Kerala High Court Quarterly Digest: January - March, 2025 [Citations: 1 – 221]
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 –221]Alan Benny v Bar Council of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 1 –221]
Alan Benny v Bar Council of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
R. Ramachandran Nair v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
Uvais Muhammad K.C. And Another V. State Of Kerala And Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Harish Kumar KP v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
Abad Builders Private Limited v State of Kerala and Others & other connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
Sajeev N. & Others v Anumol P. S. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
Stephin Raj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala & other case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
K R Jayachandran v State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
X. v Y and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
Rahul Rai v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
Sarath K S v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
Benny Mathew & Ors. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
Kerala Coastal Zone Mangement Authority v P. M. Sukhilesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
Siji v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
V.Karthyayani v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
Mariya P.P And Others V. Nalupurayil Kadeeja, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
Kabeer C. V. State Of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
X V. State Of Kerala and other, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
Muhammed V. Raveendran Nair And Others., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
Yamnuna Kumari v The Sub-Registrar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
Shoyab K.A and another v. State of Kerala and others., WP(C) NO. 15097 OF 2024, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
Leena V. A. v The State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
Abhijit George v Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Fr. Mathew Paikada, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
M/S.Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. V. State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 41
Ammini v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
Abdul Salam v State Of Kerala & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
DIG K. Janardhanan v Union of India and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
XX v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
Sakkir Husain v Binu Madhu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
Manikandan N P v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
B.G.Krishnamurthy v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
James (Unsound Mind) v Sajeevan , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
Dr. T. Ambujakshi v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
M/S. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd. V. General Manager, District Industries Centre And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Haseena v Suhaib, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
Bindumol A T v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
Ismail Kunju M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
Bhoopathi v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
Abdul Azeez K P v The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
XX v The State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
M/S. P S Enterprises Represented By Syed Najmuddin v The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
Union of India and Others v S. Sathikumari Amma, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
Dr. K. B. Bindu v The Kannur University and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
Arunkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
Vipin P G v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
Sneha Vijayan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
State of Kerala v Pradeepkumar A.V, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
Biju Abraham and Another v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
Ciby George v District Collector & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
Dr V K Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Sindhu K. & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
Harilal S v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
Jamal K. M. v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
M.G. Sreejith V. M/S MSS Hospital And Nursing College Pvt. Ltd and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
Anilkumar V K v Sunila P., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
Kamakshikutty K.P V State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
State of Kerala and Others v V. P. Aboobacker, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
Uneen v Shoukathali, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
Divya K S v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
State of Kerala v Dr Jyothish Kumar V& Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
T.M.Leela and another V. P.K.Vasu , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
Dr.S.Ganapathy V Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
Mahadevi v Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
XX v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
G. Giri v G. Geetha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
N Prakash v Manoj Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
Chinnamma George v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
AS v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
Rajitha P.V. v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd V. State Of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
Suresh Nathan V The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
Abdul Azeez v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
Ayishabi Thcharakkunnummal v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
Dasan v Yathra and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
Shibin Shiyad v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
Sajeevan Swamy v Johnson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
Hareesh M. S. v The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
Mrs Shinu K R v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
Sadanandan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
Fathima v Vappinu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
Sheeba Suresh v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
Mohammed Sajjid v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
Sobhanakumari v State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
C. Krishnankutty Nair v Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
A. K. Thankappan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
P C George v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
Sreekala K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
Dr. Hafeez Rahman P. A. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
Manu Kumar M K V State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
Sharanya v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
Sarika S. v Radhamma and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
Linimol K v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
x v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Sajitha Abdul Nazar v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Dr Ditto Tom P. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
Saijo Hassan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
State of Kerala v Abdul Gafoor and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Mannam Sugar Mills Co-Operative Ltd. V Deputy Superintendent Of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
HDB Financial Services Limited v The Sub Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Prasad S. v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Sreeraj K. C. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
Noushad K . v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Ashok Harry Pothen Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/S. Indian Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Manjusha K v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
N Prakash v R Ashakumari, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
Ibrahim Sherif K V Malathi B P and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
Lt. Gen Sukhdeep Sangwan and Others v Bijukumar S. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
Edwina Benny v Union of India and Others & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
Shuhaib v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
Abdul Wahid T. K. v Habeebullah PT & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
George Cyriac v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Joint Commissioner v Nishad K U, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Sammil v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
B Ajai v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
V. Subramanian v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
K R Harikrishnan v SI of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Preetha Radhakrishnan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
P.M. Ismail v Abbas, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Viswanathan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
Rajitha P V v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
Ajith v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
PN Uma Shanker, Secretary, Kerala Elecrtrical Wiremen and Supervisors Association v The Deputy Director (In Charge) ESI Corporation and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
Sudhakaran K. V. v Central Pollution Control Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
Babilu Sankar v Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
Sibin S. V. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
XXX v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
Dhanesh M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
Ummu Kulsoom and Others v Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
Ajaynath v N Shajitha Beevi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
Benny Mon v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
All Kerala Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Protection Council v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
XX v YY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
Sreeraj R v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
Jamsheer Ali v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
Thomas Antony v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
Sajeer A v. State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
Ramakrishnan Nair V P J Varghese, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
Gilbert Cheran v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
Noushad v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
Mary Joseph and Another v Thomas Joseph and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra Revi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
South Indian Bank Ltd. v Jahfer M, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
P J Francis v C D Jose, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
National Insurance Co.Ltd. v John Thomas & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
Chaithanya v The New India General Ins.Co.Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
Naduvil Grama Panchayat V Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
Jomon v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Shuhaib K. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
Umer Ali v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
Nitheesh K. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
XX vXX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
Judgments/Orders
Bar Councils Cannot Charge Fees To Verify Certificates Of Enrollment Applicants : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Alan Benny v Bar Council of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 1
The Kerala High Court held that the Bar Council of Kerala cannot collect money from applicants to get their certificates verified from the Universities and Examination Boards.
The Division Bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan noted that the Supreme Court in its earlier decision had directed the Universities and Exam Boards to verify the certificates without charging any fees. As per this decision, the requisition to get the certificates verified should be done by the respective State Bar Councils.
ESI's Refusal To Reimburse Medical Expenses On Minor Technical Grounds Arbitrary: Kerala HC
Case Title: Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. The State Medical Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 2
A Single Judge Bench of Honourable Mr. Justice C.S. Dias of the Kerala High Court ruled against the Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) in a medical reimbursement case. The court held that ESIC's refusal to reimburse expenses for an emergency liver transplantation on grounds such as non-submission of an 'emergency certificate' was hyper-technical and arbitrary. It ruled that once the factum of treatment is established and supported by certified records, reimbursement cannot be denied for minor procedural technicalities.
Case Title: Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
While considering whether cross-examination of witnesses present in court can be done from a remote point, the Kerala High Court said that the courts can allow advocates to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing mode.
Justice V. G. Arun said that courts need not deny such request just because it is not expressly allowed in Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021. The Court however added that the permission need not be granted as a right but can be allowed if there are valid reasons.
Case Title: Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
While refusing to order CBI probe into former Kannur ADM Naveen Babu's death, the Kerala High Court today observed that accused merely having ties with the ruling political dispensation is not ground to transfer investigation from the hands of the State investigation agency.
However, Justice Kauser Edappagath observing that victim has the right to take part in the investigation of the crime (Jagjeet Singh and Others v Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Anr (2022)) and the right to be informed about the progress in the investigation within 90 days (Section 193(3) of BNSS), the Court asked the SIT to inform Babu's wife about the progress of investigation.
Case Title: Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Kerala High Court on Monday (6th January) expressed strong condemnation against DC Books, Kottayam for issuing a public notice regarding release of CPI(M) Central Committee Member and former LDF Convenor EP Jayarajan's alleged autobiography, without his consent.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan however "reluctantly" granted anticipatory bail to Sreekumar AV, the publication's Senior Deputy Editor, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another (2014).
Case Title: John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Kerala High Court has said that as per Rule 4 of Appendix XII A of Kerala Service Rules (KSR), officers who opt for Leave Without Allowance, can lose chances of promotion which may arise, only during the period of leave and not thereafter.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar in its order said, "Rule 4 itself explicitly limits the consequences provided therein as to the chances of promotion only 'during the currency of the period of leave'. In other words, the said rule states only that the officers shall lose the promotion chances as may arise with reference to their seniority in the post from which they proceeded on leave, during the currency of the period of leave, and not thereafter".
Case Title: Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
The Kerala High Court has recently said that a complainant can seek her a copy of her own statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC in order to prefer a protest petition.
After perusing the contents of the refer report, Justice C Jayachandran rejected the argument of the prosecution that the report is not final and that it can be investigated further on after collecting new evidence. It said:
"It is true that in every case, further investigation can be conducted, if new evidence surfaces, as enabled by Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. However, such an option on the eventuality of surfacing new material cannot affect the finality of a refer report/final report under Section 173(8), as things stand established as of the moment. "
Case Name: Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Justice C. S. Dias Court on Monday (January 6) reiterated that in light of the State amendment made to Section 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act, a person nominated as an executor can establish their right over wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians without obtaining a probate.
For context, Section 213 states that an executor of a Will can only establish his/her right after probate of the Will is granted by the competent Court. Probate is essentially a legal process declaring the validity of a Will and granting a right to administer the deceased's estate. However, the State amendment to the Act which came into force in 1997 inserted that “this section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians”.
Case Name: Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
Justice C. S. Dias (on January 06) observed that though, under the Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision to stay the execution of an order passed by the District or State Commission, the Commissions possess inherent power to stay the same.
Case name: R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA and Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 6) observed that a man making comments about a woman's body structure calling it “fine” prima facie amounts to a sexually coloured remark.
Justice A Badharudeen thus refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner for offences including Section 354A(1)(iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Act).
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court has observed that Section 19 of POCSO Act which mandates reporting of POCSO offence is not carved out as an exception to Section 197 CrPC which pertains to requirement of sanction to prosecute public servants.
In doing so Justice K. Babu observed that Section 197 CrPC/Section 218 BNSS are meant to safeguard the public servants from being dragged into vexatious proceedings while discharging official duty.
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court (on December 20) observed that the mandate of reporting offences provided under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not of an official character and the person has to report it in his personal capacity.
Case Name: Uvais Muhammad K.C. And Another V. State Of Kerala And Another.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Justice C. S. Dias held that permission to donate human organs cannot be rejected unless there is cogent material to establish a commercial element.
In doing so the court added that if the donor claims that the donation is made purely out of altruism, their statement must be accepted if there is no credible evidence to prove the contrary.
Case : Harish Kumar KP v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
In an important judgment, the Kerala High Court held that vehicles with Bharat (BH) registration have to pay the motor vehicle tax as per the rates prevailing in the State where the registration is sought. The Court held that the Central Government does not have the power to prescribe the rate of motor vehicle tax for BH series vehicles, as motor vehicle taxation is a subject falling within the domain of the States.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh delivered this significant verdict in a batch of writ petitions filed by vehicle owners who were aggrieved by the Kerala Motor Vehicle Department's refusal to register their vehicles under the BH series without paying the State's tax.
