Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: July - September, 2026 [Citations: 353 - 538]
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 538]Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353Central Bureau of Investigation v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala, 2026...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 538]
Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
Central Bureau of Investigation v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
Jojo Jose v. The Chief Secretary and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
X v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Tirur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Moideen M., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
Thadevoos v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
Superintendent of Police and Anr v. Sankaran Nair (Died) and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
Ramjith Nayak v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
Anil Kumar T v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
Janardhana Shenoy K v. Kumbakudi Sudhakaran, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
Henna P.K and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
Adv. Sudheer P.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
Sugathan R v. State of Kerala and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
Vinu K.S. and Anr. v. Veena Viswan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
Muhammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
Sharestates, Inc. v. Prasad Choorakuzhiyil Gopalan & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
Tenny Joppen v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
Vasantha K. and Anr. v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
Farasha Shabnam v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
Union of India v. Jose N.M. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
Sukumaran P.N. v. Vimal K. Charles and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
Vinod Valiyatoor and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
K.P. Chandramohan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and Anr. v. Azhar K.M., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
Dr. Manoj T.R. v. University of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
Shiny S. Nair v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
Geetha v. State Police Chief and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
Aboobacker v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
Dilha Jan Govindan v. State Bank of India and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
Arun P.K v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
Union of India and Ors. v. K Sub Maj (Hony Capt) Mohnraj TK, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
Lamiya P v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
A v. B. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
C.D. Boby @ Dr. Boby Chemmanur v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
Bahadur Shah Anakkot Nasirali v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala Hockey v. Rajeev P.J. and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
Ambika Mohanan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
N. Prakash v. Adv. Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
P. v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
V v. P and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
P. Gopinathan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v. Muhammed and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Shresha N. and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Ismail C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
A v. B., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Naman Ajay v. Union of India and Ors. and Karthika Sivaji v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Mubina Muhamed K.M and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
Anju Mary Francis v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Anil Kumar P.R v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Eruvessy Grama Panchayath v. Tankappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
Dipin Edavana v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Mar Joseph Pamplany v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
Joshy K.J. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
X v. The State Medical Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Moideen v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Kiran P.S. v. State of Kerala and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
Tomcy Thomas v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
Addl. R4 G.R. Ajith v Kerala Police Association, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
Dr. Reni Philip and Anr. v Suvarnarajendran and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
Lenin Raj v. State of Kerala and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
Midhun M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Suo Motu JPP v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
State of Kerala and Ors. v. Ranjith K. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
N v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
Arjun A. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
N v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
A and Ors. v. Station House Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
Vironi Augustine v. Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
N. Prakash v. The Advocate General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Thomas v. K.K. Mohanan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
Sabu Stephen v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
X v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
Dr. Kirit Somaiya v. Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. and Anr. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
Save A Family Plan India v. Union of India and Ors. & Kerala Social Service Forum v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
Cleetus E.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
Simy S. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
Fr. Thomas Pulayath v. St. Tomas Orthodox Syrian Church Cherukkunnam and connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The St. Joseph's Boys Higher Secondary School v. The State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
State of Kerala and Anr. v. Harishkumar and Anr. & connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
Adarsh S.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
Srimad Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji v. Raghavendra Thirtha Swami, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
Mammen Mathew and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
X v. X and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
Tharun Moorthi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
A.T. George v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
Peter T.V v District Police Chief, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
Jaseela C v Sriram Venkittaraman and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
Joseph Palackatharayil Varughese v. The Public Information Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
ESI Corporation v. Mohandas, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
X v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
Akhila P.R and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
M/S Hotel Palace Inn, Angamaly v Town Brethren Assembly, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
BRD Finance Ltd. v Santhosh P and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Ahamed Junaid P.S. v. Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
K.B. Sumod v. State of Kerala and Ors. & Narayanankutty K. and Ors. v. The Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
Simi Bell Rose John v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 462
Arun K. Thomas v. Narcotic Control Bureau & connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and Ors. & connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
Muhammed Ashfaq C. v. Union of India and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
Ernakulam Thirumala Devaswom and Ors. v. The Cochin Devaswom Board, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
Abdul Basith Kurikkalakath v. Shafi Mohammed @ Shafi Mohamed Khalid and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
Krishnapriya M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 Livelaw (Ker) 468
U v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
X v. X. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
X v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
Murukan S v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
Light House Marine Service India Pvt. Ltd. v Charterer and Parties Interested in the Vessel MT Ocean Faye, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
Rakesh Kallampadath v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
Wildlife Warden and Ors. v. Thadathil Saramma and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
Fousiya and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
Abdul Rauf M. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
Nirmal Mathew Babu v State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
Shajitha V.P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
Reji v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
K.N. Shastry v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
Thomas Thomas v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
Arjun Ambalapatta v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
Noushad v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
Ansiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
V. Balan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Aneesh v. Akhil Das, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
Southern Railway and Anr. v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. & M/s. SVCPL-JVEA v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
Zahid Shanavas v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
Geetha and Anr. v. S. Sreejith IPS and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
C. Madhavan v. CBI, Dr. S. Anil Kumar v. CBI and Ahmed Suhail v. CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
X and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
Abdul Kader and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. & Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v. Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Archana P.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLive (Ker) 496
Firoz Kunnumal and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Sabeena v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Hajara v. The Maintenance Tribunal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Directorate of Enforcement v. Kolatt Dasan Prathapan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
Rakhul Krishnan v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
Baby Kurian v The District Collector and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
M/s Cubes Entertainments v. Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
Pramasivam v. State of Kerala & Siraj Vazhayil @ Saji Thaneerkattil v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
X and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
Jose M.P. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
Muhammed Jishar v Lakeshore Hospital, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
X v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
X v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
A v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
Dr. V. Madhu v. The Chancellor of CUSAT and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
M and Anr. v A, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
S. Abdul Razzak v C.B. Suraja Devi and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Balan and Anr. v Parameswaran and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
Roji Augustine v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
Dr. P.S. Mahendra Kumar v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
Jayan Vatahakattu Moni v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
Anto Augustine v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
Union of India and Ors. v. Santosh Karwade and Anr. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Sagesh v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
Jisha Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
Kavya K. v. State of Kerala and Anr. & Keerthana K.C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
Raeesa Parveen v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
Amarnath Joshi Surendiran v. Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
K. Surendran v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
Raja Varier v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
All India Digital Cable Federation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
A and Anr. v. S, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Mohammed Kasim H.K v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Muhammed Nihad @ Thoppi v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
Akash M.V and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Unaiz Kadumbottil and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Kerala Police Association v. The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
X and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
George Balu and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Baddevolu Priyanka and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
Judgments / Orders This Month
Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Conferment Of Padma Bhushan To Vellappally Natesan
Case Title: Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 353
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 1) refused to interfere with the conferment of Padma Bhushan award to SNDP General Secretary Vellappally Natesan.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a public interest litigation moved by Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi seeking a direction for quashing the conferment of Padma Bhushan to Natesan.
Special Court Under PMLA Is Legally Competent To Try Scheduled Offence After Committal: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Central Bureau of Investigation v. The Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 354
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a Special Court constituted under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) is legally competent to try a scheduled offence once the case is committed to it under Section 44(1)(c) of the Act, even if that court is not independently notified to try the particular offence.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), challenging an order transferring a Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) case from the Special CBI Court, Ernakulam, to the Special PMLA Court at Kozhikode for a joint trial with the connected money laundering prosecution.
Case Title: Nishad Shobanan v. The Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 355
The Kerala High Court has struck down proviso to Rule 4(4) of the Kerala Right to Information (Regulation of Fee and Cost) Rules, 2006, which restrict free supply of information under RTI Act to persons below the poverty line (BPL) to twenty pages.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. found that the proviso to the afore Rule, requiring payment for information above 20 pages, traverse beyond the scope of the parent Act, i.e., the Right to Information Act, 2005 since no such cap is sought to be made on the free information by its provisions.
Case Title: Vishnu N.P. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 356
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the compliance with Section 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act is mandatory even when the accused himself produces contraband from his pocket, during body search.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath made the observation in a bail application moved by a sole accused in an NDPS case.
Case Title: Jojo Jose v. The Chief Secretary and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 357
The Kerala High Court on Friday (03 July) disposed of the PIL seeking CBI enquiry into the alleged "attack" on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials following the agency's search operation at the residence of former CM Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter on May 27.
The Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar disposed of the petition after taking note of a report by the State observing that "there is satisfactory progress in the investigation".
Case Title: X v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 358
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision noted that there is no provision in the Divorce Act, 1869 that enables a wife to prefer petitions in the court having jurisdiction in her place of residence.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that such a provision exists in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as well as the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and there is no justifiable reason not to incorporate the same in the Divorce Act.
Employee Cannot Invoke Consumer Forum For Gratuity Claims Against Employer: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Tirur Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. Moideen M.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 359
The Kerala High Court has held that an employee claiming gratuity from an employer cannot be treated as a "consumer" under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and, therefore, consumer commissions lack jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered the judgment in a petition seeking to quash an order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Malappuram, which had directed the bank to pay the balance gratuity on a complaint by the respondent employee.
Case Title: Thadevoos v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 360
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, considered the question as to whether the owner of a vehicle involved in a motor accident can get interim custody by furnishing property as security if there is no third-party insurance coverage.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea by a vehicle owner alleging that the condition imposed by the Magistrate asking him to deposit cash security equivalent to the assessed value of the vehicle, for getting interim custody was onerous.
Case Title: Superintendent of Police and Anr v. Sankaran Nair (Died) and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 361
The Kerala High Court on Monday (06 July) closed the petition relating to eviction of families residing in the contentious Malayodamthuruthu in Ernakulam district, after the court was informed that a settlement has been reached by the parties involved.
