rules of Practice so as to incorporate proper appendices to all its orders.

Justice S. Manu observed that the Tribunal's judgments generally do not contain any attachment showing the witnesses examined and documents marked and due to this, there is difficulty in understanding whether the documents on records were marked or not.

Divorced Muslim Woman Can Seek Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC Even After Receiving Payment Under 1986 Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shereefa Munvara and Anr. v. Muhammed Kabeer

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 5

Relying on Mohd. Abdul Samad v. State of Telangana, the Kerala High Court recently held that a divorced Muslim woman can invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C. or Section 144 BNSS to claim maintenance from former husband even if he had discharged his obligations under Section 3 of the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that when a Muslim divorced woman approaches the Family Court invoking Section 125 Cr.PC./Section 144 BNSS even after receiving benefits under the Muslim Women Protection Act, the Family Court cannot automatically dismiss the application but has to examine whether she is still able to support herself.

Judges Of Constitutional Courts Not Liable Under Section 16 Contempt Of Courts Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mathews J. Nedumpara v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 6

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court dismissed a plea challenging Sections 2(c) (i), 14, 16 and 17(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also refused to declare that Section 16 was applicable to judges of the superior courts, and that Section 17(5) has to be read along with the constitutional guarantee of right against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India.

Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Claim One Time Settlement Benefits: Kerala High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Raju Abraham and Anr v. State of Kerala and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 7

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that borrowers cannot invoke writ jurisdiction to compel banks or financial institutions to extend the benefit of a One Time Settlement (OTS) scheme.

A division bench of Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S dismissed a writ appeal filed by borrowers and upheld the decision of a single judge refusing to interfere with recovery proceedings initiated by a co-operative bank.

Arbitrarily Denying Convict Emergency Leave To Attend Brother's Son's Marriage Violates Articles 14 & 15: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shaduli P.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 8

The Kerala High Court recently held that there cannot be any discrimination between the children of the brother and those of the sister of a convict while granting emergency leave to attend their marriage.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that almost all the Jail Superintendents in the State have been rejecting applications for emergency leaves of convicts to attend their brother's children's marriage.

Voluntary Partition Deed Can Confer Property Rights On Female Heir Even Prior To Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Velayudhan and Anr v Kuttooli and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 9

The Kerala High Court has held that a female heir, who otherwise had no inheritance rights under pre-1956 Hindu law, can acquire valid title through a voluntary partition deed executed by family members.

Justice Easwaran S. held that a registered partition deed consciously conferring a share on a female heir cannot be ignored on the ground that she lacked an antecedent right of inheritance under the Mitakshara law.

Victim Appeals Against Acquittal Can Be Summarily Dismissed If Victim Has No Prima Facie Arguable Case: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. Gopalan K.T. and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 10

The Kerala High Court recently held that a victim's appeal against acquittal under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be summarily dismissed when there is no prima facie material to show that victim has an arguable case.

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the provision for summary dismissal of appeals provided under Section 425 would also apply to the appeals under Section 413.

Juvenile Justice Act Not Sole Method To Determine Age Of POCSO Victim; Oral & Documentary Evidence Can Be Relied Upon: Kerala HC

Case Title: Suresh K. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 11

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, laid down that the provision under the Juvenile Justice Act/Rules is only one of the modes to determine the age of a victim of a POCSO offence.

After examining Section 34 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the decisions of the Division Bench in Silvester Pigaruz v. State of Kerala (2024) and Biju v. State of Kerala (2024), Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:

“The POCSO Act does not stipulate in section 34(2) that when the victim is a child, age can be determined only as per the law relating to juveniles…”

Motor Accident Claim | Kerala High Court Enhances Victim's Notional Income Based On Overseas Remittances Despite Lack Of Formal Salary Proof

Case Title: The Divisional Manager v. Ameer Hamsa & connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 12

The Kerala High Court enhanced the notional income of an accident victim who was employed abroad and had sought compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, based on certain factual aspects even though the claimant had failed to produce salary certificate as per Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering two appeals filed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, one filed by the insurance company and the other by the claimant/victim of the accident.

Public Servant Must Be Heard Before PC Act Sanction When Request Not Made By Police Or Law Enforcement Authority: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.K. Chacko v. Vegetable And Fruit Promotion Council Keralam and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 13

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that the sanction to prosecute a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018 cannot be accorded without hearing the public servant concerned when the request is made by a person other than a police officer or other law enforcement authority.

Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a plea preferred by a person who was directed by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge to obtain sanction under Section 19(1) of the PC Act to proceed with his complaint against the officers of Vegetable and Fruit Promotion Counsel, Kerala (V.F.P.C.K), including the HR Manager-In-Charge. These persons were also arrayed in the plea as respondents.

District Authority Can Reject Petrol Pump NOC For Violating CPCB Distance Norms From Schools: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ashwin Abraham Cherian v. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 14

The Kerala High Court recently held that the District Authority can reject an application for No Objection Certificate under Rule 144 of the Petroleum Rules, 2002 for not maintaining minimum distance from schools and other public places in accordance with the Central Pollution Control Board's guidelines.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim added that since a playground is integral to the functioning of schools, the distance from the school's compound wall and not its building has to be considered while considering the minimum distance.

Victim Cannot File Second Appeal Against Order Affirming Acquittal By Seeking Special Leave From HC U/S 419(4) BNSS: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Gopala Krishnan v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 15

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that a victim cannot filed a second appeal against the acquittal of an accused by seeking special leave from the High Court as per Section 419(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Asian Paints Limited v. Ram Babu and Another, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked:

“It is evident from the above observations itself that once the appellate remedy is invoked by the victim, the same party cannot prefer another appeal as in the form of a second appeal.”

Bank Loan Fraud | Civil Decree For Recovery Doesn't Erase Liability For Criminal Misappropriation Under PC Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P V Ravi v SPE/CBI Kochi

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 16

The Kerala High Court has held that the existence of a civil decree for recovery of loan dues does not negate criminal liability for conspiracy and misappropriation under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, holding that criminal culpability must be assessed independently of civil remedies

Justice A Badharudeen was delivering a judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed for misappropriation and conspiracy.

Kerala High Court Allows Additional Entry Of Changed Name In Marriage Register After Wife's Religious Conversion

Case Title: Aayisha Muhsin v. Principal Secretary and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 17

While dealing with an inter-religious marriage under the Special Marriage Act, the Kerala High Court has held that if a spouse wishes to convert their religion, an additional entry can be incorporated in the marriage register to record his/her new name.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registrar of Marriages, Panchayat Secretary concerned and other authorities to incorporate an additional entry in the marriage register and to issue a new marriage certificate with the wife's new name in this case, after her conversion from Hinduism to Islam.

Kerala High Court Absolves Actor Mohanlal In Manappuram Finance False Advertisement Case

Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

The Kerala High Court has absolved actor Mohanlal from liability in a consumer case alleging unfair trade practice by Manappuram Finance for demanding higher interest than what was advertised by it.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. remarked that as long as the actor was only the brand ambassador of Manappuram and did not, in any manner, persuade to avail their services, liability cannot be fastened against him.

Brand Ambassador Not Liable For Unfair Trade Practices Or Deficient Service Unless Directly Linked To Transaction With Consumer: Kerala HC

Case Title: Actor Mohanlal Viswanathan v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 18

The Kerala High Court recently held that a brand ambassador will not be liable for a brand's unfair trade practice or deficiency in service unless a direct link is established between him and the consumer's transaction.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. however clarified that an action may lie against a brand ambassador/endorser under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act for false or misleading advertisements.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down Devaswom Recruitment Board's Power Over Guruvayoor Appointments

Case Title: Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 19

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 9 of the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board Act, 2015 (KDRB Act) which empowers the KDRB to prepare select lists for the appointment of candidates to various posts in the Guruvayoor Devaswom posts is unconstitutional.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V M were considering an appeal filed by the Guruvayur Devaswom Employees Union Congress and others, challenging the relevant provisions of the KDRB Act.