Case Name: MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court (on January 08) observed that the principle of res ipsa loquitur (accident speaks for itself) can be extended to criminal cases, only as an aid for assessment of evidence. The maxim does not embody any rule of substantive law nor a rule of evidence., said the Court.
The Bench of Justice K Babu observed thus while acquitting an accused, convicted of rash and negligent driving. It was the prosecution's case that the accused was a driver of a private bus. He drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit a KSRTC bus. The accident, inter-alia, caused causing death of two persons who were travelling in the KSRTC bus. The Trial Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and concluded that the private bus went to the wrong side of the road. Thus, the present revision petition was filed before the High Court.
The Court observed that the document relied upon by the magistrate contained the facts that the investigating officer saw at the scene. However, the officer did not give any evidence regarding the place of occurrence.
Case Title: The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an appeal by the Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The bench upheld an Arbitration Court's order to pay full back wages to a former employee. The court held that employers bear the burden of proving that the employee was gainfully employed during his suspension period. In the absence of such proof, the court ruled that illegally terminated employees are entitled to full compensation.
Case Title: Abad Builders Private Limited v State of Kerala and Others & other connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16
The Kerala High Court has declared Rule 12(9) of the Kerala Paddy Land and Wetland Rules framed under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 levying a fee for the area of a building exceeding 3000 square feet proposed in lands falling under the Act as ultra vires.
Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. directed that no such fee shall be demanded from the petitioners while considering the building permits of the petitioners. The Court added that if any such fee is already collected, it shall be refunded to the petitioners within 4 months.
Case Title: Sajeev N. & Others v Anumol P. S. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 17
The High Court held that the Government was within its powers under Rule 39 of Part II of Kerala State and Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR) while giving extra chance to State Government employees who had not passed the departmental test necessary for promotion during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Government passed this order after getting representations from employees that they could not attend the test due to the Covid-19 outbreak and thereby lost their seniority to those who already passed the test.
Case Title: Stephin Raj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 18
The Kerala High Court held that a Court while considering a discharge plea cannot consider any documents beyond the prosecution record.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus refused to accept the argument of the petitioner that the trial court did not consider one of the documents produced by him which is not part of the prosecution records while considering the discharge plea.
“The scope and ambit of discharge shall not be available beyond prosecution records and the court cannot look into any document other than the prosecution records, either presented by the accused or by any other means which do not form part of the prosecution records, while considering the plea of discharge."
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (14th January) granted bail to Boby Chemmanur in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam Movie actress. The Court followed the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar (2013) which said that bail shall be granted if the maximum sentence for the offence is less than 7 year. The Court had said that the petitioner shall not commit an offence of the similar nature, or otherwise, the bail will be cancelled.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan while granting bail observed that there was a prima facie case against the petition. “Prima facie I am of the opinion that that there are ingredients to attract the offences alleged against the petitioner. The petitioner is using words with double meanings. Any Malayalee who reads the First Information Statement can easily understand all the words used by the petitioner are with double meanings. Therefore I am of the considered opinion that prima facie, the ingredients of the offences are attracted."
Body Shaming Not Acceptable In Society : Kerala High Court
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19
The Kerala High Court has condemnded body shaming, saying that it's not acceptable in the society.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan made these comments in the order granting bail to businessman Boby Chemmanur in a case for making sexually coloured remarks against an actor.
The Court observed : “Before concluding, I am forced to say that body shaming is not acceptable in our society. Comments about the body of a person as too fat, too skinny, too short, too tall, too dark, too black etc. should be avoided. There is a sense that we are all “too something”, and we are all “not enough”. This is life. Our bodies will change, our minds will change and our hearts will change. Everybody should be vigilant while making comments about others, whether they are men or women. I leave it there.”
Case Title: Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala & other case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 20
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that registration of multiple first information reports by same person against the same accused on same set of allegations would result in abuse of process of law and violates fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 22 of the Indian Constitution.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that multiple FIR's would result in multiple proceedings against the same accused for same offences. The Court observed that second FIR is only permissible against the same accused for commission of entirely different offence which was not covered under the first FIR.
Kerala High Court Declines Pre-Arrest Bail To Actor-Comedian KR Jayachandran In POCSO Case
Case Title: K R Jayachandran v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 21
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (January 14) dismissed the pre arrest bail application filed by Malayalam actor and comedian K R Jayachandran for allegedly committing penetrative sexual assault on a four year old minor.
He is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376AB of IPC and under Sections 5(l), 5(m), 5(n) and 5(p) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act. It is alleged that the actor applied his fingers and tongue upon the genitals of the minor and committed penetrative sexual assault.
Case Title: X. v Y and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 22
While hearing a man's plea challenging the amount of maintenance ordered to be given to his ex-wife and four children, the Kerala High Court reiterated that a man/obligant who is capable of earning and has no physical incapacities, cannot take the defence of having "no resources" to maintain the beneficiaries.
A division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said: “Our view which is nothing novel – having been cemented by the Supreme Court through the years – is firmly that, when the maintenance claimed is the most essential for beneficiaries to sustain, the defence of “no resource” is untenable, particularly when the obligant is capable of earning, without any physical incapacitation.”
Case Title: Rahul Rai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 23
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that mushroom or magic mushroom cannot be treated as a scheduled narcotic or psychotropic substance under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan referred to Karnataka High Court decision in Saeidi Mozdheh Ehsan v. State of Karnataka and Madras High Court decision in S. Mohan v. State through The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station, to state that mushroom cannot be considered as a mixture but only as a fungi.
Malayalam Abuse 'P***di Mone' Means 'Son Of Sex Worker', Not Casteist Slur : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sarath K S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 24
The Kerala High Court has held that the Malayalam phrase- 'pulayadi mone', meaning 'son of a prostitute' is not a castiest slur to attract an offence under the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Justice C S Sudha observed thus, “Going by the dictionary meaning, the word പുലയടി മോനെ means son of a prostitute. That being so, the learned counsel for the appellant/A3 is right in saying that the same is not a casteist slur.”
Case Title: Benny Mathew & Ors. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 25
The Kerala High Court has quashed criminal proceedings of mischief alleged against Apartment Owners Welfare Association for disconnecting water supply distribution over unpaid water charges. The Court stated that every interference with distribution of water supply would not amount to an act of mischief under Section 430 of the IPC. Section 430 of the IPC deals with diminution of supply of water. Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the acts of the petitioners would not amount to mischief as disconnection of water supply was reconnected soon after payment of defaulted arrears.
Case Title: Kerala Coastal Zone Mangement Authority v P. M. Sukhilesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 26
The Kerala High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by Dharmadam Grama Panchayat seeking to construct a public crematorium in a site of mangrove forest.
The Coastal Zone Management Authority (CZMA) had given permission to construct the crematorium in the area. However, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the permission itself mentions that the site falls under CRZ-I.
Case Title: Siji v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 27
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a wholesale dealer of tobacco-free pan masala, 'Vimal and Shikkar Pan Masala' who sought a direction to authorities at Muthanga and Valayar Check Posts to allow the transportation of her Pan Masala from Karnataka and New Delhi to Kerala for sale.
Justice C S Dias stated that merely because petitioner claims that her Pan Masala does not contain tobacco is not a ground to desist authorities from exercising their powers under the Cigarettes And Other Tobacco Products (Prohibition of Advertisement and Regulation of Trade and Commerce, Production, Supply and Distribution) Act of 2003.
Case Title: V.Karthyayani v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 28
The Kerala High Court has held that the allegations against the relatives of the husband cannot be generally viewed as false, as a thumb rule without addressing them.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that general and sweeping allegations of cruelty against the relatives of husband are insufficient to attract an offence of cruelty under Section 498A of the IPC and there must be specific allegations with certainty. The Court stated that allegations must be evaluated on a case to case basis.
Case Name: Mariya P.P And Others V. Nalupurayil Kadeeja
Citation: 25 LiveLaw (Ker) 29
The Kerala High Court, while deciding eviction proceedings, reiterated that even when the tenant acquires a share of the leasehold property, the other co-owners can maintain an action against him since the lease continues to exist. In such cases, the consent of such a tenant, having a fractional interest in the property, is immaterial. The Bench of Justices A.Muhamed Mustaque and P. Krishna Kumar also highlighted that while co-owners need to be parties to such an eviction petition, their consent may be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Case Name: Kabeer C. V. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 30
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to provide reservations to transgender persons within six months in educational institutions and for public employment.
In its order dated 28 November 2024, which was made available on the HC website only today, a division bench of Justices A.Muhamed Mustaque and P. Krishna Kumar said that in light of the Supreme Court's decision in National Legal Services Authority, the matter does not lie completely within the executive's domain. The Court also highlighted the necessity to pass a direction by noting “continued inaction by the Government”.
Case Name: X V. State Of Kerala and other
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 31
The Kerala High Court recently (on January 06) held that criminal proceedings in cases involving serious allegations of sexual assault cannot be quashed, even at the instance of a victim.
The Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen thus dismissed the petition filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by the victim/ complainant, seeking quashing of proceedings against the accused for offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act.
Case Title: Shish Jewels Private Limited v. The Intelligence Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 32
The Kerala High Court has held that interim release of goods can be ordered pending adjudication of notice under section 130 GST Act in lieu of fine.
The Bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman observed that “….the adjudication can be proceeded even if the goods are released pending adjudication. Even if confiscation is ordered, there is an option to the owner of the goods to pay fine in lieu of confiscation…..”
GST Act | Notification Not Needed For Cross-Empowerment Of State Officials : Kerala High Court
Case Name: Pinnacle Vehicles and Services Pvt Ltd v. Joint Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 33
In a significant judgment having a wide impact on several pending cases, the Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 15) ruled that separate notification is not necessary for the cross-empowerment of State officials under the Goods and Services Tax Act.
A division bench comprising Justice Dr AK Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran delivered this significant judgment while answering a reference made to it by a single bench.
Case Name: Muhammed V. Raveendran Nair And Others.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 34
The Kerala High Court (on January 14), while refusing to order a joint trial of suits, observed that the Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits. Instead, its necessity is governed by equity, justice, convenience and necessity. Further, the Court may consider the principle of prejudice while ordering a joint trial.
“The Civil Procedure Code does not specifically provide for consolidation of suits or other proceedings. Equity, justice, convenience and necessity govern the question of whether the joint trial of suits or other proceedings is required or not. The principle of prejudice may also be taken into account when the court orders a joint trial.”
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 35
The Kerala High Court has said that medical evidence showing that hymen is intact by itself would not prove that there was no penetrative sexual assault or coitus.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus dismissed a criminal revision petition of the petitioner on finding that the prosecution has made out a prima facie case that he kidnapped the minor child with intent to sexually assault her.