During the hearing on Monday, Justice T R Ravi, after noting the submissions directed the Munsiff Court, Perumbavoor to defer, for a year, orders in the execution proceedings regarding eviction pending before it.
Case Title: Ramjith Nayak v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 362
The Kerala High Court has held that when an accused is released owing to an infraction of Article 22(1) or Article 22(2) of the Constitution, he can be subjected to a fresh arrest for the same offence provided the subsequent arrest is not automatic and is preceded by judicial scrutiny.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment while deciding a batch of bail applications arising out of prosecutions under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act).
Case Title: Anil Kumar T v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 363
The Kerala High Court has held that bail cannot be granted on the sole ground of non-intimation of grounds of arrest when the arrestee refuses to accept the grounds of arrest when it's intimated to him.
Justice A. Badharudeen, made the observation in a bail application seeking regular bail.
Case Title: Suresh Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 364
The Kerala High Court has held that a settlement reached between parties in an offence involving rash and negligent driving cannot constitute a ground for setting aside the conviction recorded against the accused.
Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a criminal revision petition challenging a judgment which convicted the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 279 (rash driving or riding on a public way) and 304A (causing death by negligence) of IPC.
Case Title: Janardhana Shenoy K v Kumbakudi Sudhakaran
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 365
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (08 July) closed the contempt proceedings initiated against Congress MP K. Sudhakaran, for his comments on judges for declining CBI probe into murder of Youth Congress worker, Shuhaib.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V Jayakumar closed the case on receiving his unconditional apology.
Case Title: Thilakeshwari @ Sheela Kurian v. G. Sparjan Kumar IPS
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 366
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) closed the contempt plea initiated by film producer Sheela Kurian over non-compliance of direction to consider her representation seeking action against Deputy Superintendent of Police Madhu Babu for his alleged misbehaviour towards her.
Justice Jobin Sebastian closed the matter.
Case Title: Corrohealth Infotech Private Limited v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 367
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 8) directed CorroHealth Infotech Pvt. Ltd., employees and the State to attempt to resolve disputes in the wake of large-scale lay off in the company by resorting to conciliation as contemplated under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Justice P. Gopinath was considering a writ petition filed by Corrohealth challenging the communication issued by the District Labour Officer, Ernakulam directing it to maintain status quo on the decision to close down operations in Kerala and to discharge employees.
Case Title: Henna P.K and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 368
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT), dealing with service recruitment disputes, cannot bypass the statutory procedure of serving notice on affected candidates by directing the Kerala Public Service Commission (PSC) to publish pleadings and orders on its website or candidate dashboards.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an original petition challenging an interlocutory order of the KAT refusing alternative modes of service in a recruitment dispute concerning the post of Agricultural Assistant (Grade II).
Case Title: Adv. Sudheer P S v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 369
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (08 July) approved State's draft circular governing the appointment of Public Prosecutors, while directing that the opinion of the District Judge must receive "due primacy" in the preparation of panel candidates.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment while disposing of public interest litigations challenging aspects of the State's proposed mechanism for appointing Public Prosecutors.
Case Title: Sugathan R v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 370
The Kerala High Court on Monday (13 July) directed the State to enable detained Thiruvananthapuram Councillor Sugathan R, to take oath of office from inside the Prison.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the order on a petition moved by the BJP Councillor detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
"Since the petitioner is detained under the KAAPA, this Court cannot release the petitioner to attend the swearing-in ceremony," the Court said. However, adding that "in a Democracy, the people's mandate is to be respected," it allowed him to take the oath inside the jail.
Case Title: Vinu K.S. and Anr. v. Veena Viswan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 371
The Kerala High Court has held that courts adjudicating matrimonial disputes cannot presume that a bride entrusted her gold ornaments or money to her husband or in-laws merely on the basis of prevailing social customs or general practices.
Observing that assumptions drawn from past precedents may no longer reflect contemporary realities, the Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. underscored that claims for return of gold or cash must be founded on proved facts—oral, documentary or circumstantial—from which entrustment and subsequent misappropriation can reasonably be inferred.
Case Title: Muhammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 372
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 14) dismissed the plea preferred by 5 persons accused of the murder of SFI leader Abhimanyu, seeking to stay the trial pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Abhimanyu was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharaja's College in Ernakulam. Presently, trial is pending before the Sessions Court against 16 accused (Accused Nos. 1 to 16) whereas investigation is ongoing against 10 accused (Accused Nos. 17 to
Justice G. Girish refused to halt the trial against the 16 accused.
Case Title: Sharestates, Inc. v. Prasad Choorakuzhiyil Gopalan & Others
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 373
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that foreign advocates cannot examine or cross-examine witnesses before a court-appointed advocate commissioner in India.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. observed that recording of evidence before a Commissioner is a litigious act, forming part of the practise of law in India, from which the foreign lawyers stand excluded.
Case Title: Tenny Joppen v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 374
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 15) removed the name of Tenny Joppen, who was a staff of former Chief Minister late Oommen Chandy, from the list of accused in the solar scam case.
The case arose out of a complaint made by businessman Sreedharan Nair, who claimed to have been cheated of Rs. 40 lakhs, by prime accused Saritha S. Nair and Biju Radhakrishnan. Joppen was accused of facilitating the crime.
Justice C.S. Dias allowed the plea filed by Joppen seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in the case, after noting that the case has been amicably settled.
Case Title: Sinana Farvin v. Kerala Gramin Bank and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 375
The Kerala High Court has sounded a note of caution for young lawyers frequently appearing in bank account-unfreezing cases.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim observed that while such litigation appears to offer “effortless practice and assured orders”, many such cases are linked to cyber fraud.
Case Title: Vasantha K and Anr. v Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 376
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that while a second wife in a void marriage is not entitled to the service and pensionary benefits of a deceased government employee, the children born from such a relationship are legitimate under the Hindu Marriage Act and are entitled to an equal share in the employee's death-cum-retirement benefits and family pension, till the age of majority.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen delivered the judgment in a writ petition seeking to resolve a dispute over the terminal benefits of a KSRTC employee who died while in service.
Case Titles: Farasha Shabnam v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 377
In a recent decision, the Kerala High Court permitted three CBSE students to upload their revalued marks on the KEAM (Kerala Engineering Entrance Examination) portal amid controversy surrounding errors in the evaluation by the Board.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas granted relief to the students by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, after taking note of the exceptional circumstances, including delayed publication of their revalued marks.
Case Title: Union of India v. Jose N.M. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 378
The Kerala High Court recently set aside the compensation granted by the Railway Claims Tribunal to the children of a deceased train passenger, who was hit by another train while he was walking on railway track.
Justice S. Manu noted that the deceased was a passenger of Maveli Express whereas he was hit by another train, Antyodaya Express. Since he was hit by a train in which he was not a bona fide passenger, the strict liability would not be attracted, the judge reasoned. He took the view that since it is an offence to trespass on railway track, which the deceased had done, compensation cannot be granted.
Case Titles: Sukumaran P.N. v. Vimal K. Charles and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 379
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed two second appeals preferred by a police officer, who was directed to pay compensation to a lawyer who he had assaulted in 2010.
Justice Easwaran S. observed that there are no substantial questions of law raised in the regular second appeals and that the same were bereft of merits.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Directing FIR Against Three Police Officers In Ponnani Rape Case
Case Title: Vinod Valiyatoor and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 380
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 17) dismissed the plea preferred by three police officers challenging a Magistrate order directing registration of FIR against them in relation to the Ponnani rape case.
Justice Jobin Sebastian upheld the order of the Magistrate, which had acted upon a private complaint preferred by a lady.
Case Title: K.P. Chandramohan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 381
The Kerala High Court has declared the Kerala Minerals (Vesting of Rights) Act 2021 as unconstitutional, holding that the State cannot vest ownership of privately owned mineral rights in itself without providing compensation or complying with the constitutional safeguards under Article 300A.
A Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., delivered the judgment in a batch of writ appeals challenging the validity of the 2021 Act and the demand for royalty from landowners— for granite extracted from the land prior to 2021 Act. The single judge had upheld the constitutionality of the law.
Procedural Interim Orders Not Appealable Under Section 5 Of Kerala High Court Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Limited and Anr. v. Azhar K M
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 382
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a purely procedural interim order passed by a Single Judge does not qualify as an appealable order under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, unless it substantially affects the rights or liabilities of the parties.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered the judgment in a writ appeal filed by Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company Ltd.
Case Title: Dr. Manoj T.R. v. University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 383
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 20) closed the plea filed challenging the appointment of Advocate Girija Gopal as standing counsel for the Kerala University by its Vice-Chancellor after removing Advocate Thomas, who was appointed by the Syndicate in 2016.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that the plea has become infructuous since Advocate Thomas Abraham had resigned.
Case Title: Shiny S Nair v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 384
The Kerala High Court has held the mere fact that a cheque is typewritten is not a legally sustainable ground to doubt its genuineness or refuse to invoke the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Mavelikkara.
Case Title: Geetha v State Police Chief and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 385
The Kerala High Court on Monday directed the State Police Chief to constitute special squads in every district to trace offending vehicles and offenders involved in hit-and-run accidents, observing that such cases are often pushed to the back burner unless they attract media attention. The Court also urged the Union Government to overhaul the compensation framework for hit-and-run victims by studying the models followed in Australia and the United Kingdom.
Justice G. Girish issued the directions while disposing of three writ petitions arising from separate hit-and-run incidents in which the offending vehicles remained untraced despite prolonged police investigations.