Magistrate Taking Cognizance Based On Protest Complaint Must Pass Speaking Order & Consider Refer Report: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anilkumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 20

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a magistrate taking cognizance based on a protest complaint must consider the refer report filed by the police and pass a speaking order.

Referring to the decisions in Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran [2009 (1) KLT 794] and C.R. Chandran v. State of Kerala [ILR 2024 (3) Ker. 245], Justice C. Pratheep Kumar observed:

“Therefore, it is evident that while taking cognizance of an offence based on a private complainant, especially one filed as a protest complaint against a refer report filed by the police, the Magistrate shall take into consideration the refer report as well. Further, it should be a speaking order, containing the materials justifying the order taking cognizance, as held by this court in the decisions referred above.”

Pre-Deposit For Filing SARFAESI Appeal Must Be Paid To Tribunal, Not Lending Bank: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Authorized Officer and Chief Manager Kerala Gramin Bank v. M/s Prajith Builders and Developers Private Limited and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 21

The Kerala High Court has clarified that the mandatory pre-deposit required to file an appeal under the SARFAESI Act must be paid to the Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal and not to the lending bank.

A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Kerala Gramin Bank, setting aside a single judge's order that had directed the borrower to deposit money with the bank itself in order to pursue its appeal before the DRAT.

Kerala High Court Directs State To Pay ₹14 Lakh Compensation To NRI Man & Kin For Wrongful Detention

Case Title: V.K. Thajudheen and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 22

The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to pay Rs. 14 Lakhs compensation to a NRI man and family after he was imprisoned for a period of 54 days in judicial custody based on false charges.

Justice P.M. Manoj awarded Rs. 10 lakhs to the man and Rs. 1 lakh each to four of his family members as a compensation for the mental agony, trauma, defamation and harassment faced by them at the hands of the police officers.

Cheque Dishonour | Substitution Of Complainant & Accused Not Permissible At Appellate Stage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Tenny Jose v. Managing Partner, New Metalised Agency and Anr.

Citation: , 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 23

The Kerala High Court recently held that the names of the complainant and the accused cannot be substituted at the appellate stage by an amendment application as there is no enabling provision in the CrPC, specially when the amendment plea was moved 27 years after filing of the complaint.

Justice Johnson John was considering an appeal filed by the complainant in a cheque dishonour case challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Petrol Pump Licence Automatically Stands Cancelled On Expiry Of Lease, No Hearing Required: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Choorapilan Jameela and Anr. v. Padavanna Shamseer and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 24

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per the Petroleum Rules, 2002, when the licensee of a petroleum outlet loses the right to the site for storing petroleum due to expiry of lease period, the license gets automatically cancelled without any need for a formal order.

Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that in such cases, license can be cancelled without granting an opportunity of hearing to the licensee.

Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony, No Test Identification Parade: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Life Conviction After 7 Yrs

Case Title: Manden Babinesh and Ors. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 25

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that non-conduct of test identification parade taken along with other vitiating factors would render as suspect the testimony of eyewitnesses.

The Division Bench consisting of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:

“Although it is trite that an identification in a TI parade is not substantive evidence and that the non-holding of a TI parade will not vitiate a dock identification [Vinod alias Nasmulla v. State of Chattisgarh – [(2025) 4 SCC 312], considering the fact that the dock identification of the accused by the witnesses above was not free from doubt, a TI Parade would have proved useful to corroborate the dock identification done by PW1 and PW5 in the instant case. For our part, we are of the view that the non-conduct of a TI Parade, taken together with the other vitiating factors discussed above with regard to the conduct of the aforementioned witnesses, rendered their testimony as eye-witnesses to the incident suspect and unworthy of acceptance vis-a-vis the identification of the accused.”

Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Plaint Can't Be Permitted To Bypass Res-Judicata After Full Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sayed Hussain Hydrose Thangal v. K J Paul and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 26

The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed the limits of amendments to pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, holding that a plaint cannot be amended after completion of evidence to introduce a claim that has already been decided on merits in an earlier suit between the same parties.

The division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice G. Girish, delivered the judgment in a miscellaneous first appeal.

Judge Can't Usurp Powers Of Prosecutor By Conducting Chief Examination: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Life Conviction After 14 Yrs Of Custody

Case Title: Babu C.G. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 27

The Kerala High Court has recently (12 January) observed that a judge cannot assume the role of a Public Prosecutor by usurping into the counsel's powers.

The observation was made by a division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar while setting aside the life sentence imposed on an accused convicted of murder, holding that the entire trial stood vitiated due to gross denial of the constitutional right to a fair trial.

Vigilance Court Can't Order Probe Into Private Complaint Against Public Servant Without Sanction Under PC Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anaz M.A. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 28

The Kerala High Court in a recent decision quashed an order made by the Special Judge (Vigilance) directing investigation into a complaint and the FIR registered against a public servant after noting that prior sanction as per Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not received.

Justice A. Badharudeen relegated the case back to the pre-cognizance stage and directed the Special Judge to insist of the production of sanction under the PC Act in order to proceed further with the complaint.

Hindu Wife Can Claim Maintenance From Property Sold By Husband If Buyer Had Notice Of Her Claim: Kerala High Court Full Bench

Case Title: Sulochana v. Anitha and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 29

The Full Bench of the Kerala High Court recently held that a Hindu wife is entitled to receive maintenance from the profits of the property of her husband even after its transfer, if the transfer was effected subsequent to initiation of legal proceedings for maintenance or if there is evidence showing that the transferee was aware of her claim at the time of sale.

The Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, P.V. Kunhikrishnan and G. Girish clarified that in such cases, the wife's right for maintenance will get the protection and privilege of Section 39 of the Transfer of Property Act/Section 28 of Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act, which deals with the protection of a third person's right to maintenance from the profits of an immovable property irrespective of the transfer of that property.

Kerala Education Rules | 25% By-Transfer Quota For Junior School Teachers Applicable On Sanctioned Strength, Not Vacancies: High Court

Case Title: Chinchu Lizen Babu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 30

The Kerala High Court quashed a Government order rejecting by-transfer appointments to Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior) posts, observing that 25% by-transfer quota under Kerala Education Rules must be calculated on the sanctioned strength of posts and not on the vacancies arising in an academic year.

Justice N. Nagaresh in his order said that any administrative interpretation applying the quota to yearly vacancies instead of the total sanctioned posts would be contrary to Rule 4(3) of Chapter XXXII of the Rules and therefore legally unsustainable. Rule 4(3) prescribes method of appointment of Higher Secondary School Teacher (Junior).

No Fresh Notification Required To Apply Rent Control Act In Panchayat Area Converted To Municipality: Kerala High Court Full Bench

Case Title: Vadavathi Rajeevan and Anr. v. K Vanaja and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 31

The Kerala High Court has held that no fresh notification under Section 1(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 is required to apply the Act, when a Panchayat Area is converted to Municipality.

A Full Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, Justice Gopinath P. and Justice G. Girish was answering a reference which arose from conflicting Division Bench decisions on whether the conversion of a Panchayat into a Municipality interrupts the applicability of the Rent Act unless the State Government issues a fresh notification amending Schedule I.

Victim's Statement Alone Can Sustain Charge Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32

The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that an accused cannot be discharged merely because the statements of the witnesses do not disclose ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.

Justice A. Badharudheen clarified that if the statement of the aggrieved person prima facie discloses the offence, then that would be sufficient.

Authorised Govt Officer's Complaint Necessary To Prosecute Notary: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act, a complaint by an officer authorized by the government concerned is necessary for taking cognizance of offence committed by a notary public exercising functions under the Act.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, after referring to the provision and noting non-compliance, set aside all further proceedings against a notary arrayed as an accused in a crime.

Motor Accident Claims | Carrying Two Pillion Riders On Motorcycle Doesn't Establish Contributory Negligence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that contributory negligence cannot be attributed on a victim of a motor accident merely because he was carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle.

Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the insurer must bring in evidence showing that the act of carrying two pillion riders had a direct and proximate cause, connecting it with the accident.

Dismissal For Default Alone Can't Justify Rejection Of Restoration Plea Citing Lack Of 'Vigilance': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dismissal for default alone cannot justify the rejection of restoration plea citing lack of vigilance.

Justice T R Ravi made the observation in a petition challenging rejection of an application seeking restoration of execution proceedings, which were dismissed for default.

Kerala High Court Orders State Bar Council To Refund ₹5K Excess Enrolment Fee Collected From Lawyers

Case Title: Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36

The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 19) directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund the excess amount collected from seven lawyers to conduct their enrolments.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund to each of the petitioners the excess fee of Rs. 5000 collected from them within 2 weeks of receipt of the judgment.

Kerala Land Reforms Act | Article 226 Can Be Invoked To Divest Land Vested With Govt: High Court

Case Title: P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37

The Kerala High Court has recently held that while excess land vests absolutely in the Government upon issuance of an order under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act), the constitutional courts may still exercise its power under Article 226 to order divesting such land in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice and violation of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.

Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment.

S.399 IPC | Preparation For Dacoity Requires Five Or More Persons: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Hari v. The State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified that a minimum of five persons are required to attract the offence of making preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha looked into the definition of 'dacoity' provided under Section 391 IPC and observed:

“A reading of Section 391 of IPC would show that the essential or core ingredient of the offence of dacoity is that there should be five or more persons. Section 399 IPC deals with making preparation to commit dacoity and therefore, the numerical requirement applicable to dacoity is equally applicable to preparation for it. If the number is less than five, the offence of dacoity or the offence of preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 IPC will not attract. If fewer than five persons are involved, the preparation cannot be said to be for committing dacoity, because the numerical requirement of five or more persons mandatory under Section 391 IPC is equally applicable to Section 399 IPC.”

'Continued Detention Deprives Right To Life': Kerala High Court Orders Repatriation Of Srilankans Detained In Transit Home For More Than 2 Yrs

Case Title: Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39

The Kerala High Court recently directed the repatriation of two Srilankan citizens, who are the children of the accused persons in two cases being investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering the plea preferred by the petitioners seeking a declaration that their continued detention in the Transit Home after a period of more than 2 years was illegal.

S.413 BNSS | Victim Can Appeal Against Acquittal Before Competent Forum Without Leave Of Court: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40

The Kerala High Court has held that a victim whether they are complainant or not has a statutory right of appeal against acquittal of accused without seeking leave of the High Court, however such appeal must be filed before the appropriate Court.

Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a woman's appeal under Section 413 BNSS challenging the acquittal of a man who was accused of offences under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty)and 354D (Stalking).

Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Jeweller Roddam & Former Devaswom Board Officials

Case Title: Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala, A. Padmakumar v. State of Kerala, B. Murari Babu v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 21) denied bail to Jeweller Roddam Govardhan and former Travancore Devaswom Board officials A. Padmakumar and Murari Babu, who are accused of misappropriating gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala.

Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order today in open court after reserving the verdict.

Birth Outside Kerala Not Bar To Domicile Certificate If Applicant Permanent Resident Of State: High Court

Case Title: Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42

The Kerala High Court has recently (January 19) held that a person born outside the State cannot be denied a domicile certificate if their permanent residence and social belongingness are demonstrably in Kerala.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation in a plea challenging rejection of Petitioner's application for issuance of domicile certificate on the ground that he and his parents were born and brought up in Kolkata.

Sanction U/S 188 CrPC Not Needed To Take Cognizance Of Foreign Offence, But Mandatory Before Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that sanction under Section 188 of CrPC is not required at the stage of taking cognizance of an offence committed outside India, while it is required for commencement of the trial.

Justice C Pratheep Kumar while dealing with a criminal revision petition observed,

"At the stage of taking cognizance of an offence, sanction under Section 188 of Cr.P.C is not required, while it is required for commencement of the trial."

'Heavy Bearing On Fundamental Rights': Kerala High Court Modifies Externment Order Of Maximum Period Passed Without Reason

Case Title: Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44

The Kerala High Court recently modified an externment order restraining a person from entering the Thrissur revenue district after finding that there was no reason assigned for passing the order for maximum period.

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that an externment order would have a huge impact on the fundamental and personal rights of a person and therefore, while passing the maximum period, the authority must assign proper reasons for the same.

Kerala High Court Closes Law Aspirant's Plea For Transgender Reservation In Law Colleges After She Secures Admission

Case Title: Esai Clara v State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (22 January) closed the plea by a law aspirant seeking reservation under the transgender category for admission to the Integrated Five Year LL.B Course in Government Law College, Kozhikode.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, closed the petition when it was informed that the petitioner has acquired admission at the Government Law College, Kozhikode

Kerala High Court Advocates' Association Election Disputes Not Amenable To Writ Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46

The Kerala High Court has held that disputes relating to elections of the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that the Association is neither a public authority nor a body discharging public functions.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgement while dismissing a writ petition filed by a member of the KHCAA challenging the 2026 Association elections, including the voters' list, election notification, and the declaration of results.

S. 482 BNSS | No Anticipatory Bail Under SC/ST Act When Prosecution Materials Show Prima Facie Offence : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that since Section 18 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act provides that Section 438 CrPC regarding pre-arrest bail is not applicable to persons committing offences under the Act, the same can be said about its corresponding provision, Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.

Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering judgement in an appeal preferred under Section 14A of the Act against the Special Court's order denying bail to two persons accused of committing offences under Sections 296(b), 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 110, 324(4), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita as well as under Sections 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.

'Doctor' Title Doesn't Belong Exclusively To Medical Professionals: Kerala High Court Permits Physiotherapists To Use 'Dr.' Prefix

Case Title: Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48

The Kerala High Court has held that the title 'doctor' does not belong exclusively to medical professionals and that physiotherapists and occupational therapists can use the 'Dr.' prefix.

Justice V.G. Arun pronounced the judgment dismissing the pleas preferred by Indian Medical Association, Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) and its Secretary.

High Courts Work Even On Holidays, Denial Of Compensatory Leave To Its Officers Illegal, Violates Article 229: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kerala High Court Gazetted Officers' Association v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 49

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 28) held that denial of compensatory leave to the Gazetted Officers of the High Court is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution.

Justice N. Nagaresh observed:

“In High Court, the functional realities are materially different from other Government Departments. Administrative and judicial work continues even during major holidays such as Onam and Christmas. Even during holidays, vacation sittings are held, which require the full process of filing, scrutiny, allocation of cases, issue of orders and even clearing of pendency. Indexing and processing of disposed files are usually done during this holiday period. The Gazetted Officers of the High Court are required to supervise, coordinate and ensure completion of all such duties… It is declared that denial of compensatory leave to the Gazetted Officers of the High Court under Ext.P1 is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 229 of the Constitution of India.”

POCSO Act | False 'Sexual Harassment' Allegation Won't Attract Prosecution Under Section 22: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XX v Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 50

The Kerala High Court has held that a prosecution for making a false complaint under Section 22 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is maintainable only if the alleged false information relates to offences under Sections 3 (penetrative sexual assault), 5 (Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault), 7 (Sexual Assault) or 9 (Aggravated Sexual Assault) of the Act.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was delivering judgment in a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against two persons who were charged under Section 22 of the POCSO Act for allegedly lodging a false complaint.

Kerala High Court Closes Pleas Against Sprinklr Deal, Says There Was No Data Sharing By State

Case Title: Balu Gopalakrishnan v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 51

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (28 January) closed a batch of writ petitions which questioned the data confidentiality of the State government's agreement with US-based data analytics firm Sprinklr Inc. for managing COVID-19 related data.

The division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M, confirmed the earlier directions issued by a division bench of the Court and held that the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic justified the State's actions, though procedural lapses were noted.