Case Name: Yamnuna Kumari v The Sub-Registrar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 36
The Kerala High Court has held that the bank's insistence for a court declaration on the validity of a sale deed before sanctioning a loan on the property of a minor, sold without approval from the District Court as mandated under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Justice C S Dias noted that Section 8 (2) of the Act mandates that minor's property shall not be sold without obtaining prior permission from the District Court.
Case name: Shoyab K.A and another v. State of Kerala and others., WP(C) NO. 15097 OF 2024
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 37
The Kerala High Court observed that reservation provided under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act is confined to the posts which are identified by the government for persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 33.
At the outset, Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the petitioners have a normal promotional avenue to the post of Assistant Registrar / Deputy Registrar / Joint Registrar. However, the promotional posts have not been identified as suitable for granting reservations to persons with disabilities. Thus, unless the university does not identify higher promotional posts, such as those of the petitioners, the petitioner could not claim any legal right for promotion.
Case Title: Leena V. A. v The State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 38
The Kerala High Court held that the managers of aided school have an obligation to appoint 'protected teachers' only when they are already provided with the list of 'protected teachers'
Justice K. Babu noted that unless the vacancy is filled the Manager will not be able to conduct the school in a proper manner. He observed that while the Manager has the obligation to appoint a protected teacher, the system should not be stretched so much as to deny the approval of the appointment of a qualified teacher, especially in a vacancy which arose out of retirement.
Case Title: Abhijit George v Assistant Sub Inspector of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 39
The Kerala High Court has observed that the public often shows reluctance to become witnesses, and stated that the testimony of police officers can be admissible, if they are found to be reliable and trustworthy.
A single judge bench of Justice M. B. Snehalatha further held testimony of police officer should not be viewed with distrust solely because he is a witness from the Department of Police.
Diocese Cannot Claim Insurance Over Death Of A Priest: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v Fr. Mathew Paikada
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 40
Kerala High Court held that a “Diocese is not entitled to claim compensation for the death of a deceased priest.”
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar made this observation in an appeal filed by the insurance company against the grant of insurance money to the Diocese over the death of a priest from road accident. The deceased was travelling in a motor bike when he was hit by a lorry and succumbed to the injuries.
Case Title: M/S.Bhageeratha Engineering Ltd. V. State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 41
The Kerala High Court Bench of Justice Dr A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. held that if the parties choose to refer to a singular point for arbitration, then the arbitral tribunal cannot proceed to decide on all disputes. On the contrary, if the parties agree to arbitrate on the entire disputes, then the arbitral tribunal shall have jurisdiction to decide the entire dispute and not a specific dispute.
Sale Deed Cannot Be Unilaterally Cancelled: Kerala High Court Reiterates
Case Title: Ammini v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 42
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that there cannot be unilateral cancellation of a sale deed.
Justice Gopinath P. relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Satya Pal Anand v. State of M.P (2016) and the high court's decision in Noble John v State of Kerala (2010).
Case Title: Abdul Salam v State Of Kerala & Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 43
The Kerala High Court while dismissing the appeals of two men who were convicted and sentenced to three year imprisonment for committing an offence under Section 377 of IPC for sexually abusing a minor boy, observed that the victim's testimony cannot be termed as deviant or unreliable merely because he smoked.
Justice C S Sudha dismissed the men's appeals on finding that there is no reason to disbelieve the boy and only because the boy had admitted that he used to smoke, would not be a ground to conclude that he is of a deviant character.
Case Title: DIG K. Janardhanan v Union of India and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 44
The Kerala High Court dismissed the challenge against the dismissal of a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of the Coast Guard after the vessel on which he was the Commanding Officer (Designate) collided with a fishing boat and caused the death of 5 fishermen and 1 fisherman missing.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon noted that there was no vessel stationed around the place when the accident occurred. Cort observed that this negates the petitioner's argument that the vessel was not involved in the accident. The post-mortem report of the 5 fishermen showed that the cause of death was head injury which they might have suffered during the collision. The Court said that the if the vessel had stopped and they carried out a search and rescue as provided under the Act, the death could have been prevented. As per, Section 14(2)(b) of the Coast Guard Act, it is the duty of coast man to provide protection to fisherman including assistance to them while in distress.
Case Title: XX v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 45
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the mother of two girls–who were allegedly raped and killed in Walayar in 2017–against the Integrity Certificate issued by the State to Superintendent of Police M J Sojan, who probed the case.
Refusing to interfere, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the Selection Committee of UPSC has the power to examine the aspect of integrity independently.
Case Title: Sakkir Husain v Binu Madhu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 46
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that it can exercise jurisdiction over the order of Compensation Commissioner when there is lack of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship, which is a jurisdictional fact to be established, for the Commissioner to exercise its jurisdiction.
Justice T. R. Ravi set aside the order of the Employees Compensation Commissioner on the finding that no employer-employee relationship was proved between the appellant and respondent. The Court reached the above conclusion by relying upon decisions in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav & Anr. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022), C. Manjamma & Anr. v. The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2022) and Golla Rajanna v. Divisional Manager & Anr. (2016).
Case Title: Cochin International Airport Ltd v. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 47
The Kerala High Court stated that the Income Tax Commissioner can exercise Revisional Jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “The role of the assessing officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961 is not only that of an adjudicator but also of an investigator and he cannot remain oblivious in the face of a claim without any enquiry.”
Case Title: Manikandan N P v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 48
The Kerala High Court clarified that if bail application of an accused is allowed, then the bail application of co-accused in the same crime cannot be denied without giving sufficient reasons for denial.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan ordered that Trial Courts must exercise clarity while considering bail applications for maintaining judicial discipline.
Case Title: B.G.Krishnamurthy v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 49
The Kerala High Court has held that the geographical restrictions on escort visits of prisoners to see their family–restricting it to within the state except in the case of death of near relatives, are based on practical considerations and do not violate prisoners' fundamental rights.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that escort visits fall within the State's policy domain and would depend on the State's capacity to provide accompanying police officers, transportation, distance and financial resources.
Case Title: James (Unsound Mind) v Sajeevan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 50
The Kerala High Court has held that legal heirs are entitled to claim compensation for 'pain and suffering' endured by a deceased motor accident victim.
In doing so, Justice C Pratheep Kumarrelied on Section 2 of the Kerala Torts (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act of 1977 which provides that all causes of action on account of personal claim would survive to the legal heirs.
Case Title: Dr. T. Ambujakshi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 51
The Kerala High Court has asked the investigating officers to be extra cautious while implicating doctors as accused for failing to report commission of crime against minor under Section 19 read with read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
The Court further stated that arraying doctors mechanically in criminal proceedings as accused is absolute injustice and causes mental trauma to doctors which would prevent them from discharging their duties.
Justice A. Badharudeen thus ordered that unwarranted implication of doctors in POCSO cases must be avoided unless there is deliberate intention or omission to report the commission of a crime.
Case Name: M/S. Mothers Agro Foods (P) Ltd. V. General Manager, District Industries Centre And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 52
Recently, the Kerala High Court observed that the lands allotted by the State Government in the industrial area are to promote industrial growth and a hyper-technical approach should not be adopted to cancel the allotment. The Court was referring to the Kerala Allotment of Government Land in Development Areas on Hire Purchase For Industrial Purpose Rules, 1969.
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu said that the focus should be on proper utilisation of the land allotted for industrial use. However, unutilised lands would defeat the purpose of industrial growth.
Case Title: Haseena v Suhaib
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 53
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a Muslim wife who is residing separately from her husband for contracting second marriage is not disentitled from claiming maintenance under the Criminal Procedure Code or Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Justice Kauser Edappagath stated that even though Muslim law permits husband to contract second marriage during subsistence of first marriage, the husband is bound to treat both the wives equally.
Case Title: Bindumol A T v Union of India
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 54
The Kerala High Court has observed that there is no provision under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act of 2016 for the appointment of a permanent guardian for a person with mental disability.
Justice C.S. Dias clarified that this is because the office of guardianship operates on a mutual understanding and trust between the guardian and the person with a disability, intended for a specific purpose or situation.
Case Title: Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55
The Kerala High Court today closed the writ petition filed by late Gopan Swami's family (wife and children) after exhumation of his body from the Samadhi site.
His family had approached the High Court against the order of the District Administration, permitting the exhumation of the body.
Today, when the matter was taken up, Justice C.S.Dias noted that the body has been exhumed as per the District Collector's order.
Case Title: M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56
The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to consider the inadequacy of sentence imposed on a person under Section 58 of the NDPS Act who falsely implicate innocent persons in NDPS cases. The Court stated that false implication in NDPS cases has severe consequences and can ruin someone's life.
The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking bail for providing false information to the detecting officer, which led to a woman being wrongly implicated in an NDPS case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. This section provides imprisonment for 10 years, extendable to 20 years.
Crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 58 (2) which imposes penalty of two years imprisonment for wilfully and maliciously giving information to cause vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act. Justice
P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registry to send the copy of this order to the Union Government. “False accusations are the most malignant and venomous of all calumnies. Hence, sentences to be imposed by a court of law in such cases should be fair, proportionate and just. The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence. If there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these type of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to do the needful in accordance with law.”
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 57
The Kerala High Court stated that a two-week prior notice must be given before taking any coercive steps against Rahul Easwar if any case alleging non-bailable offences is registered against him by the Malayalam film actress.
Rahul Easwar had allegedly made adverse comments about the actress's dressing style while discussing the Boby Chemmanur case in news channel debates. Boby Chemmanur is currently on bail in the case of sexual harassment filed by the actress.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan passed the above order in the bail petition moved by Rahul Easwar on finding that at present no case is registered against him.
Case Title: Ismail Kunju M v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 58
The Kerala High Court held that a person's request for kidney transplantation cannot be rejected in a routine and pedantic manner since it directly affects their right to life and health. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that the Authorisation Committee while rejecting application for kidney transplantation must consider each application on its merits and give reasons in writing before rejecting application, rather than generalising that all organ transplantations are part of large-scale commercial transactions.
https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-authorisation-committee-organ-transplantation-commercial-transactions-reasons-writing-282248
Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 59
The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.
The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”
Case Title: Bhoopathi v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 60
The Kerala High Court has directed the Sessions Court to complete trial into the murder of Abhimanyu, a SFI leader who was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharajas College in Ernakulam. The direction comes in the plea moved by deceased's mother, stating that the case was pending for six years and there was no progress.
Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered thus, “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considering the report, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, to dispose of S.C.No. 1068 of 2018 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”
Case Title: Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61
The Kerala High Court has held that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.
Considering the facts of the case, Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the wife who has a temporary job and is living in a rented house with a dependent daughter, is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.