Case Title: Aboobacker v State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 386
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused grabbing a child's chest with sexual intent would satisfy the requirement of sexual assault prescribed under Section 7 POCSO Act, and that the anatomical different between chest and breast is immaterial.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while partly allowing an appeal by a man convicted by the Special POCSO Court, Manjeri.
Case Title: Dilha Jan Govindan v. State Bank of India and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 387
The Kerala High Court has ruled that banks can refuse education loan to students if their parent, who signs the loan as a co-borrower, has a poor credit score.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim dismissed a batch of petitions filed by students challenging the banks' refusal to grant them educational loan.
Patients Cannot Dictate Diagnostic Tests, Must Follow Doctor's Medical Advice: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Arun P.K v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 388
The Kerala High Court has held that patients cannot insist on specific diagnostic tests such as CT or MRI scans, observing that the decision to prescribe such investigations lies within the medical judgment of treating doctors.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while disposing of a writ petition filed by a retired Indian Air Force veteran, who sought a direction to the Health Department and doctors at General Hospital, Ernakulam, to conduct a proper medical examination and order diagnostic tests, including CT and MRI scans, for persistent head pain and abnormal sensations.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v K Sub Maj (Hony Capt) Mohnraj TK
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 389
The Kerala High Court has held that the mere characterization of diabetes and hypertension as "lifestyle diseases" cannot, by itself, justify denial of disability pension to an armed forces personnel invalided out of service.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John was considering a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an Armed Forces Tribunal order directing grant of disability pension to Honorary Captain Mohanraj T.K., who had been invalided out of service after being diagnosed with Type-II Diabetes Mellitus and Primary Hypertension.
Case Title: Lamiya P v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 390
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the State Government has an independent constitutional obligation to consider a representation by a person detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA) expeditiously, which cannot be kept pending subject to Advisory Board's decision.
It further held that the State has violated Article 22 (5) of the Constitution by keeping the detenu's representation pending until after receiving the Advisory Board's opinion.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment.
Case Title: A v. B. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 391
The Kerala High Court has held that the property, purchased under the joint names of both spouses cannot be claimed by the husband alone by claiming that he paid the entire amount, unless theres is evidence to show that the property was held on trust or that the property was fraudulently purchased in the name of one spouse.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. allowed a wife's appeal challenging the Family Court's order declaring her husband as the absolute owner of the property purchased in their joint names.
Case Title: C.D. Boby @ Dr. Boby Chemmanur v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 392
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 23) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against businessman Boby Chemannur in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam movie actress in 2025. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 392]
Justice Jobin Sebastian today allowed the plea filed by Chemmanur to quash the proceedings pending before Additional District and Sessions Court, Ernakulam after noting that a settlement has been reached between the parties.
Case Title: Bahadur Shah Anakkot Nasirali v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 393
The Kerala High Court has upheld the Aadhaar-based OTP authentication for online tatkal ticket booking in trains on IRCTC platform.
The Court, however, asked the IRCTC to consider whether an option can be provided to users to choose between PAN card and Aadhar-based OTP authentication.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment.
Case Title: The Kerala Hockey v Rajeev P.J and Ors and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 394
The Kerala High Court has clarified that although the recognition of Kerala Hockey remains suspended pending proceedings under Section 31A(2) of the Kerala Sports Act, the association will continue to serve as the official channel for forwarding player nominations to Hockey India through a court-appointed technical committee.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar issued the clarification while disposing of review petitions filed by Hockey India and Kerala Hockey against the court's earlier judgment in writ appeals concerning the governance of hockey in the State.
Case Title: Ambika Mohanan v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that repeated offences involving theft, house-breaking, and lurking house trespass could create fear and insecurity among the public, thereby affecting public order within the meaning of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a petition challenging the preventive detention under KAAPA.
Case Title: N. Prakash v. Adv. Asha R.K. @ Asha Unnithan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 396
The Kerala High Court recently refused to take contempt action against a lawyer, who participated in a channel discussion and said that a judge made unnecessary comments to attract media attention and to become popular.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar delivered the judgment.
Case Title: P. v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, observed that married life must be reviewed as a whole and that a few instances would not amount to cruelty.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. made the observation while dismissing a matrimonial appeal preferred by a husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition.
Case Title: Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression "persons distinguished in the field of visual arts" under the Regulations governing the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, must receive a broad, contextual interpretation and cannot be confined to its dictionary meaning, observing that the Government must have flexibility in constituting award juries.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while delivering the judgment in writ challenging the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022.
Case Title: V v. P and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court has held that a husband's failure to pay maintenance to his wife and child constitutes economic abuse amounting to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging concurrent orders directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter under Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court recently closed suo motu proceedings concerning the procurement of pooja materials for Sabarimala rituals after the Travancore Devaswom Board's (TDB) decision to end the long-standing practice of Administrative Officers procuring Vazhipadu (offerings) materials.
Calling the arrangement a "grossly unholy practice in a holy place", the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar directed the Board to implement similar procurement reforms across all temples under its administration.
Kerala High Court Upholds Law That Limits Interest On Delayed Gratuity To Gratuity Amount
Case Title: P. Gopinathan v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, holding that the statutory cap restricting recoverable interest on delayed gratuity to the amount of gratuity itself is a matter of legislative policy and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition filed by a retired employee challenging the provision after he was denied a portion of the interest recovered from his employer through revenue recovery proceedings.
Case Title: Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v Muhammed and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court has held that a power of attorney (PoA) executed by a person residing abroad in favour of a person in India relating to an immovable property, must be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908, before it is used to sell the said property.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K delivered the judgment in a writ appeal filed by the State of Kerala against separate judgments of a Single Judge.
Case Title: Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, clarified that in motor accident cases, the compensation awarded to a pillion rider cannot be reduced because the motorcycle rider is liable for contributory negligence.
Justice Anil K. Narendran rendered the finding in an appeal filed by a pillion rider challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award in an accident involving a two-wheeler and a stage carriage.
Case Title: Shresha N. and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court denied pre-arrest bail to six DYFI leaders, who were booked for assaulting police officers during protest march against the State's liquor policy.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath found that the allegations against the applicants were very serious and that custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation, which is still in the preliminary stage.
Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked For Hurling Bomb At Wrong House
Case Title: Ismail C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man, who is booked for hurling a bomb, albeit at the wrong house.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by the man, who was arrayed by the Kannur Kuthuparamba police in a crime.
Wife's Offer To Resume Cohabitation Can't Defeat Husband's Divorce Plea After Failed Reconciliation Attempts: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A v. B.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision observed that a husband cannot be denied divorce merely because his wife stated that she is ready and willing to resume cohabitation, when the many attempts at their reconciliation failed.
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen dismissed a wife's appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage granted to the husband by the Family Court.
Case Title: Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case. This, according to the Court, did not satisfy the legal requirement under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Case Titles: Naman Ajay v. Union of India and Ors. and Karthika Sivaji v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 29) held that salary income of the parents must be included while deciding whether a person falls under Creamy Layer or not for the purpose of reservation in professional colleges.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed two writ petitions filed by KEAM and NEET aspirants praying for a declaration that they fall under the Non-Creamy Layer after their applications were declined for high income.
Case Title: Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to consider the representation preferred by the women conductors of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) seeking two days' paid menstrual leave.
Justice Viju Abraham directed the State government to consider and pass orders on the petitioners' representation without delay, within 3 months from the date of receipt of the judgment after affording them an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: Mubina Muhamed K.M and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court has observed that the existence of a complaint cannot be used by the police to compel the opposite parties to settle or abide by any demands of the complainant. The Court further added that such an action or conduct cannot be resorted to under the guise of any inquiry.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a petition alleging harassment by the police by compelling the appearance of the petitioner before the police without any basis.
Case Title: Anju Mary Francis v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot deny the facility of a scribe to an eligible candidate merely because she does not have a benchmark disability of 40% or more under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment in writ petition filed by a 21 year old woman challenging KPSC's refusal to provide her with a scribe for the LD Typist examination.
Kerala High Court Upholds 60 Years Age Bar On Reappointment Of Government Law Officers
Case Title: Anil Kumar P.R v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Kerala High Court has held that a Government Law Officer who accepted an appointment subject to the condition that his tenure would end on attaining the age of 60 years cannot subsequently challenge that condition and seek reappointment or extension after crossing the prescribed age limit.
Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta, challenging the State Government's refusal to consider his request for reappointment by granting age relaxation.
Case Title: The Eruvessy Grama Panchayath v Tankappan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court has held that a Grama Panchayat can be held liable to pay compensation to victims of stray dog attacks where the injury is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of its failure to discharge statutory duties imposed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Animal Birth Control framework.
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a regular second appeal, resolving conflicting Single Bench decisions on whether local bodies incur civil liability merely because a person is bitten by a stray dog.
Case Title: Dipin Edavana v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has held that when a complainant levels serious allegations against a public official, compelling the complainant to participate in a joint hearing with the very officer accused of misconduct violates the principles of fairness and natural justice.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition challenging a compliance report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Vigilance Department, which had concluded that the petitioner's allegations against senior police officer S. Sreejith, IPS, were "false and vexatious."
Case Title: Mar Joseph Pamplany v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has recently (27 July) closed a writ petition filed by Mar Joseph Pamplany, seeking police intervention to prevent alleged criminal trespass inside St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica, Broadway, Ernakulam, after the petitioner informed the court that no further relief was required.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order, making it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice the rights of any party in the civil disputes pending between them.