Telling Someone 'Go Away And Die' In Heat Of Quarrel Doesn't Amount To Abetment Of Suicide: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Safwan Adhur v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 52

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that casual or angry utterances made during a quarrel, without the requisite mens rea, do not amount to abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, was delivering the judgement in a criminal revision petition against a Sessions Court order rejecting the application for discharge.

Confession Made To Police Can't Be Used Against Co-Accused Without Independent Evidence: Kerala High Court Acquits Man In Theft Case

Case Title: Shyjal C. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 53

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a confession made to the police by one accused cannot be used to convict a co-accused in the absence of an independent incriminating evidence.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering a judgment in a criminal revision petition filed by the second accused in a theft case. The petitioner challenged the conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Section 379 (theft) of IPC.

Bar Association Not 'Employer', Can't Constitute Internal Complaints Committee As Per POSH Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XXX v. The Kollam Bar Association and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 54

The Kerala High Court recently held that the constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) by the Kollam Bar Association was against the objective and requirement of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 [POSH Act].

Justice P.M. Manoj reasoned that a bar association is not an 'employer' within the meaning of the Act and therefore, the ICC constituted is not in accordance with the Act.

Permission To Cultivate Non-Paddy Crops Doesn't Authorise Land Conversion Or Tenure Change: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jossy Chacko v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

The Kerala High Court has held that an order issued under Clause 7 of the Kerala Land Utilisation Order, 1967 (KLU Order), even if it permits cultivation of crops other than paddy, cannot be construed as permission under Clause 6(2) for conversion of land or for alteration of land tenure in revenue records

Justice P.M. Manoj was delivering a judgment in a writ petition in which the petitioner claimed that an order issued under Clause 7 of the KLR Order would constitute a valid permission under Clause 6(2) of the Order.

'Malikhana' Distinct From 'Privy Purse': Kerala High Court Rejects Challenge To Zamorin Raja's Allowance; Cites Article 363 Bar

Case Title: Sanoop V.V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the grant of Malikhana allowance to a member of the Zamorin royal family, holding that disputes relating to rights arising from pre-Constitution covenants are barred from judicial scrutiny under Article 363 of the Constitution Of India.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar further held that the petitioner lacked locus standi to maintain such a challenge and that none of the reliefs sought could be granted in the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The Court accordingly dismissed the petition with costs of ₹10,000.

Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail To YouTube Channel Editor Booked For Allegedly Obscene Content Involving CM Pinarayi Vijayan

Case Title: T.P. Nandakumar v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 57

The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 30) granted pre-arrest bail to the chief editor of Crime Online, a YouTube Channel, who is accused of posting an obscene content involving Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to T.P. Nandakumar, who is alleged to have committed the offences under Sections 67 and 67A of the Information Technology Act (IT Act) for posting a video with a caption in Malayalam that translates to “What exactly did Pinarayi do by lifting Saritha Nair's skirt...the video is out”.

'Nip It In The Bud': Kerala High Court Issues Directions For Prompt Reporting Of Malpractices In Temples, Including Sabarimala

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

The Kerala High Court on Friday (January 29) issued guidelines for the effective and prompt reporting of the lapses, misconduct and malpractices in the religious institutions under the Travancore Devaswom Board.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of the report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner relating to the submission of periodical status report of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board.

Compromise Without Pre-Existing Rights Invalid In Service Inam Land Proceedings: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Manoj and Ors. v. The District Collector and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

The Kerala High Court has recently held that the claimants who possess no pre-existing legal rights over Service Inam lands cannot enter into a binding compromise inter se, under the Kerala Service Inam Lands (Vesting and Enfranchisement) Act, 1981. It has further held that the statutory authorities cannot abdicate their adjudicatory role by merely recording such settlements.

Justice C. Jayachandran delivered the judgement in a petition challenging a settlement order issued under Service Inam Lands Act.

'Desertion' Under Divorce Act Means Desertion Without Reasonable Cause: Kerala High Court Denies Past Maintenance To Deserting Spouse

Case Title: Shaji Sebastian v. Julie Joseph

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 60

The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “desertion” under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 must be understood as desertion without reasonable cause, despite the absence of an express statutory qualifier.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar were disposing of matrimonial appeals arising from a common judgment of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.

Quasi-Judicial Authority Can't Challenge Order Setting Aside Its Own Decision: Kerala High Court Rejects Admission Supervisory Committee's Appeal

Case Title: The Admission Supervisory Committee For Medical Education v. Karthik Dev R. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 61

The Kerala High Court has held that the Admission Supervisory Committee for Medical Education in Kerala, being a statutory body exercising adjudicatory functions under the Kerala Medical Education (Regulation and Control of Admission to Private Medical Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, cannot be treated as an “aggrieved person” entitled to maintain a writ appeal against a judgment setting aside its quasi-judicial orders.

A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Admission Supervisory Committee on the ground of non-maintainability, holding that a quasi-judicial authority cannot challenge an order passed by a superior court interfering with its decision.

Offence Of Cruelty Against Woman U/S 498A IPC Not Attracted If Marriage Annulled By Competent Court: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Umesh and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man and his mother for allegedly committing the offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code after noting that there was no valid marriage between him and the complainant in view of the annulment made by a competent court.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a plea preferred by the husband and mother-in-law of the de facto complainant seeking to quash the proceedings against them.

Quantity Of Contraband Seized In NDPS Cases Must Be Specified For Effective Communication Of Grounds Of Arrest: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kamal Kumar Mandal v. State of Kerala and Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the quantity of contraband seized as per the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) has to be specified for an effective communication of grounds of arrest to an accused.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on various precedents laid down by the Apex Court and by the High Court and have summarised the principles laid down regarding effective communication of grounds of arrest.

Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Case On Sale Of Chemical Kumkum At Sabarimala

Case Title: Suo Motu v Union Government and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

The Kerala High Court has closed the suo motu proceedings initiated regarding the issue concerning the sale of chemical kumkum in Sabarimala Temple.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar was considering a report submitted by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner on measures taken to ensure adequate amenities for pilgrims during the peak pilgrimage season.

Labour Court Cannot Adjudicate Legality Of Closure Under ID Act When Reference Is Confined To Justification Of Retrenchment: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Lunar Rubbers v Kerala Head Load And Timber Workers And Factory Workers Union(KTUC and ors and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

The Kerala High Court has held that a Labour Court cannot adjudicate on the legality or bona fides of an alleged closure when the reference itself is confined to the justification of retrenchment.

Justice Mohammed Nias CP was delivering the judgment in petitions challenging the Labour Court Order which directed the reinstatement of workmen who claimed to have been illegally terminated under the guise of closure.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Journalist MR Ajayan's Review Plea, Upholds ₹40K Cost For Moving Vacation Bench Without Urgency

Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (03 February) dismissed a review petition filed by M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist, against an order of the vacation bench, imposing costs which amounted to a total of Rs 40,000.

A division bench comprising Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the review petition challenging an interim order of the Vacation bench of the Court, which found Ajayan had filed Section 8 interlocutory applications before it, without any urgency.

Maternity Leave Is A Right, Cannot Be Clubbed With Regular Leaves To Cancel Candidature: Kerala High Court Grants Relief To NBEMS Trainee

Case Title: Susan K. John v. National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

The Kerala High Court recently held that maternity leave is a right and the same cannot be clubbed with the other regular leaves taken by a National Board of Examinations in Medical Sciences (NBEMS) Trainee to cancel her candidature.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a plea preferred by a NBEMS Trainee, who got selected in the NEET Super Specialty Examination (NEET-SS) for a DrNB course after completing her MBBS and MD.

Custodial Death Compensation: Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Case As State Finalises SOP For Collection Of Prisoners' Legal Heirs Data

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (04 February) disposed of the suo motu proceedings on custodial deaths and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased inmates as the State informed that the Standard operating Procedure (SOP) for collection of data has been finalised.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M disposed of the petition.