Case Title: Abdul Azeez K P v The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 62
The Kerala High Court has held that as per Section 6 (2)(e) of the Passports Act of 1967, passport authority cannot refuse passport to a person held guilty of offence involving moral turpitude, if he has not been convicted within five years preceding the date of filing the passport application.
In the facts of the case, the petitioner was convicted on December 31, 2015 for three years imprisonment, and passport application was filed on December 07, 2024.
Justice Gopinath P. allowed the writ petition and ordered that passport authority shall consider his application for passport without being influenced by his prior conviction.
Case Title: XX v The State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63
The Kerala High Court held that the Children's Court has to conduct an inquiry as to whether a child can be tried as an adult even if the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) has already passed an order saying that the child can be tried so.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said that it is clear from the decision in Child in Conflict with law through his mother v State of Karnataka (2024) that it is mandatory that the Children's Court should conduct an inquiry to decide if the child deserves to be treated as an adult.
Case Title: Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64
The Kerala High Court has clarified that before issuing notice to an accused named in the complaint, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as per Section 223 (1) of the BNSS.
It further clarified that as per first proviso to Section 223 (1), if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence, the accused should be given an opportunity of hearing.
Justice V.G. Arun observed that the first proviso of Section 223(1) of the BNSS introduced a "radical change," as the corresponding provision in the CrPC, Section 200, did not require the accused to be heard before taking cognizance. The first proviso to Section 223 (1) now mandates that the Magistrate must give the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence. The Court also stated that it is in agreement with the Karnataka High Court decision in Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) and Shivananda S Patil (2025).
Case Title: M/S. P S Enterprises Represented By Syed Najmuddin v The Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 65
The Kerala High Court has held that notice and opportunity of hearing must be provided to persons before debarring or blacklisting them from future contracts.
Justice C.S. Dias further stated that debarring or blacklisting is a matter of serious concern and should not automatically follow every termination.
The bench added that termination of contract of a person is different from debarring or backlisting him since it disqualifies him from future contracts.
Case Title: K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 66
If elected representatives want to change political affiliation, then they must resign and face the mandate of the people again, observed the Kerala High Court. "If the elected representative wants to change his policy or political affiliation, he has to resign and face the mandate of the people again. That is the moral side of democracy. Otherwise, it will be a unilateral withdrawal from the bond executed with the people by the elected representative. It will be an insult to the will of the people. But the people can show their will to such a representative in the next election either by supporting him or by defeating him. That is the beauty of democracy."
The Court made this observation while granting bail to five persons accused of assaulting a lady councillor of Koothattukulam Nagara Sabha.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that both the LDF and UDF are trying to take the law into their own hands, instead of approaching the people in a democratic manner.
Case Title: Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that a notice to revive a stalled arbitration proceedings by appointing another arbitrator satisfies the mandate of Section 21 of the A&C Act.
The court observed that the questions relating to the validity of the partnership agreement cannot be looked into by a referral court. The Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) has limited the scope of the referral court to ascertain whether a Section 11 application has been filed within three years. The court cannot go into the arbitrability of the dispute, and such questions are for the tribunal to adjudicate.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v S. Sathikumari Amma
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 68
The Kerala High Court held that an employee cannot make a representation that his legally wedded wife or other dependents are not entitled to claim the family pension.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar observed that family pension is not an estate or property of the employee and cannot be disposed of as per the will of the employee. “Family pension unlike the other pensionary benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc could not be a subject matter of testamentary disposition by the employee during his lifetime. In other words, an employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another nor he can nominate some other person for receiving family pension other than the one who is entitled to it.”
Case Title: P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69
The Kerala High Court stated that showing undue leniency towards a government employee in disciplinary proceedings could undermine the essential discipline required in public service. Considering the facts of the case, the Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar stated that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the offences committed by the petitioner for misappropriation of money by manipulating sales records in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC).
Case Title: P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70
The Kerala High Court bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu JJ. while hearing a writ petition has held that when an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government refuses to entertain an application u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Courts can entertain a petition under Article 226 to the limited extent of referring the dispute to arbitration. Section 3G(5) places a statutory obligation upon the District Collector, who acts as an arbitrator, to receive applications for adjudication of disputes relating to the determination of compensation.
Case Title: Dr. K. B. Bindu v The Kannur University and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 71
The Kerala High Court cancelled the selection of Assistant Professors in Kannur University made by the Selection Committee partly chaired by the former Vice Chancellor Gopinath Ravindran. In-midst of the selection process, on November 30, 2023 the Supreme Court had set aside the appointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the VC of the University.
Justice N. Nagaresh said that the VC could not have substituted himself in the Selection process in the midway. The Court held that if the Chairman could not preside over the Selection Committee due to some reason, the appropriate step would have been to cancel the interview process already held and subject all the candidates to a fresh interview process by a reconstituted Committee.
Case Title: Arunkumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72
The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, particularly the first proviso thereof, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners.
For context, Section 479 BNSS deals with the maximum period of time for which a undertrial prisoner can be detained. The first proviso stipulates that a first-time offender shall be released on bond if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence alleged.
Justice C. S. Sudha noted that the Supreme Court by an order in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has made Section 479 retrospectively applicable to undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. The High Court said that the Apex Court has not given the benefit of the Section to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court said it cannot extend the benefit to convicts.
Case Title: Vipin P G v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 73
The Kerala High Court stated that marriages conducted outside India, where only one of the party is an Indian citizen, can be registered under the Foreign Marriage Act. It further clarified that a marriage between two individuals can be solemnised and/or registered in India under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA). Justice C S Dias observed that the petitioners, an Indian citizen and an Indonesian citizen, who have solemnised their marriage under the civil laws of Indonesia, can register their marriage formally under the Foreign Marriage Act and not under the provisions of the SMA.
Case Title: Sneha Vijayan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74
The Kerala High Court has held that the detaining authority under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA) has a duty to provide the detenu with legible copies of all relevant documents forming basis for the detention, including the detention order.
The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that detenu would get an effective opportunity to file a representation before the Advisory Board and Government only when he has legible copies of relied-upon documents.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Pradeepkumar A.V
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 75
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that interim orders that affect the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and cause significant prejudice, are appealable during the pendency of the writ petition under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed thus:
“The impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge is not an order merely procedural in nature. Such an order, touching upon the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and causing substantial prejudice to the appellants, is an interim ordera qualified for challenge in an appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.”
Case Title: Biju Abraham and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76
The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment expressed concern over the exponential rise in cases relating to outraging a woman's modesty. Justice A. Badharudeen said that though the law has been strengthened in the matter of sexual offences, the effective implementation of the same should be ensured.
Case Title: Ciby George v District Collector & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 77
The Kerala High Court has ordered the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for the demolition and reconstruction of Chander Kunj Army Towers (Towers B and C).
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. further directed the District Collector to constitute a committee with experts for a proper implementation of the demolition and reconstruction of the towers with equal size and facilities.
Case Title: Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78
The Kerala High Court recently held that when the prosecution is solely responsible for the delay in concluding the trial, the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the effect of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen in the present case noted that the trial could not be completed on time due to 'lethargy on the side of the prosecution'. The Court however added that bail cannot be given on the ground of delay in completion of trial if it is seen that the accused has contributed to the delay in any way.
Case Title: Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79
The Kerala High Court recently stated that it was unjust to deny a 24-year-old man, who is the fourth accused in an NDPS case, permission to travel abroad for employment when conclusion of trial was not foreseeable in near future.
In the facts of the case, Justice VG Arun further observed that the Sessions Court citing examples of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi to deny permission to accused was 'unwarranted'.
Case Title: Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 80
The Kerala High Court on Monday (February 3) allowed the anticipatory bail applications filed by Malayalam news channel Reporter TV's consulting editor Arun Kumar K. and Sub-editor Shabas Ahammed. The duo were booked under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually harassing a girl child through words and gestures.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that prime facie, while the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence under the POSCO Act, the Court stated that the reporters asked the child inappropriate questions which could have been avoided.
Case Title: Dr V K Sulochana v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 81
The Kerala High Court has held that the POCSO Act does not provide an outer limit for reporting of offences to the Police, and that the intent is to report to the Police without delay.
The Court was considering whether a doctor, who treated the victim subsequently, could be held criminally liable for failing to report the commission of offences under the POCSO Act, when the information had already been provided to the police by the doctor who initially treated the victim.
Justice A. Badharudeen stated that since the FIR has been registered based on information given by the first doctor to the Police without delay, criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is unwarranted and lacks justification.
Case Title: Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 82
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal preferred by Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath (VHP) against the grant of OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate to a Hindu woman namely Kumari Bindhu, who married a Christian man.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu noted that this being a service matter, VHP who is neither an affected employee nor the State, has no locus standi to challenge it.
Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Sindhu K. & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 83
In a case motor vehicle compensation case where a man died in an accident, the Kerala High Court said that his married sister cannot claim compensation for loss of dependency, but as his sole legal heir, she is entitled to claim compensation under the heads of loss of estate as well as loss of love and affection.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held that, the sibling is entitled to compensation under the head of 'loss of estate'.
Case Title: Harilal S v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 84
The Kerala High Court observed that every non-disclosure of criminal cases by an individual cannot be regarded as fatal for his appointment to a government post.
While quashing the termination notice and relieving order issued to the employee, Justice D.K. Singh pointed out that the authority has not considered the fact that the non-disclosure of these cases did not impact the employee's suitability for the post, since the cases were not serious in nature and were not offences involving moral turpitude.
Case Title: Jamal K. M. v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 85
The Kerala High Court has issued a slew of directions to regulate street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation, clarifying that only those individuals who have a valid ID card and whose name features in the list of authorized street vendors published by the Corporation are permitted to vend.
After noting that the Street Vending Plan under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act had been finalised and notified by the State Government in June last year, Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the following directions:
- Only those street vendors whose name is in the list of authorized street vendors published by the Corporation and having the valid certificate and id cards issued by the Corporation shall be seen as authorized street vendors. Only they are permitted to carry vending operations within the limits of Kochi Municipal Corporation.
- All applications seeking issuance of certificates of vending shall be processed by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, The Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules and The Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme.
- The Monitoring Committee and the Jagratha Samithi constituted by the Court during the pendency of the matter shall continue to function as directed by the Court for a further period of six months or till such time the authorities under the Act establish their own regulatory mechanism, whichever is earlier.
- The exercise of shifting authorized street vendors currently operating in non-vending zones to the nearest vending zone shall be completed within a period of three months.
Case Name: M.G. Sreejith V. M/S MSS Hospital And Nursing College Pvt. Ltd and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 86
The Kerala High Court single Judge Justice Syam Kumar VM recently cautioned that comparing signatures based on photocopy, in the absence of an original document, is a “slippery slope” and should be done with great care and circumspection.