Case Title: Joshy K.J. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that putting a vibrating machine on the victim's vaginal opening amounts to 'penetrative sexual assault' punishable under the POCSO Act as well as rape punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen referred to Section 3 of the POCSO Act [Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act], which defines penetrative sexual assault and Section 375 IPC, and opined:
“Here M.O2 vibrator fixed with M.O1 penis like structure was placed on the vagina of the victim in vibrating mode…placing a vibrating machine on the orifice of the vagina viz., labia majora, or vulva, by itself would be sufficient to find insertion of M.O1 on the vagina and the same is sufficient to hold that a person committed penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3(b) punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Similar is the position with regard to the offence of rape defined under Section 375(b) of the IPC.”
Case Title: X v. The State Medical Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court recently held that a person under the MEDISEP scheme cannot be denied reimbursement of treatment expenses merely because he went to a non-empanelled hospital.
Justice Viju Abraham allowed the plea seeking expeditious consideration of his application for reimbursement of treatment expenses for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia.
Kerala High Court Asks Guruvayur Devaswom To Consider Re-Naming Ritual Named After Court
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 Live Law (Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court recently asked the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to consider renaming its 'kodathi vilakku' event in the temple as it may be mistaken to have some endorsement by the judiciary.
The event is organized by the advocates practicing in Chavakkad Court and conducted during Ekadashi festival in Guruvayur temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, however, refused to ban the event.
Case Titles: All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation v. State of Kerala and Ors. and Moideen v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
The Kerala High Court recently held that the government need not provide reservation to women or differently-abled persons while allotting Akshaya Centres as there are no legal provisions mandating the same.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas reasoned that allotment of Akshaya Centres is a contractual arrangement and since no government employment is provided, there is no legal mandate to provide reservation as per the Constitution or the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act (RPwD Act), 2016.
ED Officials Attack: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Nine Accused
Case Titles: Kiran P.S. v. State of Kerala and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 3) granted regular bail to nine accused in the crime registered pursuant to the attack on Enforcement Directorate officials.
The case refers to the alleged attack on ED officials and damage to vehicles following an ED search operation at the residence of Opposition Leader Of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter on May 27.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed pleas preferred by 9 accused, namely, Kiran P.S., Jeevan, Anil Kumar, Sreejith, Nishad, Sidarth S., Shefeek, Nandhu G.R., Rahul A. Rajan.
Case Title: Fr. Tomcy Thomas v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
The Kerala High Court has refused to quash criminal proceedings against a priest charged with aiding a woman who allegedly forged an advocate's enrolment certificate and practised as a lawyer, holding that the materials collected during investigation prima facie make out an offence of 'harboring' under Section 212 IPC.
Justice A Badharudeen delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Addl. R4 G.R. Ajith v Kerala Police Association
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
The Kerala High Court on Monday (03 August) refused to interfere with a Single Judge's decision staying the operation of a government order that restructures the police personnel associations in the State.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jaysankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K refused to stay the Single Judge's order.
Case Title: Dr. Reni Philip and Anr. v Suvarnarajendran and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
The Kerala High Court has held that reports submitted by the State Level Apex Body investigating complaints against doctors are only pieces of expert evidence and do not amount to findings of criminal negligence.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K was considering two doctors' writ appeal challenging a Single Judge order that refused to interfere with an expert panel's report expressing a prima facie opinion of gross medical negligence.
ED Officials Attack: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Six More Accused
Case Titles: Lenin Raj v. State of Kerala and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 4) granted regular bail to four CPI(M) workers, who were arrested for being allegedly involved in the attack against officials of the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to Lenin Raj, Amal S.P., Vaisakh and Rahul.
The Court granted on Wednesday (August 5) granted bail to Nidin Raj and Shahin.
Case Title: M/S Asianet News Network Pvt Ltd and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal case registered against Asianet News, its Bureau Chief and, its Editor, booked for defamation, for allegedly publishing defamatory content in a press conference aired by the channel.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Midhun M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Magistrate Court, Chittoor to proceed against five policemen, who allegedly beat up Indian Army sepoy, during Kollemgode Temple 'Aaraattu' festival in 2019.
Justice G. Girish directed that the question of requirement of sanction can be considered at a later stage, after the completion of evidence.
Case Title: Suo Motu JPP v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that mere online publication of interim orders does not constitute legal service of the order upon the affected parties. It further directed that all court orders, including interim orders, should be uploaded preferably on the same day they are pronounced.
A 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 to streamline court administration and electronic case management.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Ors. v. Ranjith K. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
The Kerala High Court recently upheld an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (KAT) that found that Taekwondo Poomsae is also a recognized event for government appointments under the sports quota.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishnan dismissed the challenge made by the State (petitioners) against the KAT order granting relief to the applicant therein, a Taekwondo Poomsae champion.
Contractual Women Employees Entitled To Hysterectomy Leave Under Kerala Service Rules: High Court
Case Title: N v State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
The Kerala High Court has held that women employed on a contractual basis under State-funded projects cannot be denied medical leave benefits for hysterectomy merely because Rule 101A of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) has not been expressly extended to contractual employees.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment while allowing two writ petitions filed by Special Educators (Secondary) engaged on contract under Samagra Shiksha Kerala, who had sought medical leave following hysterectomy surgeries.
Case Title: Arjun A. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
The Kerala High Court recently denied bail to Arjun A., who had allegedly threatened Kothamangalam SHO on social media and had sent sexually explicit messages to his family members.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath remarked that the accusation against Arjun was serious and that pre-arrest bail cannot be granted as a matter of course.
Case Title: N v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
The Kerala High Court recently held that a wife demanding separate residence away from husband's family without sufficient reason would amount to cruelty.
The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment.
Acid Attack Victims Must Be Compensated Irrespective Of Fine Imposed On Offender: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A and Ors. v. Station House Officer and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
The Kerala High Court recently gave relief to acid attack victims by holding that victims must be given compensation whether or not a fine has been imposed on the offender.
Justice Jobin Sebastian clarified that compensation payable as per the Victim Compensation Scheme in accordance with Section 357A Cr.P.C. is in addition to the fine awarded to the offender under Section 357.
Case Title: Vironi Augustine v. Joseph
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
The Kerala High Court recently criticized a trial court's adverse observations regarding the skills of a lawyer in drafting a petition before it.
Justice Easwaran S. opined that trial court's remarks about the lawyer's competence was completely uncalled for and the same required judicial scrutiny.
Case Title: N. Prakash v. The Advocate General and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
A plea has been moved before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction for removal of the Court's name from the designation boards in the cars of government pleaders and central government counsels.
When the matter came up on Friday (August 7) before Justice Murali Purushothaman, the petitioner appearing in person sought permission to withdraw the case. Accordingly, the plea was dismissed as withdrawn.
Case Title: Thomas v. K.K. Mohanan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
The Kerala High Court recently held that a compromise agreement entered into between a landlord and a tenant regarding payment of arrears of rent during a court-referred mediation is executable before a civil court having pecuniary jurisdiction.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed that the compromise agreement is in the nature of a decree passed by the Lok Adalat as per Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and that when it is recorded in the rent control court's order, the same also partakes the character of an executable decree.
Case Title: Sabu Stephen v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (11 August) urged the Centre and State Government to consider creating a special welfare measures for living freedom fighters, in recognition of their contributions and sacrifices during India's freedom struggle.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the direction in a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking measures for the welfare and recognition of freedom fighters who are still alive.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 437
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the mother of a minor cannot settle or compromise the criminal case initiated against the father for sexually assaulting or sexually harassing their minor daughter.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath denied bail to a man, who was arrested for sexually assaulting his minor daughter, and refused to accept that the case has been compromised.
Case Title: Dr. Kirit Somaiya v. Ziqitza Health Care Ltd. and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 438
The Kerala High Court has set aside the ₹5 lakhs compensation awarded to Ravi Krishna, who is the son of former Minister of Overseas Indian Affairs, and his company in the defamation suit filed against BJP leader Dr. Kirit Somaiya relating to the Ambulance Scam.
The Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh consideration after noting that the trial court did not consider many subsequent developments and the documentary evidence relied upon by Somaiya.
NGO Funding Peaceful Protests Can't Be Ground To Deny Its FCRA Renewal: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Save A Family Plan India v. Union of India and Ors. & Kerala Social Service Forum v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 439
The Kerala High Court recently came to the aid of two NGOs, whose FCRA renewal applications were rejected by the Centre relying on a report of the Central Security Agency (Intelligence Bureau) alleging that they 'funded' the protests at Vizhinjam Port.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that there were no materials to show that NGOs had funded the protests, and added that even if they had, in fact, done so, that cannot be a ground to reject FCRA renewal:
“the report has not even identified any financial trail between the petitioner and any of the protestors directly…even if it is assumed that the petitioner had funded the peaceful protests, still, can it be held to be a reason to deny renewal of the certificate? The answer has to be in the negative. The right to protest is an integral part of a democracy. Every citizen has the right to demonstrate or to protest in a peaceful manner. The said right emanates from the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.”
Case Title: Cleetus E.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 440
The Kerala High Court has held that motor vehicle tax cannot be imposed for a period during which a vehicle was neither used nor kept for use on the road because it had become completely unroadworthy, even if the registered owner failed to submit the prescribed advance intimation in 'G Form' under Kerala Motor Taxation Rules.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., was delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by a carriage owner whose vehicle became unfit to use in road pursuant to a road accident.
Case Title: Simy S. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 441
The Kerala High Court came down heavily upon the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) and the erstwhile committees which were managing the body for adopting fraudulent means to fire the BCK Secretary.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. was considering a petition filed by Simy S., who was holding the post of BCK Secretary, when was relieved from duty despite submission of withdrawal of her resignation.