Matsyafed Is 'Financing Bank' Under Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, Consultation Mandatory Before Supersession: High Court

Case Title: K V Sabu v Registrar of Co-Operatives Societies and Ors.

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

The Kerala High Court has held that Matsyafed, the State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Limited, is a financing bank within the meaning of Section 32(2) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

Justice K Babu, was delivering the judgment in a petition challenging the order of supersession of the Managing Committee of a Co-operative Society.

Kerala High Court Closes PIL Seeking Compliance On Road Standards For Pedestrian Safety

Case Title: Prasad Somarajan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

The Kerala High Court has recently (29 January) closed a public interest litigation which has raised concerns regarding the pedestrian safety alongside the roads.

The division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M disposed of the petition.

No Disability Pension Where Condition Not Attributable To Military Service: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Rajendran P. v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of the Armed Forces Tribunal that rejected an ex-serviceman's application against non-grant of disability pension for Generalised Anxiety Disorder.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John held that the presumptions under the Entitlement Rules for Casualty Pensionary Awards, 1982 regarding the sound mental condition of a member upon entering service do not come in when the medical assessment does not indicate disability is attributable to or aggravated by medical service.

Authorised Representative Without Direct Knowledge Of Transaction Can't Sustain Cheque Bounce Case: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pattasseril Private Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

The Kerala High Court recently held that a company that prefers a complaint for cheque dishonour can be represented by a power of attorney holder only if he/she witnessed the transaction or had direct knowledge of it.

Justice P.V. Balakrishnan observed:

“The company, being a juristic person, cannot act on its own and it must necessarily function through a human agency. A company is competent to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act and it can do so, through an authorised person. Even though, a power of attorney holder, being an authorised representative of the company, can file a complaint and give evidence, he must have either witnessed the transaction or must possess direct knowledge of the transaction.”

Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Enhancement Of Prison Wages In State

Case Title: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v State of Kerala and Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (05 February) dismissed a public interest litigation that challenged the State Government's recent decision to enhance the wages paid to convicted prisoners.

The division bench comprising Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M dismissed the petition.

Documents Produced With Writ Petition Must Be Marked With Description In Statement Of Facts Or In Grounds: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nowfal v. The Secretary, Angadippuram Grama Panchayat and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that while filing writ petitions, it is necessary to mark documents with description either in the statement of facts or in the grounds.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while considering a writ petition, noticed that the exhibits produced in it were not marked as copy of the original documents with description but were shown in brackets after stating the relevant fact. However, in the affidavit accompanying the petition, there was a statement that the documents produced are true copies of the original documents.

Kerala HC Orders Travancore Devaswom Board To Prepare Panel Of Qualified Employees For Appointment As Assistants To Sabarimala Melshanthis

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

The Kerala High Court has recently directed the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) to prepare a list of employees to be appointed as assistants to the Melshanthis, Kazhakam, and Ulkazhakam at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple, citing serious concerns over lack of oversight and the presence of individuals with criminal antecedents in temple service.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar issued the directions while disposing, a suo motu proceeding arising from the selection of Melshanthis for the Sabarimala temple and the Malikappuram Temples.

'Infructuous': Kerala High Court Dismisses Expelled CPI(M) Leader's Plea For Police Protection To Release Book On Fund Mismanagement By Party

Case Title: Kunhikrishnan V. v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

The Kerala High Court on Friday (February 6) dismissed as infructuous the plea preferred by expelled Communist Party of India (Marxist) leader Kunhikrishnan V. seeking police protection due to the release of his book "Nethruthwathe Anigal Thiruthanam", which is stated to be an exposé on irregularities and mismanagement of martyrs funds and other funds by some of the leaders of CPI(M), including Payyanur MLA Madhusoodhanan T.I.

He had prayed for protection for the book release event, which was held at 5 p.m. on February 2 at Gandhi Park in Payyannur, Kannur. Today, Kunhikrishnan's counsel submitted before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas that the matter has become infructuous.

Long Incarceration Alone Not Ground For Bail In Commercial Quantity NDPS Case If Accused Has Criminal Antecedents: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Abid v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a person found in possession of commercial quantity of narcotic drugs would not be eligible for grant of bail merely because of long incarceration if the twin conditions under Section 37 under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act are not satisfied or if he has criminal antecedents.

Dr. Kauser Edappagath was considering the bail application of a person who was found in possession of around 79.5 grams of methamphetamine and got implicated as the 1st accused in a crime alleging commission of offences under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the NDPS Act.

UAPA | Order Barring Disclosure Of Witness Statements Must Record Reasons For Each Witness: Kerala High Court

Case Title: R. Ragavendran and Anr. v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

The Kerala High Court has clarified that an order passed under Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act barring disclosure of witness statements must separately consider materials relating to each witness and record reasons for its decision.

The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan was considering a petition preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita challenging orders passed by the Special Court for NIA Cases.

Managing Director Who Signed Dishonoured Cheques & Handled Day-To-Day Affairs Vicariously Liable U/S 141 NI Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V.J. Joseph v. The India Cements Limited and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the managing director, who signed the dishonoured cheques and was in charge of the day-to-day affairs of a company accused of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is vicariously liable in the offence.

Justice M.B. Snehalatha dismissed a revision petition filed by the 2nd accused in a cheque bounce case for which he was found guilty along with the accused company in which he was the managing director.

Kerala High Court Orders Reimbursement Of Expenses To Govt Employee Over Treatment Of Daughter's Rare Disease Outside State

Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

In a recent ruling, the Kerala High Court ordered the state government to reimburse the treatment charges expended by a government school teacher for the treatment of his daughter's rare disease in a non-empanelled private hospital in Coimbatore.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon relied on various decisions of the Apex Court and the judgment of the High Court in The General Manager and Anr. v. Rajam V.V., wherein the reimbursements not disbursed on technical grounds like treatment at non-empanelled hospitals were ordered to be given.

'No RTE Act Recognition': Kerala High Court Orders Closure Of School Imparting Preschool Education On Quran

Case Title: Moithunnykutty and Anr. v. The District Collector and Ors. & Ma'din Knowledge Garden Public School v. Assistant Educational Officer and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

The Kerala High Court recently ordered closure of a school that was teaching Quran and allied subjects to its students since it was running without valid recognition as per Section 18 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009.

Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering two connected writ petitions, one of which was preferred by two persons, who had complained against the school. The complaint had led to a report by the Assistant Educational Officer addressed to the District Educational Officer, who found that the school was being run without recognition. They have sought for directions for taking further action on the same.

'Rules Can't Be Used To Foment Disharmony': Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea For Action Against Temple Entry By Christian Priests

Case Title: Sanil Narayanan Nampoothiri v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition that sought action against Christian priests, who had entered Adoor Sree Parthasarathy Temple in priestly robes to attend a function to celebrate Sreekrishna Jayanthi.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a plea preferred by a devotee of the temple, who prayed for a direction to the Travancore Devaswom Board to take action as per the Kerala Hindu Places of Public Worship (Authorisation of Entry) Act 1965 and the Rules thereunder for permitting entry of non-Hindus inside the temple.

Disability Pension Must Be Granted To Voluntary Dischargee When Chronic Condition Acquired Due To Military Service: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Havildar B. Manikuttan v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a person would be entitled to disability pension if his chronic disability was acquired due to military service even though he voluntarily discharged himself from service.

The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a plea preferred after the petitioner's application before the Armed Forces Tribunal against non-grant of disability pension was dismissed.

Intentional Judicial Decision Cannot Be Altered As 'Clerical Error' U/S 151 & 152 CPC; Remedy Lies In Appeal Or Review: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Venkatraman Bhat and Ors. v. Anantha Bhat and Ors. and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

The Kerala High Court has held that an intentional adjudicatory decision cannot be corrected under the guise of “clerical error” or “inherent powers” under Section 151 or 152 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and must be challenged only through appellate or review mechanisms.