Case Title: Anilkumar V K v Sunila P
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 87
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that while dealing petitions for divorce on ground of cruelty, Courts cannot rely on rigid definitions of cruelty.
Stating that the emotional quotient of every individual is different, it added that Courts must assess whether the conduct of one spouse has made it unreasonable for the other spouse to live with them.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha stated that cruelty as a ground for divorce varies from case to case and must be assessed on a case by case basis.
Case Title: Kamakshikutty K.P V State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 88
The Kerala High Court has ordered the government to pay an amount of rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred rupees per month to pre-primary school teachers and rupees twenty two thousand five hundred per month to ayahs attached to the Government Pre- Primary Schools appointed by the respective Parent Teachers Association.
The above order was passed in writ petitions filed by pre-primary school staff (teachers and ayahs) of PTA run schools, who approached the Court seeking for issuance of orders formulating service conditions including the scale of pay in par with the teachers of Government run pre-school.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon ordered thus “The Teachers/Ayahs to be paid an honorarium of Rs.27,500/- and Rs.22,500/- respectively, effective from March 2025 onwards, to be disbursed from April 2025. Escalation as above to have retrospective effect from 01.08.2012 and Government to disburse arrears within six months' time.”
Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v V. P. Aboobacker
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 89
The Kerala High Court held that if absolute protection is given to officers under Section 74 of Kerala Forest Act, damages caused to the person due to mischievous acts of an officer would not be addressed. For context, Section 74 gives protection from criminal or other proceedings to forest officers for acts done in good faith.
Justice A. Badharudeen clarified that the statutory protection is not a shied for actions done without rational application of cognitive faculty. The Court further held that when the seizure and confiscation was found to be illegal and was set aside, protection under Section 74 of the Act cannot be claimed for such acts.
Case Title: Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 90
The Kerala High Court stated that incorporating terms of settlement in judgments, decrees and orders would depend upon the 'nature of cases' and 'consent of parties'. The Court clarified that an omnibus order cannot be issued in the absence of a statutory provision and stated that each judge must decide based on the consent of parties whether the terms of settlement can be included in the judicial orders. The Court further stated that it would be appropriate not to include the terms of settlement if parties do not consent to it.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S.Manu observed that it might not be feasible to issue judicial directions prescribing a specific format for judicial orders, in the absence of statutory backing.
Case Title: Uneen v Shoukathali
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91
The Kerala High Court recently stated that even if aged father or mother receives financial support from friends or relatives to support themselves, it does not absolve the children of their obligation to provide maintenance.
Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that filial duty is a fundamental obligation and is embedded in morality, religion and law. The Court stated that children, particularly sons have a greater obligation to support their aged parents as outlined in various religious texts and codified under several laws.
Case Title: Divya K S v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92
The Kerala High Court has ruled that government cannot insist students to execute bonds for compulsory service midway through their course. The Court further stated that the government should have informed the students about the compulsory service before admitting them to the program and cannot impose the execution of such bond agreements midway through their studies.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar explained the concept of 'legal certainty' and stated that government actions must be based on pre-established rules, with clear certainty regarding about the penalties that would follow in case of breach of those rules.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Dr Jyothish Kumar V& Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 93
The Kerala High Court has set aside a single bench order permitting employees of various Public Sector Undertakings (PSU's) to continue in service, irrespective of their retirement age, until the government takes a decision on the expert committee's report on the feasibility of enhancing retirement age from 58 to 60.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. however did not interfere with the single judge's decision insofar as it ordered the State government to direct the Expert Committee to submit its report.
Case Name: T.M.Leela and another V. P.K.Vasu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 94
The Kerala High Court, while dismissing a petition, observed that its supervisory jurisdiction, as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. Such power must be exercised sparingly and in cases of apparent error or grave injustice.
“The power under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless the following requirements are satisfied-- (1) the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceeding, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice occasioned thereby.,” held the Court.
Case Title: Dr.S.Ganapathy V Union Of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 95
The Kerala High Court has ruled that it cannot review the concept of brain death in India since the Parliament is the only authority to define brain death.
The Court further stated that the Parliament through the Transplantation of Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA) of 1994 has recognized brain death and the procedure for transplantation of human organs from brain dead patients in India.
The Court passed the above order in a PIL moved by Dr S. Ganapathy who challenged the concept of brain death, argued that it was unscientific and certifying brain death violated Article 21 of the Constitution. He also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Transplantation of Organs and Tissues Act 1994 (THOTA).
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar noted that Section 2(d) of THOTA defines brain stem death and Section 2 (e) defines the term deceased person.
Case Title: Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 96
The Kerala High Court has held that a person booked for committing mischief under Section 324 of BNS along with house-trespass under Section 333 of BNS, can be asked to deposit an amount in accordance with the damage allegedly caused by him, as a condition precedent to bail.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan held that the courts should compulsorily impose this condition while giving bail and should deviate from it only when there are sufficient reasons.
The Court observed that this will act as a deterrent and will send a message to the society.
Case Title: Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97
The Kerala High Court ruled that prospective adoptive parents must be given child study report and medical examination report to review when they are referred the profiles of children for possible adoption.
Justice C.S. Dias referred to Section 59 (6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 and Adoption Regulations of 2022 to state that child study report and medical examination report of children who are legally free for adoption must be uploaded on the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) platform which is the designated portal of the Central Adoption Resource Agency.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 98
The Kerala High Court has ordered that it is not necessary to always place a civil contempt petition before the same Bench which passed the order against which the contempt petition was filed. Currently, this is the practice being followed by the High Court.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was deciding on a suo motu petition placed before it by the Registry in the aftermath of another Division Bench order of the Court.
Case Title: Mahadevi v Sub Divisional Magistrate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 99
The Kerala High Court held that the Corporation should not evict street vendors, citing grave and emergent reasons, in violation of their statutory rights guaranteed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act of 2014.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the 2014 Act was enacted by the Parliament to create a harassment free environment for street vendors, to safeguard their rights and livelihood. The Court further stated that 2014 Act requires constitution of a Town Vending Committee, creation of a street vending plan every five years, formulation of a regulatory scheme and also provides a procedure for relocation of licensed street vendors to another suitable site.
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 100
Kerala High Court while quashing a POCSO case filed by the mother on behalf of her child against her divorced husband observed that there are instances where one spouse uses their minor child to file false POCSO case against the other, to win custody cases.
“In cases when the husband and wife are in loggerheads and one among them sues for custody of a minor child, there are instances whereby the other spouse who is not ready to part with the custody of the minor used to fabricate facts to implicate the facts to implicate the other spouse in PoCSO offences by using the child whose custody is sought for. The intention behind implicating the spouse who demands custody of the child is to avoid the claim for custody.”
Case Title: G. Giri v G. Geetha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 101
The Kerala High Court has observed that if a person does not fully disclose the details of his property while applying to sue as an indigent person, it is an indication that he wants to play fraud on the court by suppressing his ability to pay court fee.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in such cases, the courts can reject the application under Order 33, Rule 5(b) of CPC saying that the applicant is not an indigent person.
“When a party in possession of movable/s and immovable property/ies fails to disclose the details of movable/s or immovable property/ies, which is mandated under Order 33 Rule 2, the same would throw light on the fact that he had suppressed material facts about movable/s and immovable property/ies, with a view to mislead the court and play fraud on the Court by suppressing his assets, which would disclose his capacity to pay the Court fee. To put it differently, suppression of the assets held by the person, who wants to sue as an indigent person is a clear indication to hold that the said person hided his assets, knowing fully well that disclosure of his assets would show prima facie, his capacity to pay the Court fee.”
Death Penalty, Imprisonment, Breach Of Peace, Trial Of Offences: Kerala HC Clarifies Scope & Application Of Criminal Writ Petitions
Case Title: N Prakash v Manoj Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 102
The Kerala High Court has stated that proceedings that may result in punishments such as death, imprisonment and forfeiture of property should be filed as Writ Petitions (Criminal). It also stated that petitions related to maintenance of law and order, prevention of breaches of peace, prevention of vagrancy should be filed as Writ Petitions (Criminal). Additionally, the Court clarified that any petitions under Article 226 or 227 concerning investigations or trial of offences should also be regarded as Writ Petitions (Criminal).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, however, observed, that the list of cases in which writ petitions (civil) and writ petitions (criminal) are to be filed cannot be exhaustive.
Case Title: Chinnamma George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 103
The Kerala High Court has ruled that an accused who is out on bail and is physically incapacitated can be permitted to appear through virtual mode on the date fixed for the pronouncement of judgment, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.
Section 353(6) CrPC states that an accused, not in custody, has to be present for hearing the judgement pronounced, except when personal appearance has been dispensed with.
Rule 3(1) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) of 2021 reads thus: Electronic video linkage facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings or under any other special law for the time being in force, and also to such other proceedings which are conducted by the Court.
Justice V.G. Arun observed that Rule 3(1) can include pronouncement of judgement also.
Case Title: AS v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 104
The Kerala High Court released a POCSO accused on bail considering that his prolonged custody was causing trauma to the victim. The accused was the step-grandfather of the victim and she was relying on him for her livelihood.
Considering the extraordinary situation, Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan granted bail to the accused.
“From the above report, it is clear that the grandmother and the victim are relying on the petitioner for their livelihood. The victim is now facing trauma because, in her instance, her grandfather is kept in custody…Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.”
Case Title: Rajitha P.V. v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 105
In reference to Section 4 (c) (i) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, the Kerala High Court stated that a female would be eligible to obtain eligibility certificate for surrogacy when she attains the age of 23 and becomes ineligible on the preceding day of her 50th birthday.
The Court thus clarified the maximum age limit for female cannot be extended till the preceding day of the 51st birthday, since the legislature has imposed these age restrictions based on the normal age that which women conceive biologically.
The single bench of Justice C.S. Dias also stated that the Court cannot extend the age limits fixed by the legislature by exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
Case Name: Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd V. State Of Kerala and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 106
The Kerala High Court yesterday (on February 12), observed that during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, initiation of cheque dishonour proceedings, due to the moratorium, is prohibited only against the corporate debtor and not against the persons referred under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). In other words, the accused persons in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business will continue to be liable for cheque dishonour offences.
“(i) When the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the company is underway, the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the Code by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted. (ii) The moratorium provision under Section 14 of the Code would apply only to the corporate debtor. (iii) The natural persons referred to in Section 141 of the N.I.Act continues to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act.,” the Bench of Justice K Babu held.
Case Title: Suresh Nathan V The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 107
The Kerala High Court has ruled that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot dismiss a complaint for default or non-prosecution.
Justice C.S. Dias said, “…the State Commission is not empowered to dismiss a complaint for default or non-prosecution, but is obliged to decide the complaint on its merits.”