Case Title: Fr. Thomas Pulayath v. St. Tomas Orthodox Syrian Church Cherukkunnam and connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 442
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (August 13) held that police protection cannot be used to enforce a claimed right to possession of church properties where that right has not been adjudicated by a competent civil court.
Allowing seven writ appeals arising from the Malankara-Jacobite church dispute, the Division Bench of Dr Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preetha A.K. set aside Single Bench orders granting police protection to vicars and parishioners of the Orthodox faction and issuing consequential directions regarding possession of the churches and performing religious rites.
Case Title: The St. Joseph's Boys Higher Secondary School v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 443
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that there is no need for disciplinary proceedings to terminate an aided school teacher, who refused to rejoin service even after the expiry of sanctioned leave in order to continue foreign employment.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that disciplinary proceedings are not required in such cases since refusal to rejoin service amounts to 'abandonment'.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Anr. v. Harishkumar and Anr. & connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 444
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (August 13) refused to cancel the bail granted to Harishkumar, the 9th accused in the crime registered pursuant to the attack on Enforcement Directorate (ED) officials following a raid at the residence of Opposition Leader Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter on May 27.
After hearing the parties, Justice C.S. Dias was of the view that the afore order (Annexure A3) need not be cancelled since the other accused in the case were already granted regular bail by the High Court.
Kerala High Court Closes PIL Challenging Alleged Ban On Men's Entry At 'Freedom At Midnight' Event
Case Title: Adarsh S.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 445
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (13 August) closes a public interest litigation challenging the proposed “Freedom at Midnight” event organised by the Department for Women and Child Development on August 14.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M observed that the petition was founded on unverified press reports and that the petitioner had not first approached the concerned authority with his grievance.
Case Title: Srimad Samyamindra Thirtha Swamiji v. Raghavendra Thirtha Swami
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 446
The Kerala High Court has held that a person who succeeds to the rights in the property forming the subject matter of a decree need not first seek substitution before the court that passed the decree. Instead, such a successor may directly continue execution proceedings before the executing court by invoking Section 146 CPC read with the Explanation to Order XXI Rule 16 CPC.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in an Original Petition arising from a litigation involving the Kashi Math Samsthan.
Case Title: Mammen Mathew and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 447
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a journalist would not be criminally liable for the offence of defamation for reporting on the arrest and registration of crime against a person.
Justice C.S. Dias referred to Sections 499 [Defamation], 501 [Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory] and 502 [Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter] of the Indian Penal Code, and observed:
“The distinction between a report of an official proceeding and an independent defamatory assertion is crucial. A journalist does not become criminally liable for defamation because the publication of an official action has caused reputational harm to a litigant. What the aforesaid Sections penalise is not truthful reporting as such, but a culpable defamatory imputation of the kind contemplated by the provision…An adverse publication, or one which causes embarrassment to the person concerned, does not by itself constitute criminal defamation.”
Case Title: X v. X and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 448
The Kerala High Court recently permitted a case to be transferred from one Family Court to another after a litigant raised an issue of bias.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. reserved opinion regarding the correctness of the allegation and observed that the case is being transferred only with a view to preserve the litigant's faith in the judiciary.
Mohanlal-Starrer 'Athimanoharam' Can't Be Shot Inside Periyar Tiger Reserve, Kerala High Court Told
Case Title: Tharun Moorthi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 449
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 17) disposed of a plea preferred by the makers of the Mohanlal-starrer Malayalam film 'Athimanoharam' seeking a direction to the Forest Department officials to consider their request to permit film shooting in Pamba and Sannidhanam.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar yesterday took note of the submission made by the Special Government Pleader for Forests that the Deputy Director, Periyar Tiger Reserve (Periyar Wildlife Division), had rejected the request.
Case Title: A.T. George v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 450
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 18) quashed the criminal proceedings against former Congress MLA A.T. George in the 2015 Kerala Legislative Assembly Ruckus case.
Justice C.S. Dias noted that a coordinate Bench had already quashed the proceedings against the other accused in the case, including Congress MLAs M.A. Vaheed [1st accused], Dominic Presentation, and K. Sivadasan Nair.
Pendency Of Criminal Case No Ground To Deny Police Clearance Certificate: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Peter T.V v District Police Chief
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
The Kerala High Court has held that a police clearance certificate under Section 59 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 need not be denied to a person merely due to pendency of a criminal case. It added that a certificate can be issued by incorporating a statement regarding the involvement of the applicant in the crime.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the order in a petition seeking directions for issuance of a Police clearance certificate.
Case Title: Jaseela C v Sriram Venkittaraman and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 452
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (18 August) deferred trial proceedings in the 2019 rash driving case against IAS officer Sriram Venkitaraman, for a period of one month.
Justice C.S. Dias passed the order in a petition filed by widow of journalist K.M. Basheer who was killed when a vehicle allegedly driven by Venkitaraman ran over him at high speed, at Museum Junction in Thiruvananthapuram in 2019.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 453
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 18) closed the plea preferred by actor Dileep seeking action against Indo-Asian News Channel Private Limited/Reporter TV for allegedly publishing trial details relating to the 2017 Actress Assault case.
When the matter came up before Justice Jobin Sebastian today, Dileep's counsel told that the purpose of the plea has been served after the investigating agency filed final reports in all 5 crimes.
Case Title: Joseph Palackatharayil Varughese v. The Public Information Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 454
The Kerala High Court has held that a building plan approved by a local body would not constitute 'personal information' as per the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) and can, therefore, be disclosed to an RTI applicant.
Justice Murali Purushothaman delivered the judgment.
Case Title: ESI Corporation v. Mohandas
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 455
The Kerala High Court recently held that a failure to follow binding precedents by the Employees' Insurance courts would give rise to a substantial question of law in ESI appeals.
The Bench of Justice S. Manu held:
“the EI Court has not analysed the dispute in tune with the law laid down in the judgment referred above and hence the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Failure to follow the law laid down in the binding judgments give rise to a substantial question of law…”
Christian Women Can File For Divorce At Their Place Of Residence: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 456
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court has held that as per Section 3 of the Divorce Act, Christian women can file for divorce in their places of residence.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. was considering an appeal filed by a wife after the Single Bench rejected her plea seeking a declaration that Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act ought to be read in a manner so that jurisdictional courts for filing petitions under the Act would also include the court within whose territorial limits the wife resides.
Case Title: Akhila P.R and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 457
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (18 August) dismissed a Public Interest Litigation against Priyadarshini free-bus scheme as “speculative litigation” and lacking material linking accidents to overcrowding.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M dismissed the petition.
Case Title: M/S Hotel Palace Inn, Angamaly v Town Brethren Assembly
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court has held that an Assembly hall of the Brethren Christian denomination qualifies as a “church” under Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953, thereby attracting the statutory distance restriction on grant of bar licences.
A Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John dismissed an appeal filed by Hotel Palace Inn, Angamaly, and its managing partner, and upheld the finding of a single judge that the Town Brethren Assembly Hall at Angamaly is a church for the purposes of the Rules.
Case Title: BRD Finance Ltd. v Santhosh P and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
The Kerala High Court has held that once notification is issued by the State constituting sub Courts as Commercial Courts for recovery of a specified amount, the Civil Courts cannot proceed to adjudicate the matter on merits.
Justice Easwaran S was delivering the judgment in a Regular Second Appeal filed by BRD Finance Ltd. against judgments of the Munsiff Court, Chavakkad and the Sub Court, Chavakkad.
Kerala High Court Upholds Infant Vaccination Rule For ₹6,000 Maternity Benefit Under PMMVY Scheme
Case Title: Ahamed Junaid P.S. v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the infant vaccination as a condition for lactating mothers to get monetary benefit of Rs. 6000 for second girl child under the Pradhan Mantri Matru Vandana Yojana (PMMVY) Scheme.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment.
Case Title: K.B. Sumod v. State of Kerala and Ors. & Narayanankutty K. and Ors. v. The Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
The Kerala High Court recently expressed shock over the unauthorised spending of around Rs. 28 lakhs of public money by the Cochin Devaswom Board for the comforts of its Devaswom Commissioner, who bought a new car and other luxuries in violation of government norms and guidelines.
Criticising the Board, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:
“has incurred an expenditure to the tune of Rs.28,44,313/- from the Devaswom funds within a short period for the repairs of the residential quarter, purchase of vehicle and purchase of household articles for an Officer, who was appointed on a deputation basis for a limited period, that too, violating the Rules and Regulations….”
Case Title: Simi Bell Rose John v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 462
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the police protection plea preferred by expelled Congress leader Simi Bell Rose John against Chief Minister V.D. Satheesan and his brother, V.D. Ajayakumar.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that Simi has not pointed out any materials to show that her life or property were under threat from the Chief Minister (5th respondent) or his brother (4th respondent).
Case Title: Arun K. Thomas v. Narcotic Control Bureau & connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
The Kerala High Court has issued a slew of guidelines that must be followed upon the arrest of persons in order to safeguard their constitutional and statutory rights.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, while considering a batch of bail applications, further clarified that an accused has to be produced before the Magistrate only within 24 hours of formal arrest, and not actual physical custody, if pre-arrest detention is permitted by law.
Case Title: Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and Ors. & connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
The Kerala High Court recently upheld a Single Bench decision, which quashed the Revenue Divisional Officer's orders reclassifying the land owned by Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. in Thrissur and permitting its commercial use.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji agreed that the RDO did not follow the procedure under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act and Rules, which mandates RDO to call for a report from the Agricultural Officer before deciding a Form-5 application for deletion of land from the Data Bank.