The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar were delivering a judgment in a civil revision petition arising out of a partition suit.

Filing False Suit With Forged Documents Against SC/ST Person Prima Facie Attracts Offence Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Velayudhan v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

The Kerala High Court recently held that the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act would be prima facie attracted when it is prima facie established that a false suit using a forged document was filed by a non-member against a member of the community.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed:

“when it is prima facie established that the suit filed…is one in the category of false, malicious or vexatious one, particularly using a forged suit document, when the defendants therein are members of the Scheduled Caste and the plaintiffs therein are not members of Scheduled Caste, the offence unader Section 3(1)(q) of the SC & ST (PoA) Act would attract prima facie.”

Acquittal Under Essential Commodities Act Doesn't Automatically Entitle Trader To Interest Or Higher Compensation: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. v Niradeepam Roller Flour Mill

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

The Kerala High Court has recently held that an acquittal in a criminal trial under Section 3(1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1995 does not by itself entitle a trader to compensation with interest under Section 6C(2), unless the statutory preconditions under that provision are strictly satisfied.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan were delivering the judgment in an intra Court appeal against a Single Judge's order that had directed payment of the procurement price of seized wheat along with interest to a roller flour mill following its acquittal in a criminal case.

Using Minimum Corporal Punishment For Discipline Not Offence: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Teacher For Caning Student

Case Title: Sibin S.V. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that using minimum corporal punishment to discipline student in school is not an offence under the Juvenile Justice Act or the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar quashed the criminal case initiated against a teacher for caning a student in the school.

'Neighbourhood School' Under RTE Act Cannot Be Rigidly Distance-Based: Kerala HC Dismisses Challenge To School Shifting In Lakshadweep

Case Title: Ummu Sulaim (Minor) and Ors. v. The Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors. and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

The Kerala High Court has held that the concept of a “neighbourhood school” under Section 6 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) Act cannot be applied through rigid distance-based standards and must be understood in light of local geographical and demographic realities.

Justice N. Nagaresh was delivering the judgment in two writ petitions filed by minor students from Agatti and Andrott Islands in the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, who had challenged administrative orders shifting and merging Junior Basic Schools.

Municipal Secretary Can Cut Down Dangerous Trees Without Notice To Owner: Kerala High Court Grants Relief To 92-Year-Old Man

Case Title: C.J. Mathews v. District Collector and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment clarifying that as per Section 412(2) of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, the secretary of a municipal corporation can cut down dangerous trees, without notice to their owner.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan granted relief to a 92-year-old man, who had been fighting for the past 9 years to get the trees in his neighbouring property cut down because of the danger they posed.

'Suitability Certificate' From Indian Nursing Council Not Mandatory For Registering Nurses Trained Outside State: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Karnataka State Association of the Management of Nursing & Allied Health Science Institution v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

The Kerala High Court has held that the State Nursing Council cannot insist on a Recognition/ Suitability Certificate of the Indian Nursing Council (INC) for granting inter-State registration to nursing students.

Justice N. Nagaresh was delivering the judgment in a writ petition which challenged the insistence of recognition of the Nursing Colleges by Indian Nursing Council for registration as Nurse in the State of Kerala for persons who have obtained their degrees outside Kerala.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Upper Age Limit For Availing Assisted Reproductive Technology Services

Case Title: XXX v. Union of India and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 91

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the upper age limit prescribed to avail assisted reproductive technology services.

Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen passed a common judgment in the batch of cases that had challenged the constitutional validity of Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021 that prescribed the upper age limits for women as 50 years and men as 55 years for availing ART services.

Kerala High Court Expunges Caution Against Doctor For Being Unaware Of Mental Healthcare Act Mandates, Notes He Acted Professionally

Case Title: Dr. Haiderali Kalliyath v. XXX and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

The Kerala High Court recently expunged a caution given to a doctor by the Statutory Mental Health Review Board for being unaware of the provisions of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal that challenged the order of the Review Board.

Grounds Of Arrest Need Not Specify Quantity Of Contraband For Accused From Whom No Seizure Is Made: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Imran @ Hamsath Ikthiyar @ Irshad v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 93

The Kerala High Court has held that while communication of the grounds of arrest is a mandatory constitutional and statutory requirement, the specification of the quantity of contraband seized is necessary only in respect of those accused from whose possession the contraband was recovered.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgement in a bail application arising out of crime registered under Sections 22(c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act).

Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To MLA Rahul Mamkootathil In Rape & Miscarriage Case, Orders Him To Surrender His Phone

Case Title: Rahul B.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 94

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (February 12) granted anticipatory bail to Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil in the first rape and miscarriage case alleged against him.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath pronounced in open court:

"Bail application is allowed on the following conditions:

The applicant shall appear before the investigating officer on 16.2.2026 at 10 am for interrogation. He shall surrender his mobile phone before the investigating officer on that day. The applicant can be interrogated for the next three days from 10 am to 4 pm everyday if required, after giving adequate intervals. The applicant shall be deemed to be under custody during the aforesaid period for facilitating the requirements of investigation, including to undergo medical examination or potency test. If the investigating officer intends to arrest the applicant, then he shall be released on bail on executing a bond Rs. 1 lakh...The applicant shall fully cooperate with the investigation, shall appear before the investigating officer on every second Saturday between 10 and 11 am, shall not commit any offence... He shall not attempt to contact the respondent or any of the prosecution witnesses. The applicant shall not leave the State of Kerala. He shall surrender his passport before the investigating officer..."

Motor Accident | Car Owner Can Lead Independent Evidence On Issue Of Negligence Despite Driver's Plea Of Guilt: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Menon P.S. v. The Registrar General, High Court of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the owner of a vehicle involved in a motor accident can adduce independent evidence on the issue of negligence, even if the driver pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings.

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was considering a plea seeking to set aside the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's order wherein it dismissed a vehicle owner's interim application to summon a witness to disprove the police version since his driver pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings.

Cheque Dishonour | Complainant Has Statutory Right To Appeal Against Acquittal, Revision Petition Not Maintainable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Liji v. State of Kerala and connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

The Kerala High Court has held that a complainant in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) has a statutory right to file an appeal against acquittal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and therefore cannot invoke the High Court's revisional jurisdiction as an alternative remedy.

Justice K. Babu delivered the judgment while dismissing two criminal revision petitions filed by a complainant challenging the acquittal of the accused by the Sessions Court.

Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Dismisses Smart Creations CEO Pankaj Bhandari's Plea Challenging Arrest As Illegal

Case Title: Pankaj Bhandari v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 97

The Kerala High Court on Friday (February 13) dismissed the plea preferred by Pankaj Bhandari, CEO of Smart Creations, Chennai, alleging that his arrest as part of the Sabarimala gold theft case was illegal.

Justice A. Badharudeen pronounced the order rejecting the plea.

The prosecution allegation is that Bhandari along with the other accused in the case, including prime accused Unnikrishnan Potty, conspired together to misappropriate gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and the doorframes of the Sreekovil of Sabarimala temple and in furtherance of this, Potty took the gold-cladded items to Smart Creations, which stripped the gold knowing it to belong to the Travancore Devaswom Board.

Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Of Deceased Public Servant For Corruption, Orders Recovery Of Fine From His Legal Heirs

Case Title: T.O. Abraham v. State of Kerala and connected case

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 98

The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, upheld the conviction of two for their involvement in a corruption case relating to the Kulasekharapuram Irrigation Project.

Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the appeal filed by one of the accused whereas modified the sentence passed against the other accused since he was no more.

“Transfer Order In Contemplation Of Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Disguised As Punishment”: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sivakumar S. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 99

The Kerala High Court has held that a transfer order in contemplation of a disciplinary proceedings must be justified and cannot be operated as a disguised punishment.

Justice N. Nagaresh, was delivering a judgment which set aside the transfer of a Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) employee to Kasaragod over an article in a union house journal discussing the Corporation's financial condition and potential policy changes under a different political dispensation.