The order was passed relying upon Sections 37-B, 38 and 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Case Title: Abdul Azeez v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 108
The Kerala High Court has ruled that there are no statutory provisions in the newly enacted criminal laws, the POCSO Act, or the Guidelines for Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses of 2024 issued by the High Court that permit screening of child witness from the defense counsel.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that it must be presumed that the legislature has considered all the relevant aspects and consciously decided not to screen the vulnerable witness from the defense counsel.
Reference To IPC Provisions In Definition Of 'Rowdy' Under Anti-Social Activities Law Is A Reference To Relevant BNS Provisions: Kerala HC
Case Title: Ayishabi Thcharakkunnummal v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 109
While examining the definition of 'rowdy' under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA), the Kerala High Court observed that the reference to the repealed IPC provisions in the definition, has to be construed as a reference to relevant provision in the BNS.
It held that when such reference is to a chapter of IPC, the corresponding chapter of BNS shall be referred to and it would include even new offences in the chapter.
A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that by application of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, references to IPC in the Section 2(t) KAAPA can be construed as corresponding provision in BNS. Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act says that if a law is repealed or re-enacted, then the reference to the repealed law shall be construed as a reference to re-enacted law.
Case Title: Dasan v Yathra and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 110
The Kerala High Court held that courts should order oral examination (viva voice examination) only in exceptional cases for the purpose of getting further information if a person has not answered or answered insufficiently a question in the interrogatory.
Under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC, if a person interrogated omits to answer or answers insufficiently, the Court on an application by the interrogating party can direct the opposite party to answer or answer further either by affidavit or by viva voice.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that the party cannot apply for a particular course of action. The party can only make an application under Order XI Rule 11 and the manner in which the other party shall answer shall be decided by the Court.
Case Title: Shibin Shiyad v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 111
The Kerala High Court has ordered mufti police to carry their identity cards and the specific order authorizing them to discharge their duties in mufti, for proper identification by the citizens.
Mufti police is a term used to refer to police who is wearing civilian dress instead of uniform, during their job.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that in the absence of such ID and authorization order, the public cannot be blamed for questioning a mufti police.
Case Title: Sajeevan Swamy v Johnson and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 112
The Kerala High Court has held that in ex-parte proceedings, a Court can pass an order in favour of the party present only if they can successfully establish their rights or the liability of the opposite party. The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar added that the court is not expected to blindly pass an order in favour of the party present.
Case Title: Hareesh M. S. v The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 113
The Kerala High Court held that an Internal Complaints Committee cannot proceed with a compliant if the allegations made in it does not constitute 'sexual harassment' under Section 2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).
Justice D. K. Singh said that in such cases, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance does not exist.
Case Title: Mrs Shinu K R v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 114
The Kerala High Court has ruled that reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 cannot be extended while appointing government pleaders and public prosecutors, as they do not have a specific cadre strength, and therefore, no vacancies within a cadre where such reservations can be applied.
Justice D.K. Singh observed that appointment of advocates as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors is a decision of the Government, as they are the client here. It was also stated that no one has an inherent right to claim appointment as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors.
Case Title: The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 115
The Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally Valid.
“Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, only tax can be levied, and Cess cannot be levied is without merit” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.
Case Title: Sadanandan v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 116
The Kerala High Court has increased the fine amount from rupees 25,000 to 50,000 for eight CPI(M) leaders and workers who attacked C. Sadanandan Master, which led to the amputation of his legs. The attack took place due to the political rivalry between CPI (M) and RSS workers, since Sadanandan Master, a former SFI member in college, joined the RSS and became the district Upa Karyavahak of the RSS in Kannur District.
Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the Court cannot show leniency imposed upon the accused persons since that would send a wrong message to society which would only encourage such crimes. The Court called the attack on Sadanandan Master as brutal, dastardly and near fatal attack and stated that he has been waiting for justice for the past 31 years.
Case Title: Fathima v Vappinu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117
The Kerala High Court ruled that amending an original petition filed before the Family Court incorporating reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is permissible and that it will not change the nature and character of the original petition.
The Court further stated that reliefs to be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act can also be granted by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to provide protection and justice to the victim.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed the petition for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act.
Case Title: Sheeba Suresh v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 118
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (18th February) ordered that the concerned officer shall send a notice to former Kumily Panchayat President and Congress activist Sheeba Suresh if she is implicated in the scooter scam case registered in Kumily Polce Station. The case is now registered only against Ananthu Krishnan for allegedly cheating a number of persons in the State by collecting money after promising to provide electric scooters at 50% of the price.
When the case came up for hearing before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnanon Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor informed the court that the petitioner is not yet arraigned as an accused in the case. The Court closed the petition saying that if she is implicated in the offence in future, the officer concerned shall issue notice to her in accordance with law.
Case Title: Mohammed Sajjid v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 119
The Kerala High Court has granted default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS to an accused in a drugs case, booked under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years (maximum ten years punishment), after 60 days in custody.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan did not apply Section 187(3)(i) to the Petitioner-accused, noting that the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon the Petitioner is up to ten years, whereas Section 187(3)(i) relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.
Case Title: Sobhanakumari v State Of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 120
The Kerala High Court observed that when complaints with the police do not yield desired results, or when there are failed litigations or pending litigations between the parties, the raising of allegations under the SC/ST (POA) Act gives a strong indication that such allegations may be false.
Justice A. Badharudeen cautioned that the investigating agencies and courts have a very vital role to find out truth from false allegations to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The Court further stated that false cases must be quashed without hesitation.
Case Title: C. Krishnankutty Nair v Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 121
The Kerala High Court emphasized that the members of the Child Welfare Committee should have been actively involved with issues related to children namely their health, education or welfare activities before being appointed to the post.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu emphasized that such a qualification is essential considering the duties of the members of the Committee.
Case Title: A. K. Thankappan v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 122
The Kerala High Court quashed further proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against former Additional District Magistrate for recommending to give Arms license to Bhadranandaji popularly known as 'Thokku Swami'.
In the instant case, it was alleged that the arms license was given to the Bhadranandaji due to the personal recommendation given by the then Additional District Magistrate. The former ADM and Bhadranandaji was booked under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, Rule 51-A (suppressing any factual information or giving any false information in the application) of Arms Rule and Section 30 (Punishment for contravention of license or rule) of the Arms Act. They both had approached the Court to quash further proceedings in the case against them.
Justice P. G. Ajithkumar said that as per Section 13 of the Arms Act and Rule 2(5) of the Arms Rules, the District Magistrate is the authority empowered to grant license and it was upon him to get the report of the police officer in the nearest police station on getting an application for license. The Court held that the Collector was not bound by the recommendation of the ADM and hence ADM cannot be accused of misusing his official position as required under Section 13(d)(ii) of the PC Act.
Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 123
The Kerala High Court has closed its suo moto case initiated in 2020 for safety evaluation of dams, monitoring dam shutters and regulating dam water levels in the State, in light of frequent flooding.
While doing so, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu took note of various steps implemented by the State government since 2020, to ensure better management of monsoon in the State.
Case Title: Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124
The Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists.
“Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To BJP Leader P C George In Hate Speech Case
Case Title: P C George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
The Kerala High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by BJP leader PC George, booked for allegedly making hate speech against the Muslim community during a channel debate.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan dismissed the bail application.
Case Title: P C George v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125
While denying anticipatory bail to BJP leader PC George in a case for making remarks against the Muslim community, the Kerala High Court expressed concerns about the rising frequency of statements based on caste and religion.
"Nowadays, there is a tendency to make statements based on religion, caste etc. These are against the basic structure of our Constitution. These tendencies should be nipped in the bud," Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed in the bail order.
The Court also flagged an inadequacy in the present penal provisions dealing with hate speeches, as the offender can get by paying a fine. The Court further pointed out that even second-time offenders are not subjected to higher punishment and emphasized that this issue requires consideration by the Parliament and the Law Commission.
Case Title: Sreekala K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 126
Kerala High Court has held that freezing of a person's bank accounts under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure while investigating his involvement in offences under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) is valid.
Justice C. Jayachandran rejected the petitioner-accused's argument that the freezing should have been done only through the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.
The Court however held that these provisions had separate objectives and the seizure under CrPC cannot be found fault with.
The Court said that Section 102 provides for seizure of property which is suspected to have been stolen or which is found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. It observed that Section 102 is invoked as a step in aid of investigation, to seize a piece of evidence. On the other hand, the Ordinance aims to secure the money which has been procured by the accused by means of a scheduled offence so that the same can be forfeited if the accused is ultimately found guilty.
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 127
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (18th February) closed a bail petition moved by Rahul Easwar on being informed by the Public Prosecutor that the offences alleged against him were bailable. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan has directed Rahul Easwar to appear before the police station as per the notice served to him by the police.
Case Title: Dr. Hafeez Rahman P. A. v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 128
The Kerala High Court has given a direction to the Director of the State Health Department to inform all doctors of the State to preserve the fetus of minor victims and to get written permission from the Investigating Officer/ District Police Superintendent in order to destroy it.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that this was required to protect the interest of the minor victims and to ensure that the accused does not flee trial for want of vital piece of evidence.
Case Title: Manu Kumar M K V State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 129
The Kerala High Court recently stated that when the benefits of a compassionate employment scheme have been extended to the dependants of employees of private aided colleges, then neither the government nor the college authorities can deny these benefits to the dependants who have been fighting for this cause by fixing a subsequent cut-off date for availing the benefit of the scheme.
In this case, the petitioners were denied compassionate employment on the grounds that the benefit would only be extended to the dependents of employees of private aided colleges who passed away after October 7, 2013.
Justice N.Nagaresh stated that the government in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners had already accorded sanction to the management to ignore the cut-off date.
Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 130
The Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage.
“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: Sharanya v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131
The Kerala High Court ruled that convicting and sentencing a person under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for other offences is illogical when they have attempted to commit suicide in the course of same transaction. The Court held that, under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, such prosecution is barred unless the prosecution proves that the individual was not under severe stress.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan stated that Section 115 creates a statutory presumption that a person who attempted suicide is under severe stress, unless proven otherwise and therefore cannot be prosecuted under the IPC for other offences committed in the same transaction. The Court thus declared all proceedings against the appellant as illegal and set it aside.
Case Title: Sarika S. v Radhamma and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Kerala High Court recently allowed a petitioner to withdraw a suit which was at the appellate stage upon seeing that proper reliefs were not incorporated in the original suit.
The petitioner had filed a suit seeking a declaration of easement right of prescription over a property and for consequential injunction against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit saying that she failed to prove ingredients for claiming the right of easement by prescription.
Justice K. Babu noted that the trial court had found that the property was landlocked and the plaintiff could have succeeded in establishing easement rights by necessity.
Case Title: Linimol K v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Kerala High Court recently granted extraordinary family pension to the wife of a deceased CRPF personnel who died during the course of his duty due to drowning in a tank of water while employed as Constable General duty in the 85th Battalion (Bn) deployed in Chhattisgarh.