Case Title: Muhammed Ashfaq C. v. Union of India and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
The Kerala High Court has held that arrest of a person would be vitiated if the arrestee's relative/friend/nominated person is not informed of the arrest grounds when first produced before the nearest, non-jurisdictional magistrate for transit remand.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:
“when a person who is arrested is brought before a non-jurisdictional Magistrate even if only for the purpose of ordering a transit or transit remand, it is imperative that the grounds of arrest be communicated both to the aresstee and to his relative or friend, as mandated under Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Sections 47 and 48 of the BNSS, prior to such production.”
Case Title: Ernakulam Thirumala Devaswom and Ors. v. The Cochin Devaswom Board
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
The Kerala High Court has held that the power of a Devaswom Board to assume the management of an institution under the Travancore Cochin Hindu Religious Institutions Act, 1950 is not an unfettered one and can be exercised only in the circumstances specifically contemplated in the Act.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K. V. Jayakumar was delivering the judgment in a petition challenging two communications issued by the Cochin Devaswom Board in February 2017.
Case Title: Abdul Basith Kurikkalakath v. Shafi Mohammed @ Shafi Mohamed Khalid and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
The Kerala High Court has held that the personal properties of a judgment debtor's wife cannot be attached in an execution petition even if she knew that her husband gifted his property to her in order to defeat the decree holder's claim.
Justice Easwaran S. clarified that in such circumstances, the decree holder would not be rendered remediless and he can apply for vitiating the fraudulent gifting by making an application as per Section 53 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Case Title: Krishnapriya M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 Livelaw (Ker) 468
The Kerala High Court has held that four attempts cap in the First Professional MBBS Degree Examination includes both regular and supplementary exams.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment in a petition filed by a first year MBBS student.
The petitioner joined the MBBS course in the year 2023 and has not been able to clear the first year MBBS as she failed in three subjects. The first professional MBBS course has to be completed within four attempts in four years and the petitioner has already completed four attempts yet has not been able to clear the subjects.
Case Title: U v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a father, who was working abroad, accused of the offence under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act for failing to provide for the basic needs and maintenance of his child.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the offence was not attracted since the father was not in actual charge of or in control over the child.
Muslim Man Having Sexual Intercourse With Minor Wife Liable Under POCSO Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v. X. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a Muslim man having sexual intercourse with his wife, who is aged below 18 years, is liable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Justice Jobin Sebastian held:
“sexual intercourse with a girl below eighteen years of age attracts the offences under the POCSO Act, and in such a situation, whether the child is the wife of the accused or not is of little consequence…Undisputedly, the provisions of the POCSO Act apply if one of the parties to the marriage is a minor, irrespective of the validity or otherwise of the marriage under personal law.”
Case Title: X v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that divorcees need not produce divorce decree or judicial separation order when they apply to change name or delete ex-spouse's name from their passports.
Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that an office memorandum cannot mandate production of a divorce decree when Section IV of the Passport Information Booklet under Schedule III to the Passports Rules, 1980 says this is not needed when divorcees apply for name change/deletion of spouse's name.
Case Title: Murukan S v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
The Kerala High Court has held that issuance of an internship completion certificate to a Foreign Medical Graduate must be done without demanding any internship fee. It further directed to process his claim for payment of stipend for the period of his Compulsory Rotatory Medical Internship (CRMI).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the direction in a writ petition filed by a Foreign Medical Graduate who had completed his internship at the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram.
Common Management Not Enough To Treat Vessels As Sister Ships For Arrest: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Light House Marine Service India Pvt. Ltd. v Charterer and Parties Interested in the Vessel MT Ocean Faye
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
The Kerala High Court has held that a vessel cannot be arrested merely because it is managed by the same ship manager against whom a maritime claim has been raised, in the absence of the common ownership required under the Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Act, 2017.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim, allowed an application filed by the charterer and parties interested in the vessel MT Ocean Faye and its ship manager, holding that the plaintiff had no right to arrest the vessel in connection with its claim against the ship manager.
Case Title: Rakesh Kallampadath v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a marriage officer cannot refuse to solemnize a marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 by citing expired “single status certificate”.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a writ petition preferred by a man, who was aggrieved by the Marriage Officer's refusal to solemnize his marriage with a Nepali woman.
Case Title: Wildlife Warden and Ors. v. Thadathil Saramma and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
The Kerala High Court recently held that State is liable to give just compensation to victims of wild animal attacks and that the quantum of compensation payable is not limited to Rs. 20,000 as per the Kerala Rules for Payment of Compensation to Victims of Attack by Wild Animals, 1980.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. dismissed a regular second appeal filed by the Forest department officials challenging concurrent findings of the courts below granting compensation in a suit for damages.
Case Title: Fousiya and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
The Kerala High Court has held that an application for permission to donate a kidney cannot be rejected merely because the proposed donor's wife had donated a kidney several years earlier.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon was delivering the judgement in a petition challenging the orders passed by the District Level Authorisation Committee for Transplantation of Human Organs, Ernakulam, and the appellate authority, which had rejected an application submitted by a man seeking to donate one of his kidneys to a kidney patient undergoing treatment at Medical Trust Hospital, Ernakulam.
Case Title: Abdul Rauf M. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
The Kerala High Court recently held that bail cannot be denied citing implied permission to re-arrest was given by the Magistrate when no application seeking the same was moved by the investigating officer. [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 477]
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted bail to an accused, who was re-arrested without prior judicial approval after his earlier arrest was vitiated due to non-communication of grounds of arrest.
RTO Cannot Summon Vehicle Owner Based On Anonymous Rash Driving Complaint: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Nirmal Mathew Babu v State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
The Kerala High Court has held that authorities under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot summon or subject a vehicle owner to proceedings on the basis of a concealed complaint alleging rash or dangerous driving, without following the procedure prescribed by law.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was delivering the judgment in a writ petition seeking protection against harassment by the Regional Transport Officer, Ernakulam.
Case Title: Shajitha V.P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
The Kerala High Court recently granted police protection to a woman, who was sharing a household with her former husband, after obtaining a residence order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed that police protection can be given upon written request since the peculiar living situation might create tensions.
Minor's Relationship With Accused Or Consent Has No Relevance Under POCSO Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Reji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a minor victim's alleged love relationship with the accused, or even consensual sexual intercourse, cannot be relied upon by an accused to escape criminal liability under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction and sentence for aggravated sexual assault of a minor.
Case Title: K.N. Shastry v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
The Kerala High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Section 145(a) of the Railways Act, 1989 which empowers the railways to remove intoxicated persons from trains or railway premises as well as to prosecute them.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that sufficient procedure has been laid down by the Ministry of Railways in its circular dated 14.09.2023 to avoid any arbitrariness while identifying a person as intoxicated.
Kissing Child's Penis Amounts To Penetrative Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Thomas Thomas v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
The Kerala High Court has clarified that kissing a child's penis amounts to penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed an appeal preferred by a convict, who was awarded a 20-year term for kissing a 14 ½ year old boy on two occasions.
Case Title: Arjun Ambalapatta v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
The Kerala High Court has held that National Investigation Agency cannot recover salary paid to public prosecutor during deputation based on later pay re-fixation.
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji made the observation while allowing an Original Petition filed by a person who had served as an Assistant Public Prosecutor under the State of Kerala before being appointed on deputation as Public Prosecutor with the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Case Title: Noushad v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
The Kerala High Court has held that a customer visiting a brothel would be criminally liable under Sections 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar clarified the position of law while answering a reference made by a Single Bench in view of conflicting decisions by Single Benches.
Case Title: Ansiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court has asked the Magistrate to consider afresh the private complaint made by Drishyam actor Ansiba Hassan accusing actor Lakshmi Priya and two CAN Channel representatives of making sexually coloured remarks and circulating objectionable content against her.
Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering Hassan's plea challenging an order of the Magistrate refusing to to direct the police to register an FIR and open an investigation in the complaint.
Case Title: V. Balan v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
The Kerala High Court has held that authorities scrutinising caste claims under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 cannot insist that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes discharge the same burden of proof ordinarily expected of citizens when establishing their community identity.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. held that the denial of constitutionally guaranteed benefits to members of SC/ST communities must be confined to cases of patent fraud established by independent material available with the State.
Case Title: K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Kerala High Court recently held that a granddaughter, who is undergoing studies after availing a student loan, cannot be expected to maintain her pension-drawing grandmother.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed an octogenarian's plea against her daughter-in-law and granddaughter seeking maintenance from them as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Case Title: Aneesh v. Akhil Das
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
The Kerala High Court held that if the electronic signatures affixed to the plaint and vakalath in a suit complied with the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, then the Courts cannot refuse to accept it merely because the Court does not have resources to verify the said signatures.
Justice Easwaran S. issued the direction in an original petition which has challenged the refusal of the Principal Munsiff Court to number a suit since the Court did not have any resource to verify the electronic signature of the parties in the Vakalath.
Case Title: Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
The Kerala High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a man booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for having sexual intercourse with a married woman allegedly on the promise of marriage.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“a married woman who voluntarily accompanies another man to a hotel room and has sexual intercourse with him cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation of a promise of marriage, contend that the sexual relationship was induced solely by such promise, particularly when her subsisting marriage was not in dispute… In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the consent for the sexual relationship was induced by any false promise to marry the de facto complainant or by any other deceitful means. Consequently, the materials placed on record do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS.”
Case Titles: Southern Railway and Anr. v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. & M/s. SVCPL-JVEA v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
The Kerala High Court has allowed MARYMATHA-KRDCL, a joint venture of K-Rail and Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited (MIPL), to participate in a tender to re-develop Chengannur Railway Station after the Southern Railways rejected its technical bid on 'hyper-technical' grounds.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed two writ appeals and upheld the decision of a Single Bench that permitted MIPL to participate in the tender process.