SC/ST Act | Special Court Considering Protest Complaint Must Verify Police Refer Report, Pass Reasoned Order: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Nisha V. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

The Kerala High Court has clarified that a Special Court considering a protest complaint alleging offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must pass a reasoned order after verifying the refer report filed by the Investigating Officer so as to either accept or reject the same.

Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal challenging the Special Court's order taking cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/STAct.

Identity Of Petitioner Must Be Verified Through SHO In Bank Account Defreezing Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 101

The Kerala High Court on Friday (13 February) ordered that no writ petition or similar plea seeking defreezing of bank accounts shall be entertained unless the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned is made a party respondent.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V M, passed the order in a suo motu Judicial Practice and Procedure proceeding initiated by the High Court.

S.482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Not Maintainable After Arrest, Even If Accused Released On Transit Bail: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Pankaj Kumar v. The Station House Officer and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

The Kerala High Court recently held that an accused arrested and released on transit bail cannot prefer an anticipatory bail plea, and he is only allowed to prefer a regular bail application before the jurisdiction court.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed a pre-arrest bail application of a Kashmiri man, who is arrayed as an accused in a crime registered by the Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram.

High Court Can Quash Gratuity Orders Passed Without Jurisdiction Even If Employer Did Not Object To Claim: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/S. Kosamattam Finance Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

The Kerala High Court recently held that high courts can exercise power under Article 226 of the Constitution to set aside the order passed by the Controlling Authority granting gratuity without jurisdiction, even if the claim for gratuity was not objected to by the employer.

Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition preferred by Kosamattam Finance Ltd. seeking to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent Controlling Authority appointed by the State government determining gratuity of its former employee, the 2nd respondent.

Challenge To Vested Forest Notification Filed After 14 Years Barred By Limitation: Kerala High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. Kurien E Kalathil and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

The Kerala High Court has held that a challenge to a vesting notification under the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, filed 14 years after publication, was barred by limitation.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a batch of appeals arising from proceedings before the Forest Tribunal relating to approximately 873 acres of land originally owned by Ponmudi Holdings Ltd.

'Common Knowledge That Bride's Gold Is Entrusted With Husband After Marriage': Kerala HC Declines Man's Appeal Against Return Of Wife's Gold

Case Title: Nishad and Anr. v. Mumthaz Beegum and connected cases

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a husband's appeal against a Family Court's order asking him to return 40 sovereigns of his wife's gold ornaments after disbelieving his version that the gold included those purchased by him.

The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar remarked that in a lot of cases, a woman does not always have custody of all of her gold ornaments after marriage since it is entrusted to the husband or his close relatives.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Centre's Order Allowing Old Labour Courts To Function After Enactment Of New Industrial Code

Case Title: M K Suresh Kumar and Anr v The Union of Indian and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (17 February) dismissed the petition challenging a Central Government notification that permits Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals constituted under the repealed Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to continue adjudicating cases even after the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 came into force.

Justice Gopinath P delivered the judgment.

Kerala High Court Allows PIL Against State's 'Nava Kerala Citizens Response Programme', Quashes Govt Order

Case Title: Mubas M.H. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Aloshious Xavier v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the public interest litigation challenging the State government's 'Nava Kerala Citizens Response Programme' which commenced on January 01.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the verdict.

Employer Can't Reject Resignation Citing Financial Constraint, Forcing Employee To Continue Amounts To Bonded Labour: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Greevas Job Panakkal v Traco Cable Company Ltd. and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

The Kerala High Court has held that an employer cannot refuse to accept an employee's resignation citing financial constraint and that compelling an employee to continue in service against his will would amount to bonded labour prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution.

Justice N Nagareesh delivered the judgment in two writ petitions filed by the Company Secretary of Traco Cable Company Limited, a State Public Sector Undertaking.

Kerala High Court Bars Husband Convicted For Dowry Death From Inheriting Wife's Estate Under Indian Succession Act

Case Title: Vijayan and Anr. v Appukutta

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

The Kerala High Court has held that a husband convicted for dowry death cannot inherit his deceased wife's property, even though the Indian Succession Act, 1925 contains no express statutory disqualification akin to Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Justice Easwaran S was delivering the judgment in a Regular Second Appeal.

Intimating Arrest Grounds On WhatsApp Sufficient When Relative Unwilling To Appear: Kerala High Court Denies Relief To NDPS

Case Title: Shameem v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

The Kerala High Court recently denied bail to an NDPS accused on finding that there is prima facie material to connect him to the offence and that the mandatory requirement of communication of grounds of arrest to relative was substantial complied with.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that as per the remand report, the accused's relative was asked to appear before the arresting officer over phone but since he was not willing, a Whatsapp message was sent informing about the grounds of arrest. This, the judge felt, amounted to sufficient compliance of the statutory mandate.

Co-op Banks Granting Loans To Borrowers Outside Service Area Not Misappropriation Without Pecuniary Loss: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Lucy Kuriakose and Anr. v State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

The Kerala High Court has held that grant of loans by a co-operative bank to persons residing outside its service area does not, by itself, constitute criminal misconduct or misappropriation in the absence of pecuniary loss or wrongful gain.

Justice A Badharudeen made the observation while allowing a criminal miscellaneous petition seeking quashment of a final report before the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kottayam.

Single Complaint Can Be Maintained U/S 138 NI Act For Dishonour Of Multiple Cheques Issued in Same Transaction: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Balachandran v Sajan Mathew and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

The Kerala High Court has held that a single complaint is maintainable for the dishonour of multiple cheques for which consolidated single notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) is issued, provided they arise out of the same transaction

Justice G Girish dismissed a petition challenging the maintainability of a prosecution under Section 138 of the NI Act based on four dishonoured cheques covered by a consolidated statutory notice.

Labour Court Can Extend Time For Compliance Of Award Even After It Becomes Enforceable Under Section 17A ID Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: I Bindhu v Thiruvanathanpuram Service Co-Operative Bank and Anr

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

The Kerala High Court has recently held that a Labour Court retain the powers to extend time for compliance with their awards, even after the award becomes enforceable under Section 17A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Justice Gopinath P while dismissing a writ petition observed that the Labour Court does not become functus officio merely because 30 days have elapsed from the publication of its award.

'No Inducement Of Prostitution': Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against Brothel Customer

Case Title: xxx. v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

The Kerala High Court recently quashed all criminal proceedings initiated against a customer of a brothel after noting that the prosecution does not have a case that he caused or induced prostitution.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a plea preferred by a man who was arrayed as 4th accused in a crime alleging commission of the offences under Sections 3(1), 3(2)(a) [Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel] of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.

Kerala High Court Directs State Election Commission To Decide Complaints On Improper Oath-Taking By Local Body Members

Case Title: Sabu Stephen v. State Election Commission

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

The Kerala High Court has recently (19 February) directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to consider and decide complaints alleging deviations from the prescribed statutory form of oath taken by elected representatives of Local Self Government Institutions (LSGIs), within four weeks.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. passed the order while disposing of a Public Interest Litigation alleging that several elected members of Panchayat, Municipalities, and Corporations had violated mandatory statutory provisions while taking their oath of office following the 2025 local body elections.

'Purpose Defeated': Kerala High Court Orders Discontinuation Of Kannur Corporation's 60 Year-Old-Siren Installed During Indo-Pak War

Case Title: Prasanthan M. v. Kannur Corporation and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment ordering the stoppage of Kannur Corporation's 60-year-old siren, which was installed in 1965 during the Indo-Pakistan war as a civil defence mechanism.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a public interest litigation praying to discontinue the operation of the high-intensity siren.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Alleged LTTE Operative In NIA Terror Funding Case After Four Years in Custody

Case Title: Satkunam @ Sabesan v. Union of India

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (24 February) granted bail to an alleged LTTE Operative who attempted to revive the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), for the purpose of waging war against Sri Lanka, citing prolonged incarceration and the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Susrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan allowed the Criminal Appeal, setting aside the Special Court's April 22, 2024 order that had rejected the accused's bail plea.

Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Accused Booked For Embezzling Sale Proceeds Of Sabarimala's Adiya Sishtam Ghee

Case Title: Jithusooraj S.K. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (February 24) denied anticipatory bail to Jithusooraj S.K., part-time shanti and the 31st accused in the crime registered by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau, Pathanamthitta in relation to the embezzlement of sale proceeds of Adiya Sishtam Ghee in Sabarimala.

Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the FIR was registered on the basis of the Division Bench's order in a suo motu proceeding initiated on the basis of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner's report.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To NDPS Accused, Says Relative Was Only Informed Grounds Of Arrest Over Phone, Not In Writing

Case Title: Basheer Thaliyil v. State of Kerala and Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to a person accused of an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) after noting that the grounds of his arrest was not intimated in writing to his relative and it was done only over phone.

Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that there are prima facie material to connect the accused with the crime but since the mandate of intimation of grounds of arrest in writing to his relative was not complied with, his arrest is vitiated.

Kerala High Court Directs State To Finalise SOP To Curb Overloaded Goods Vehicles On National Highways

Case Title: P.B. Satheesh v. Union of India and Ors.

Case No: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to finalise and implement the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for enforcement against overloading on National Highways.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the directions while disposing of a writ petition which sought implementation of measures to prevent overloading and other safety measures in roads.

Magistrate Can't Return Private Complaint Solely For Want Of Accused's Postal Address: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M.R. Anagh v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate cannot return a private complaint merely because the complainant has not furnished the postal address of the accused.

Justice C.S. Dias was delivering the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case.

After Husband Agrees, Kerala HC Allows Correction Of Father's Name In Birth Certificate Of Child Born Out Of Extra-Marital Affair

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.

Delay In Filing Complaint No Ground To Discard Matrimonial Cruelty Case; S.498A IPC Is Continuing Offence: Kerala High Court

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.”

Siblings Not Entitled To Compensation For 'Loss Of Love' In Motor Accident Death Claims: Kerala High Court

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.

High Court Declines Fresh PIL Against 'Kerala Story 2'; Pulls Up Petitioner For Casting Aspersions On Coordinate Bench That Allowed Release

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.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Assembly Ethics Committee Proceedings Against Rahul Mamkoottathil MLA

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.

Failure Of Investigating Officer To Note Victim's Intellectual Disability Not Fatal If They Are Competent To Testify: Kerala High Court

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).

Intra-Court Appeal Maintainable Against Ex Parte Ad Interim Order & Any Order Affecting Party's Right To Pursue Statutory Remedy: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Disposes PIL On ESIC Medical College At Kollam, Says MBBS Course Must Comply With NMC Norms Before Approval

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.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Travancore Devasom Board To Ensure Transparency In Padi Pooja At Sabarimala Temple

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.

ATM Fraud Losses Arising Out Of Other Banks' Cards Not Covered When Banker's Indemnity Policy Excludes Such Losses: Kerala High Court

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.

'Medical Service Is Essential': Kerala High Court Directs State To Provide Uninterrupted Medical Services Amid Doctors' Strike

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.

Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions Can't Entertain Complaints Against Village Officer: Kerala High Court

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.

Unreasoned Medical Board Opinion Can't Be Basis To Deny Disability Pension To Persons In Military Service: Kerala High Court

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.

Govt Using Employee Data To Communicate Benefits Not Privacy Violation: Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging CMO's Bulk Messages

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."

Grounds Of Arrest Need Not Be Separately Communicated To Accused On Production Warrant, But Relatives Must Be Informed: Kerala High Court

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.

Redisplaying Of Defamatory Content Can Attract Offence U/S 499, 500 IPC: Kerala High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Magazine Editors

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.

Kerala High Court Quashes Obscenity FIR Against Actor Shwetha Menon, Says Complaint Filed To 'Tarnish' Her Reputation

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.

Notification Inviting Applications Only For Govt Pleader Can't Be Used To Appoint Public Prosecutor: Kerala High Court

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.

Contractor Suppressing Prior Blacklisting Bars Equitable Relief, But Payment For Executed Work May Still Be Granted: Kerala High Court

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.

Decree Holder With Charged Decree Enjoys Priority Over Unsecured Decree Holders U/S 73 CPC: Kerala High Court

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.

Co-Owner's Undertaking To Accept “Whatever Amount” On Future Sale Cannot Bar Statutory Right To Partition: Kerala High Court

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)].

S.88 Registration Act | Govt Officer Exempt From Personal Appearance Even If Document Registered In Another State: Kerala High Court

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.

S.94 BNSS Permits Furnishing Existing Records, Not Collating Info: Kerala HC Directs Customs To Provide Duty Register In Drug Smuggling Probe

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.

Kerala High Court Judge Calls Own Judgment 'Per Incuriam'; Says Illegal Sand Mining Attracts Both Sand Act Offences And Theft Under BNS

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.

Masala Bonds Case: Kerala High Court Dismisses ED Appeal As Stay On Show Cause Notice Issued To KIIFB Expires

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.

Kerala High Court Closes PIL Against BEVCO, Malabar Distilleries Following Withdrawal Of Liquor Naming Contest

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.

Kerala High Court Flags Gaps In 2020 Flood Compensation Policy, Orders Review & Disbursal To Affected Families

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.

Grounds Of Arrest Need Not Be Communicated To Foreigner's Family If FRRO/Embassy Informed: Kerala High Court

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).

Provocative Facebook Posts Encouraging Violation Of Covid Restrictions Attract S.153 IPC: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Closes Plea On Angamaly–Sabari Rail Project After Railways 'Defreezes' It On State's Offer To Bear 50% Cost

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.

Koodathayi Murder: Kerala High Court Refuses To Stall Release Of Web Series 'Anali'; Directs Accused Jolly Joseph To Avail Statutory Remedy

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.

Knanaya Community's Endogamy Not Essential Religious Practice, Excommunicating Members Marrying Outsiders Violates Rights: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Grants Relief To Law Students Barred From Writing Exam Due To Low Attendance, Says College Failed To Conduct Minimum Classes

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.

Courts Can't Order State To Take Over Churches Involved In Religious Disputes: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Takeover Of Six Churches

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..."

Motor Accidents Claims | Widow Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Dependency Even If Employed Or Remarried: Kerala High 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.”

Kerala High Court Directs Centre To Decide On Plea Alleging Misuse Of 'Reporter TV' Broadcasting License Within 2 Months

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.

Statutory Confidentiality Under POSH Act Doesn't Bar Supply Of Documents To Accused Employee Facing Disciplinary Action: Kerala High Court

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.

Right To Seek Contract Rescission Accrues Upon Expiry Of Time In Decree, Not Upon Receiving Notice Of Subsequent Proceedings: Kerala High Court

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.

Temporary Surrender Of Land Endowed To Religious Institution For Public Infrastructure Not 'Transfer' Under Madras HR & CE Act: Kerala HC

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.

NDPS Act | Exact Quantity Of Seized Contraband Need Not Be Stated In Grounds Of Arrest Notice If Nature Is Mentioned: Kerala High Court

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.

Kerala Panchayat Raj Act | No Disqualification For Failure To File Election Expenses Without Notice, Hearing: High Court

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.

Kerala High Court Directs ECI To Consider Plea Against BJP's B Gopalakrishnan Over Alleged Communal Remarks

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.

'Even Owner Can't Unlawfully Enter Premises In Another's Lawful Possession': Kerala High Court Upholds Landlord's Guilt In Trespass Case

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.”

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Ex-CM VS Achuthanandan's Son As IHRD Director In-Charge

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.

Kerala High Court Sets Aside Order Transferring School Playground, Cites Lack Of Proper Consideration

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.

Co-operative Society Can Undertake Banking Activities: Kerala High Court Upholds State Co-operative Banking Framework

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.