In doing so the court held that when the Court of Inquiry (CIF) conducted by the CRPF did not indicate that the deceased was in an inebriated state, the Pension Accounting Office (PAO) cannot deny extraordinary family pension under Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules of 1972 to his family.
Justice D.K. Singh relied upon the Apex Court decision in Renu Devi v Union of India(2020) which held that death occurring due to participation in sports events/adventures/activities would also be considered as death in the performance of duty.
Case Title: x v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Kerala High Court has held that penetration of male genital organ within the labia majora or vulva without penetrating the vagina will constitute the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of POCSO Act.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian read the explanation of 'vagina' given under Section 375 of IPC into the POCSO Act by way of Section 2(2) of POCSO Act.
“… penetration of the male genital organ within the labia majora or the vulva, with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim completely, partially or slightly would make out the offence of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act as well.”
Case Title: Sajitha Abdul Nazar v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
The Kerala High Court has permitted a married woman aged 46 years to avail Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) procedure, even though her husband who is 57 years old has become ineligible to avail the ART services.
The Court found that the married woman can independently undergo ART procedure through intrauterine insemination using donor male gametes, even though the husband has surpassed the eligibility age of 55 years.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that the wife's eligibility to apply for ART procedure operates independently despite the ineligibility of the husband. The Court clarified that this is because the ART (Regulation) Act follows an individual centric approach, specifying separate age criteria for men and women under Section 21, rather than a combined age limit for a 'commissioning couple'.
Case Title: Dr Ditto Tom P. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
The Kerala High Court has held that it is not mandatory to obtain sanction under Section 197 of CrPC or Section 218 of the BNSS to prosecute a public servant under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to report POCSO Offences
The Court made this ruling on noting that Section 19 which mandates reporting of POCSO offences begins with a non-obstante clause, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973' and thus it excludes the applicability of Section 42A of the Act.
Will Remove Former HC Judge From Array Of Accused In CSR Scam Case: Kerala Police To High Court
Case Title: Saijo Hassan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
The Kerala High Court today closed the PIL filed by lawyers challenging the registration of FIR against former Kerala High Court judge Justice C N Ramachandran Nair in the CSR funds scam case, on recording the written statement filed by Director General of Prosecutions that he would be removed from the array of the accused.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed thus: “we record the above written statement. Today a statement handed over to the Director General of Prosecution has been placed before us. We record the same. In such view of the matter, the investigating officer shall act upon that statement and do the necessary steps to exclude the former judge of this Court from the array of accused,"
Case Title: State of Kerala v Abdul Gafoor and Others & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Kerala High Court on Monday (24th February) overturned the decision of a Single Bench invalidating the delimitation exercise for 8 municipalities and one panchayat.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that even after an initial determination of seats under Section 6(1) of the Acts, there is no restriction on the Government to exercise its power under Section 6(1) to alter the number of seats as long as the alteration remains within the limits prescribed under Section 6(3).
The Court also observed that this approach is necessary for the effective functioning of the local bodies. “If this approach is not followed, the functioning of local bodies could be significantly disrupted, as the Government would have to await a fresh census before making adjustments. Such a requirement is neither envisaged by constitutional provisions nor by statutory law. The Government must be able to determine the strength of the local bodies in the interest of effective governance, taking into account factors such as resource allocation, revenue generation and administrative efficiency. As long as these decisions adhere to statutory provisions, the Court should not interfere with the Government's exercise of power in this regard.”
Case Title: The Mannam Sugar Mills Co-Operative Ltd. V Deputy Superintendent Of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
The Kerala High Court ruled that no temporary or permanent flag masts or poles shall be installed in any public space, puramboke area, or road margins within the State without obtaining the necessary permissions or clearances from competent authorities as required by law.
The single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran further directed the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institutions to issue a circular informing all Local Self Government Institutions and other relevant entities of this directive.
Case Title: HDB Financial Services Limited v The Sub Registrar and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
The Kerala High Court held that attachment under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS Act) does not have precedence over proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Section 13 of the BUDS Act says that an order of provisional attachment passed by the Competent Authority shall have precedence and priority over any other attachment. However, the section starts with the expression, 'Save as otherwise provided in the SARFAESI Act or IBC Code, an attachment passed by the Competent Authority, shall have precedence and priority..'. Justice Gopinath P. held that this could only mean that the action/ proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and IBC were saved from the provision providing precedence to the BUDS Act.
Case Title: Prasad S. v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the State Government has implemented various measures like formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and establishing Technical and Empowered Committees to facilitate desiltation of dams and reservoirs in the State for restoring storage capacity and flood mitigation.
Desiltation is the removal of silt and sediments from dams and reservoirs to improve their natural water storage capacity.
The Court was hearing a 2021 public interest litigation requesting a sedimentation study report of the dams, reservoirs, and rivers for flood mitigation in the State.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu noted that the government in 2017 has sanctioned a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the desiltation of reservoirs to restore their storage capacity, which was subjected to subsequent modifications also.
Case Title: Sreeraj K. C. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the offence of 'rape on the false promise of marriage' would not stand when the complainant lady was already married and continuing in that marriage at the time.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in that case the promise of marriage itself is an impossibility. The Court said that for this offence, it has to be shown prima facie that the consent was obtained on misconception of fact which was not the case here.
Case Title: Noushad K . v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
The Kerala High Court while granting bail to a man accused of committing sexual harassment remarked that nowadays, there is a tendency to make serious allegations of sexual assault against innocent people. The Court said that merely because the complainant is a lady, there is no presumption that her version is the gospel truth.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan declared that a criminal investigation involves investigation of the case of the complainant and accused and not just of the complainant. The Court said that if during investigation, the police finds that the lady complainant has made false allegation of sexual assault against a man, they can take action against the lady also. The Court assured the officers that they need not fear of any backfiring for taking such actions, as the law will take care of the officers if they are coming up with correct findings.
Case Title: Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a prima facie opinion at the bail application stage would not impact the investigation and trial. It further observed that the trial court cannot reject legal contentions of the accused merely on the ground that they amount to a prima facie finding, as such determination is only relevant at the bail application stage.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan clarified that a 'prima facie opinion' by the bail court cannot be relied upon by the trial court when deciding the main case. The Court also emphasized that such a prima facie finding by bail court would not hinder investigating agency from proceeding with the investigation.
Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'.
“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
The Kerala High Court has laid down that procuring and selling train tickets booked using IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.) website for commercial uses violates the terms and conditions specified on the IRCTC website.
Here, a petitioner lady had approached the Court for quashing proceedings against her for allegedly booking and selling online tickets without authorization from the IRCTC. Crime was registered against her under Section 143 of the Railways Act which prohibits anyone other than a railway servant or an authorized agent from procuring and supplying railway tickets.
Justice S. Manu relied upon Apex Court decision in Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v Mathew K Cheriyan and another (2025) to state that Section 143 would also include sale of e-tickets booked through IRCTC website. Court further stated that the terms and conditions in the IRCTC website clearly mention that it can only be used for personal purposes and not for commercial purposes.
Case Title: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The Kerala High Court, while explaining the scope of civil contempt jurisdiction, stated that it is intended to ensure compliance with judicial orders and not to supplement or modify earlier judicial orders. The Court emphasised that contempt proceedings cannot be used for the adjudication of new issues and for the issuance of fresh directions that are not contained in the judgement.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining whether there is wilful disobedience of a clear and self-evident order.
Case Title: Ashok Harry Pothen Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/S. Indian Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Gopinath P. has held that a bank can initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover outstanding dues if it was not a party to the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that the bar against claims outside a resolution plan does not extend to third parties merely associated with the corporate debtor through agreements such as joint ventures.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal By ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe Into His Death
Case Title: Manjusha K v CBI
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149
The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 3) dismissed the writ appeal moved by Manjusha, wife of deceased ADM Naveen Babu, seeking CBI probe into his death.
The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the writ appeal stating that there is no legitimate apprehension that the present investigation conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is partial or improper.
Case Title: N Prakash v R Ashakumari
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150
The Kerala High Court held that refusal of sanction by the Advocate General for initiating criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is not justiciable.
Justice C.S. Dias passed the above order by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Joseph Kuzhijalil v Joseph Pulikunnel (1995).
Case Title: Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151
The Kerala High Court recently held that to constitute the offence of wilful neglect as given under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the act should be done deliberately or intentionally and not by accident or inadvertence.
In the instant case, the prosecution alleged that a 6-year-old child who was residing in the Home For Mentally Deficient Children was assaulted and killed by 4 other inmates for urinating while sleeping. It was found out that one of the inmates who attacked the child was a major. Apart from him, 3 other inmates who had attained majority were staying in the institution. It is alleged that the Multi Task Providers of the institution and the petitioner, who was superintendent of the said home, violated specific instructions by allowing major inmates to stay with minors.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that even if the petitioner had actual charge and control over the deceased, it could not be said that there was 'willful neglect' as given under the provision.
Case Title: Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152
The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing a lady to show cause why she should not ordered to execute a bond for rupees fifty thousand with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year under Section 130 of the BNSS.
Justice V G Arun stated that the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed casually by referring to crimes registered for holding public demonstrations.
The Court stated that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably without arms and to form associations or unions, subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court stated that threat apprehension to breach of peace and public tranquillity must be imminent.
Case Title: Ibrahim Sherif K V Malathi B P and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153
The Kerala High Court held that Public Service Commission (PSC) cannot arbitrarily prescribe minimum mark criteria for each compartment of a single examination, after the written examination is over without informing the candidates in advance.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that setting clear evaluation criteria in advance is essential since written exam plays a crucial role in assessing a candidate's eligibility.
Case Title: Lt. Gen Sukhdeep Sangwan and Others v Bijukumar S. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 154
The Kerala High Court observed that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act will lie only in cases when the order is connected and incidental to the order of punishment for contempt. The Division Bench, comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that there should be an order of punishment preceding the order which is being appealed. The court said that proceedings to frame charges for contempt is not appealable under the Act.
Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155
The Kerala High Court recently allowed the bail application of a woman who was accused by her husband of committing aggravated sexual assault on their one-and-half-year old daughter.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied upon another recent decision in Noushad K v State of Kerala and Another (2025) which held that the mere fact that the complainant is a lady does not create a presumption that her version is the gospel truth.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 156
The Kerala High Court has entrusted Kerala State Legal Service Authority (KeLSA) with creating awareness about the ills of child marriage in the tribal communities in Wayanad.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was dealing with a suo motu petition on the practice of child marriage prevalent in some tribal communities in Wayanad. Some tribal communities in Wayand as a customary practice marry at an early age and as a result of which many members of the community face trial for the offences under the POCSO Act.
Case Title: Edwina Benny v Union of India and Others & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 157
The Kerala High Court closed the petition filed by 2 Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel under the LADCS seeking maternity benefits after taking into account that the maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act has been extended by National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) to the personnel appointed under the Legal Aid Defense Counsel System (LADCS).