Case Title: Zahid Shanavas v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
The Kerala High Court has held that a subsequent failure to fulfil a promise of marriage cannot, by itself, retrospectively convert consensual sexual intercourse into a criminal offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Jobin Sebastian, issued the directions in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case Title: Geetha and Anr. v. S. Sreejith IPS and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
The Kerala High court has held that deferring to grant ordinary leave over fresh law and order threat to the prisoners is not willful violation of previous directions of the High Court quashing restrictions imposed on leave.
Justice G.Girish made the observation in a contempt petition filed by mothers of the convicts in the Periya Double Murder Case, involving murder of two Youth Congress activists in Periya in Kasargod District.
Case Title: C. Madhavan v. CBI, Dr. S. Anil Kumar v. CBI and Ahmed Suhail v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 8) upheld the order of the Additional Special Court (SPE/CBI) – II, Ernakulam dismissing the discharge plea filed by three of the accused in the 2013 gold smuggling case.
The case relates to the smuggling of around 56 kg of gold worth Rs. 17.86 crores through Cochin International Airport, causing a loss of Rs. 1.83 crores customs duties and cess to the government of India.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the pleas preferred by accused C. Madhavan (A1), Dr. S. Anil Kumar (A8) and Ahmed Suhail (A11) and, observed that there are prima facie materials available against them from the prosecution records.
Case Title: X and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, has upheld the constitutional validity of the age limits imposed by the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 on intending couples seeking surrogacy services.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John dismissed an appeal filed by an intending couple challenging the Single Bench's dismissal of their plea challenging the age limits prescribed by the Act:
“we find that the age restriction in the Surrogacy Act is based on a reasonable relationship with the required aim sought to be achieved by the law and therefore, we find that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard are not legally sustainable.”
Case Titles: Abdul Kader and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. & Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court recently denied bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Ashraf Moulavi (A2), and members Abdul Kader (A19) and Firoz (A20), who are accused in the murder of RSS leader S.K. Sreenivasan in Palakkad on April 16, 2022.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the appeals preferred challenging the Special NIA court's refusal to grant them regular bail.
The Court was of the view that the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are not sufficient to grant bail since they have not served substantial part of the sentence likely to imposed in the offences alleged for which there are prima facie materials.
Case Title: Archana P.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLive (Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 11) granted anticipatory bail to 17 SFI activists and students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady for allegedly restraining and assaulting their Vice-Chancellor Dr. Ciza Thomas during a campus protest.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to the students, who are arrayed as the accused in the crime registered by the Kalady Police.
Case Title: Firoz Kunnumal and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court recently held that a single grave act of cruelty can constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC and that a series of acts are not necessary.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“not every instance of harassment, disagreement, or ill-treatment between spouses would, by itself, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC…At the same time, it cannot be said that a series of acts is invariably necessary to constitute cruelty. A single act, if sufficiently grave and of the nature contemplated by the statutory definition, may also constitute cruelty…”
Case Title: Sabeena v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court has held that a prosecution for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained against a relative merely on the basis of general allegations of domestic discord, harassment or insulting words, unless the materials disclose the requisite mens rea and a direct or proximate nexus between the accused's conduct and the suicide.
Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while allowing a criminal miscellaneous case in part.
Daughter-In-Law Not Liable When Senior Citizen's Own Children Alive: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hajara v. The Maintenance Tribunal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court recently held that a daughter-in-law is not liable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 when the senior citizen's children are alive.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that a daughter-in-law would not fall within the definition of 'child' nor 'relative' under the Act when the senior citizen has other children:
“A reading of Section 9 of the Act would show that it is only the “children or relatives who can be directed to make payment of monthly maintenance to the senior citizen”…I am of the opinion that a daughter-in-law has not been roped into the provisions of the statute. True, Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term “relative” as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen. However, since admittedly the 2nd respondent has other children, including the petitioner's deceased husband, even the provisions of Section 2(g) cannot be applied.”
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Kolatt Dasan Prathapan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
The Kerala High Court in a recent order, directed the Special Court for PMLA cases, Ernakulam to consider afresh the bail application of K.D. Prathapan, the prime accused in the High Rich Pozhi Scheme case, while considering a plea preferred by the Directorate of Enforcement to cancel the bail granted.
Justice C.S. Dias directed the Special Court to reconsider Prathapan's bail application within 60 days after hearing both sides. It was made clear that Prathapan would continue to be on bail until a fresh decision is made by the Special Court.
Case Title : Rakhul Krishnan v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
The Kerala High Court has clarified that an International Arrest Warrant issued by a foreign treaty State and transmitted to India through Interpol cannot simply be ignored by the Indian nodal agency merely because the foreign State has not yet made a formal request for extradition through diplomatic channels.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preetha A.K held that, upon receipt of an International warrant, the Indian nodal agency must forward it to the Central Government and simultaneously bring it to the notice of the jurisdictional Magistrate, enabling action under Sections 34-B and 9 of the Extradition Act, 1962, respectively.
Case Title: Baby Kurian v The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
The Kerala High Court has held that the Tahsildars are entitled to issue legal heirship certificates irrespective of the value of the property or assets involved.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas held that the financial ceiling contained in paragraph 236 of the Kerala Village Manual cannot, by itself, operate as a legal restriction on the issuance of a legal heirship certificate.
Case Title: M/s Cubes Entertainments v. Big Tree Entertainment Private Limited and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
The Kerala High Court has directed the Principal Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to number a suit preferred by production company M/s Cubes Entertainments seeking removal of the reviews of the Malayalam movie 'Kattalan' from BookMyShow platform.
Justice Easwaran S. set aside the munsiff court's order rejecting the plaintiff's application seeking exemption from complying with Order VI and Rule 14A CPC, which mandates petitioners to provide the address of the parties for service of notice.
Case Titles: Pramasivam v. State of Kerala & Siraj Vazhayil @ Saji Thaneerkattil v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
The Kerala High Court has directed that bail applications not disclosing criminal antecedents and details of prior bail pleas as mandated by the Apex Court in Zeba Khan v. State of U.P. and Others, cannot be numbered.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that bail applications rarely comply with the afore directions and the administrative mandate contained in the Office Memorandum dated 13.02.2026 issued by the High Court.
Case Title: X and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 505
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 15) upheld the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Alappuzha that allowed the escorted movement of the children in conflict with law (CCLs) for evidence collection in the Karuvatta murder case.
The case refers to the murder of a 67-year-old man on August 17, 2026 allegedly by his 13-year-old granddaughter and three other minors. The minors are presently housed at the Government Observation Home, Alappuzha.
Justice G. Girish observed the conditions imposed by the JJB were sufficient to protect the minors from public scrutiny.
Case Title: Jose M.P. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
The Kerala High Court recently directed that courts, releasing an illegally arrested accused, must permit police to re-arrest accused on the same day after compliance with procedural formalities.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“all Criminal Courts shall ensure that while setting an accused at his liberty, finding his arrest as illegal, the Courts shall pass an order on the date of release of the accused itself to the effect that the release of the accused for non-compliance of the formalities of arrest will not stand in the way of arresting the accused by the Investigating Officer, again, on completing the formalities of arrest and the courts must grant permission to the Investigating Officer to arrest the released accused again, on the same day, as per law.”
Donor's Criminal Antecedents Can't Be Ground To Reject Organ Donation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Muhammed Jishar v. Lakeshore Hospital
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
The Kerala High Court has held that the criminal antecedents of a proposed organ donor cannot be considered as a reason to withhold papers relating to organ donation under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon made the observation in a writ petition filed by a person suffering from chronic kidney disease and requiring organ transplantation.
Case Title: X v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
The Kerala High Court recently permitted a woman to use embryos preserved for assisted reproduction after her husband died.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon referred to Section 22 of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, which provides that an ART clinic can perform any treatment or procedure only with the written informed consent of parties.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
The Kerala High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to a lawyer, who is accused of sexually harassing a lady advocate outside a Palakkad court.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that a prior crime was registered against the complainant at the instance of the petitioner lawyer and went on to grant him bail.
Case Title: A v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
The Kerala High Court recently granted pre-arrest bail to a 20-year-old woman booked for attempted murder of newborn, who she threw out of the window after giving birth in the hospital bathroom.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that there were no materials suggesting that the woman intended to cause the death of the child and that she did not have any criminal antecedents.
Case Title: Dr. V. Madhu v. The Chancellor of CUSAT and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Kerala High Court recently dismissed a public interest litigation seeking a writ of quo warranto to quash the appointment of a professor of Mathematics department in the Cochin University of Science and Technology (CUSAT).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed the PIL.
Delay In Domestic Violence Complaint Alone No Ground To Quash Proceedings: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M and Anr. v. A
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
The Kerala High Court has held that mere delay in approaching a Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) cannot, by itself, be a ground to quash proceedings, particularly where the allegations include acts of domestic violence occurring at a later point of time.
Justice Jobin Sebastian was delivering the judgment in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), seeking quashing of proceedings pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-III, Thrissur.
Case Title: S. Abdul Razzak v. C.B. Suraja Devi and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
The Kerala High Court has held that once an Advocate Commissioner's report and the evidence relating to it have been received in evidence, a trial court cannot subsequently set aside or strike off the report under Order XXVI Rule 10(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in a petition challenging orders of the II Additional Munsiff's Court, Ernakulam, which had set aside an Advocate Commissioner's report and plan in a long-pending suit concerning title and injunction.
Case Title: Balan and Anr. v. Parameswaran and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
The Kerala High Court has held that a lawyer for the plaintiff cannot file an affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff seeking production of documents.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgement in an original petition.
Case Title: Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 18) directed the Munsiff Court, Ernakulam to expeditiously hear and dispose of Jiostar Pvt. Ltd.'s plea to set aside an order halting the release of JioHotstar webseries 'Anali', which is allegedly based on the Koodathayi murders.
Justice Easwaran S. issued the directions.
Case Title: Roji Augustine v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The Kerala High Court has held that the statutory requirement under Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, requiring a complaint case to be stayed when a police investigation is pending, applies only when both proceedings concern the same offence.
Justice C.S Dias made the observation while dismissing a petition filed by Roji Augustine, in a cheating case pending before the Judicial first Class Magistrate Court, Chottanikkara.
Case Title: Dr. P.S. Mahendra Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (17 September) closed the plea against the police circular prohibiting police participation in temple ceremonies as the State Police Chief clarified that the circular did not prohibit the practice of any religion or interfere with the administration of temples or other religious institutions.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar closed the writ petition after recording the statement on behalf of the State Police Chief.
Case Title: Jayan Vatahakattu Moni v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala High Court has quashed an order dismissing actor Jayasurya's (Jayan Vathakkattu Moni) income tax appeal, holding that an income-tax appellate authority cannot dismiss an appeal solely because the assessee failed to appear for the hearing.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the appellate authority is bound to frame points of determination as per Section 250(6) and answer the same by providing reasons.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Reporter TV MD Anto Augustine Arrested In Alcohol Possession Case
Case Title: Anto Augustine v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 22) granted regular bail to Reporter TV Managing Director Anto Augustine, who is booked in an excise case for illegal possession of large quantities of alcohol in his residence in Wayanad.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that recovery was effected in the case already and that Augustine was also handed over to police custody.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Santosh Karwade and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
The Kerala High Court has held that an Investigating Officer can also be appointed as the Prosecutor in a court-martial proceeding under the Navy Act, 1957, observing that such an appointment does not, by itself, violate the right to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John delivered the judgment in appeals arising from a single bench judgment.
Case Title: Sagesh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
The Kerala High Court has held that default bail cannot be granted merely because there was delay in re-submitting the final report, which was submitted within the statutory period and returned only for curing formal defects.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath reasoned:
“Where a final report is returned only for curing formal defects, the permission granted is to rectify such defects. Once cured and re- presented without any further investigation, the re-submission relates back to the original date of filing. It is immaterial whether the defect is cured within the period granted by the Court. Accordingly, I hold that where the final report is filed within the statutory period under Section 187 of the BNSS, and returned only for formal defects, its re-submission after curing such defects must be treated as within time, even if effected after expiry of the statutory period.”
Case Title: Jisha Thomas v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
The Kerala High Court has observed that an inter-religion marriage must also be taken into consideration for Inter-Caste Marriage reservation benefits.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon made the observation while considering a writ petition filed by a person who sought appointment to the post of farm employee under the 'Inter-Caste Marriage' reservation category.
Vadakara MDMA Case: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Two Teachers Booked Under NDPS Act
Case Titles: Kavya K. v. State of Kerala and Anr. & Keerthana K.C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
The Kerala High Court granted bail to two teachers, Kavya K. and Keerthana K.C., who were arrested in the Vadakara MDMA case.
The case relates to the drug trafficking case, involving school teachers and special educators as financial intermediaries.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted bail to third accused Kavya, who was arrested on July 25. The judge had, earlier this month, granted bail to second accused Keerthana, who was arrested on July 11.
Case Title: Raeesa Parveen v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
The Kerala High Court has held that the Passport Authority cannot insist on divorce decree for deletion of husband's name from the passport of a Muslim woman, when the 'talaq' is recognised under the Muslim Personal Law.
Justice Murali Purushothaman observed,
"Divorce resulting from a 'talak' pronounced by the husband is a mode of divorce recognised and accepted under Muslim personal law...divorcees applying for change of name or for deletion of spouse's name in existing passport are not required to produce court's order for judicial separation / decree of divorce."
Case Title: Amarnath Joshi Surendiran v. Secretary, Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (September 23) directed the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) to continuously update the list of advocates, who have not cleared All India Bar Examination (AIBE) or obtained Certificate of Practice (CoP).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a public interest litigation that pointed out the inaction on the part of the State Bar Council in not following the rules and the provisions of the Advocates Act, thereby permitting advocates to practice without a Certificate of Practice.
Case Title: K. Surendran v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 24) closed the plea moved by BJP leader K. Surendran seeking a direction not to replace the existing members of the Devaswom Vigilance Investigation Team functioning at Sabarimala, while the probe into the gold theft cases are pending.
The plea that came up before the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was moved after seeing a news article dated September 14 on Mathrubhumi daily reporting that the State Police Chief is intending to replace the Vigilance Team members despite specific directions of the High Court.
Case Title: Raja Varier v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against a male teacher, who was booked for the offence of outraging the modesty of his female student by allegedly beating her palm in a classroom.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the teacher did not have requisite intent to outrage the de facto complainant's modesty as he beat her only to wake her in a class full of students.
Case Title: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 28) held that Section 100 of the Patents Act can be invoked by the Central government to use a patent to manufacture the medicine covered by it and sell it to a person, including a needy patient, on a non-commercial basis.
The court ruled the provision may be invoked where government intervention is required, including when a patented medicine is being sold at an exorbitant price.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the verdict in a suo motu plea on exorbitant pricing of patented life-saving drugs.
Case Title: All India Digital Cable Federation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 28) permitted the petitioners to withdraw a plea challenging the proviso to Clause 5.4.1 of the TV Ratings Policy 2026 issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB).
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that a memo for withdrawing the plea has been filed by the petitioners, All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) and DEN Network Ltd. The Court then dismissed the plea as withdrawn and granted liberty to file a fresh plea.
Domestic Violence | In-Laws Can't Be Roped In Without Material Showing Shared Household With Complainant: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A and Anr. v. S
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
The Kerala High Court has held that the existence of a domestic relationship is a foundational requirement for bringing a person within the ambit of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act).
Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a petition seeking to quash proceedings initiated under the PWDV Act.
Case Title: Mohammed Kasim H.K v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court has held that accidental 'saffron down' display of National Flag does not attract prosecution under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 as the required intention or mens rea is absent.
Justice A. Badharudeen was delivering the judgment in a petition to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 29) appointed former high court judge Justice V.G. Arun as an 'observer' to oversee the selection process for the Melsanthies of the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple and Malikappuram Temple for the year 1202 ME (2026-27).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order in a suo motu proceeding arising from the Sabarimala Special Commissioner's report concerning the selection process.
Case Title: Muhammed Nihad @ Thoppi v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 28) granted anticipatory bail to controversial Malayalam gamer/Youtuber Toppi, officially known as Muhammed Nihad, who is booked for allegedly live-streaming obscene remarks about a young woman on streaming platforms.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that there were no obscene words or sexually coloured remarks spoken about the complainant and allowed the bail plea:
"I have viewed the video in question. In the said video, there is nothing to show that any obscene words or sexually coloured remarks were directly spoken by the applicant against the victim. Considering the allegations made against the applicant, his custodial interrogation seems unnecessary. For these reasons, I find this to be an appropriate case to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant."
Case Title: Akash M.V and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 29) dismissed the transfer petition filed by the accused persons in the Shuhaib murder case seeking to transfer the trial from Additional Sessions Judge-III, Thalassery to another competent court.
Justice C.S. Dias observed in open court:
"Learned Sessions Judge shall ensure that both parties are afforded full and effective opportunity to participate in the trial including by suo motu reopening the evidence and permitting the counsel for the accused to cross-examine the witnesses. The counsel for the accused persons are expected to cooperate with the court and avoid unnecessary interruptions or adjournments. Considering that the case is of the year 2018 and given the number of witnesses cited, trial shall be conducted with due expedition. Learned Sessions Court is directed to dispose of the case untrammeled by any observations in this order. The above transfer petition is dismissed."
Pakistani National Married To Indian Citizen Has No Vested Right To Seek Visa: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Unaiz Kadumbottil and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
The Kerala High Court recently held that a foreign national does not have a right for consideration of her visa application to India merely because she is married to an Indian citizen.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed the writ petition filed by a married couple, one of whom was a Pakistani national, who wanted to enter India to attend her brother-in-law's wedding.
Case Title: Kerala Police Association v. The State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (29 September) allowed a petition challenging the government order that restructures police personnel associations.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas quashed the impugned orders.
"It is evident that the impugned order is an intrusion to the rights of the petitioner in both these writ petitioners granted under Article 19 (1) (c) and Article 33 of the Constitution of India.. The impugned order abolishing the Kerala Police Officers Association (KPOA) and interfering with the membership and.. without the consultation of its members are contrary by laws and are legally invalid. Consequently, the orders, constituting the ad-hoc committee are to be quashed…" the Court ordered.
Case Title : X and Anr. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, permitted a married couple to continue IVF treatment even though one of them had crossed the statutory age limit prescribed by Section 21(g) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon took note of Punjab and Haryana High Court decision relied on by the couple wherein in a similar situation, the couple over the age limit was permitted to continue treatment upon undertaking to bear all the risks.
Case Titles: George Balu and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Baddevolu Priyanka and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court recently held that the mandatory period of senior residency for medical professionals, who did their post-graduation from Government Medical Colleges, starts immediately upon completion of course and not the actual posting date.
Justice Viju Abraham observed:
“the obligation of a post-graduate students like the petitioners herein as per the Board condition is only from the date of publication of result for a period of one year. The period of Senior Residency as a bonded obligation has to start from the date of publication of the result irrespective of whether a posting could be granted soon after the publication of the result or thereafter. It is ordered accordingly.”