The order was passed by Justice D. K. Singh. The communication issued by the NALSA says that the benefit would be applicable even if the maternity benefits exceed the duration of the personnel's contract period.
Step-Parent Not Permitted To Adopt Child Without Consent Of Biological Parent: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158
The Kerala High Court has ruled that adoption by step-parent cannot be permitted unless the biological parent of the child gives consent for adoption.
The Court further clarified that CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency) cannot relax the requirement of obtaining biological parent's consent for adoption under the Adoption Regulations due to the legal implications of an adoption.
Justice C.S. Dias thus observed that the substantive and statutory right of the biological parent over the custody of his child cannot be waived or relaxed by CARA, but such rights could only be determined by a competent Civil Court.
Case Title: Shuhaib v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 159
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 6) dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shuhaib, the founder and CEO of MS Solution and accused of leaking State Board Class 10 Question Papers through his YouTube channel.
Shuhaib had argued that he had only predicted probable questions, based on the previous question papers. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan pronounced the order today, thereby obliterating the interim relief against arrest granted on February 20.
Case Title: Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the order of Special Court cancelling the bail of an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) who got involved in another NDPS case while on bail.
Justice V. G. Arun remarked that the drugs have reached to the school going children. The Court observed that if a person accused of offences under NDPS Act who allegedly misused his liberty by committing the same offence is allowed to roam free, it will be a threat to the society.
Case Title: Abdul Wahid T. K. v Habeebullah PT & Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 161
The Kerala High Court has held that a private person cannot appear on behalf of another on the basis of a power of attorney, without prior permission of the Court.
The Court observed that only enrolled advocates can appear on behalf of another party without permission. For a private person to do so, he has to get the permission of the Court under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, even if he is the power of attorney holder of the party.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to the Supreme Court decision in T. C. Mathai and Another v District and Sessions Judge Thiruvananthapuram (1999) where it was observed that "that permission must be obtained by the parties from the court and there is no independent right for a power of attorney holder to appear for parties before any court"
Case Title: George Cyriac v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that an accused has no absolute right to seek further investigation or to dictate the terms of investigation or to state that the investigation must go in a particular manner.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an order of the Trial Court which dismissed an application seeking further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC.
Case Title: The Joint Commissioner v Nishad K U
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
The Kerala High Court recently held that the finding that principles of natural justice need not be followed during an adjudication under the provisions of the CGST Act is untenable.
The Court was considering whether failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the proper officer in adjudication proceedings against the assessee under Section 74 (9) of the CGST Act would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
The Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. observed that in appropriate cases, opportunity of cross examination has to be provided to the assessee. It also clarified that right to cross-examine does not extend in respect of all witnesses.
Case Title: Sammil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court stated that the mental condition of the young generation in this country is astonishing and disturbing.
The Court made the above observation while allowing the bail application of a 25-year-old son who inflicted serious injuries on his mother for refusing to give money for New Year's eve celebrations.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan expressed concern over the behaviour of the young generation in this country.
Case Title: B Ajai v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Kerala High Court has held that Section 427 of CrPC, which empowers Courts to order concurrent running of subsequent sentences, has no application when a person is convicted for different offences in two different crimes committed in completely different transactions.
Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the Petitioner-convict's contention that the sentencing court passing the subsequent sentence should have suo moto invoked Section 427 of CrPC, was far-fetched and not liable to be recognized in law.
Case Title: Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Kerala High Court has refused to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (PO Act) in the benefit of a man convicted by the Trial Court under Section 377 and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC.
While doing so, the Court observed that invoking provisions under the PO Act would send a wrong message to the society amid increasing sexual offences against children and women.
Justice C.S. Sudha however took a lenient view considering that the appellant, now 25 years old was only aged 19 years at the time of commission of the offence. It also noted that there was only an attempt to commit offence against the minor and no commission of offence attracting Section 377 of IPC. Consequently, the Court reduced his four years imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the Court.
Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
“…….As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: V. Subramanian v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
The Kerala High Court refused to accept the argument that the CBI is divested of investigative powers when it is revealed during investigation that no offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) were made out.
Justice K. Babu observed that while the FIR should allege offences under the PC Act for the CBI to start an investigation under Section 17 of the Act, it does not stop them from filing a final report alleging only non-PC Act offences.
Case Title: K R Harikrishnan v SI of Police
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Kerala High Court has held that it would be travesty of justice to deny parties from approaching criminal courts to initiate proceedings against offenders solely because they had pursued a civil remedy by filing a suit, particularly when the alleged acts also constitute specific criminal offences.
The single bench of Justice G. Girish observed that care must be taken to prevent unwanted criminal prosecutions where the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. But the Court emphasized that the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude the possibility that objectionable acts committed during such a dispute may also constitute a criminal offence.
Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”
Case Title: Preetha Radhakrishnan v State of Kerala & Connected Case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate can cancel bail given by High Court for violating bail conditions, when the former is specifically authorized to do so.
In the instant case, the petitioners were given bail by the High Court which was subsequently cancelled by the Magistrate Court for violating the bail conditions. The petitioners challenged the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate did not have the power to cancel the bail.
Justice A. Badharudeen noted that it was specifically provided in the bail order that in case of violation of bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. Further, the Court observed that even though the application was moved under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, the power exercised by the Magistrate in view of the specific delegation of the High Court is to considered as one under Section 437(5) read along with Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, the Court refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate.
Case Title: P.M. Ismail v Abbas
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that only those subsequent events that completely negate the landlord's needs could be considered as decisive for overturning an already passed eviction order. The Court stated that generally rights and obligations of the parties are assessed based on the circumstances at the time the legal proceedings began but, there are exceptions to this general rule.
The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque And Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus stated that for an eviction order to be overturned, it must be shown that these subsequent events have completely eclipsed landlord's need for the premises.
Case Title: Viswanathan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
The Kerala High Court held that a person cannot be held liable for an act committed on a body, when he believes that it to be lifeless at the commission of the act.
In this criminal appeal, the Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian examined whether the act of the husband of pushing the body of his wife, which he believed to be lifeless, in septic tank would amount to an offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
The Kerala High Court today issued directions declaring installation of unauthorized boards, banners, hoardings, flags, festoons as illegal and liable to fine and penal action. The Court stated that the non-removal of such unauthorized boards, banners, hoardings, flags, festoons shall become the personal responsibility of the Secretaries of the local self-government institutions.
Justice Devan Ramachandran explained the concepts of 'Visual Pollution' and 'Destination Aesthetics' to ensure that authorities and policy makers realize the significance of removal of illegal boards/hoardings from public places. The Court observed that these concepts have not drawn the attention of authorities in our State.
“Visual Pollution” - which, in its most simplistic connotation, means the impairment of one's ability to enjoy a vista or a view - and its impact on safety, health and environment, leading to effective legislations against it, our civil officials, Authorities and politicians remain totally occluded to it often contributing to it unmindfully," the Court explained.
Case Title: Rajitha P V v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 175
The Kerala High Court has ruled that an intending woman is eligible for surrogacy throughout the age of 50 years, and her eligibility ceases only when the intending woman turns 51.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu thus overturned the decision of single bench in Rajitha P V v Union of India (2025), which held that an intending woman would be eligible for surrogacy when she attains the age of 23 and ceases to be eligible on the preceding day of her 50th birthday.
Case Title: Ajith v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 176
The Kerala High Court observed that the old concept that women in Indian society would not make false sexual assault allegations may not be always correct in view of the increase in false rape cases being filed in the recent years to settle personal scores and to exert pressure to fulfil illegal demands.
In the facts of the case, the Petitioner is accused of subjecting the de facto complainant to rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC by giving promise of marriage between 2014 to 2019.
Justice A. Badharudeen quashed all the proceedings against the Petitioner on finding that the FIR was filed only in the year 2019 when the allegation of rape was made for a single day's occurrence in 2014. The Court also noted that the Petitioner and de facto complainant were not in contact for a lengthy period of three years.
Case : PN Uma Shanker, Secretary, Kerala Elecrtrical Wiremen and Supervisors Association v The Deputy Director (In Charge) ESI Corporation and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 177
The Kerala High Court has held that an entity will not be entitled to coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) solely on the basis of its registration under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act.
The High Court further held that the members of an association of employees, who are self-employed, would not be covered under the ESI Act, unless it is established that those members are employed by the association.
Case Title: Sudhakaran K. V. v Central Pollution Control Board and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 178
The Kerala High Court has issued a series of guidelines to ensure that the ban on certain single-use plastics (SUP) is properly enforced and to make sure that manufacturers, importers and persons recycling or processing plastic waste have got the necessary registration under Rule 13 of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was considering a PIL that pointed out that many manufacturers of plastic were conducting business without getting the necessary registration. On the Court's direction, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) submitted before it an affidavit detailing the steps it was proposing to take to tackle the issue. Pursuant to that, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Local Self Government Department issued an order with the following instructions for strict compliance.
Case Title: Babilu Sankar v Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 179
The Kerala High Court stated that Writ Court shall not reappreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings while exercising powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Court further stated that the Writ Court shall only interfere in the Inquiry Officer's findings of guilt only if they are perverse.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering an appeal challenging disciplinary proceedings.
Case Title: Sibin S. V. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 180
The Kerala High Court recently directed the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before proceeding on a criminal complaint against a teacher for anything committed in an educational institution. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that teachers should be protected from criminal prosecution for giving minor punishments without any malice. The Court directed the State Police Chief to issue a circular/ order in this regard.
The Court opined that the parents are giving a 'freehand' to the teachers to do the needful for better development of the mental health, physical health, discipline and educational needs once they admit their children in the school.
The Court further remarked that a teacher should not suffer because he gave minor punishments for indiscipline or for advising a student. The Court also observed that teachers should be allowed to carry a cane in their hand.
Case Title: XXX v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181
The Kerala High Court recently held that length of pregnancy is not a relevant consideration for permitting termination of pregnancy when the Medical Board opines that there is a substantial foetal abnormality.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus permitted appellant-mother to carry medical termination of pregnancy, where the gestation period had progressed beyond 32 weeks, as per Section 3 (2)-B) of the Medical termination of Pregnancy Act on finding of substantial foetal abnormality.
Case Title: Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182
The Kerala High Court held that irrespective of the number of days in a month or months, the expiration of one month should be determined by identifying the corresponding date in the following month.
The Court clarified that if period of a month starts on January 15, one month would expire on February 15 even if this results in a duration of 32 days. Similarly, Court stated if the period of a month begins from February 15, one month would expire on March 15 even if it is only 29 days.
Justice A. Badharudeen relying upon the Apex Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v M/S Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) held thus.
Case Title: T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183
The Kerala High Court observed that needlessly taking deterrent actions against complainants under Section 21 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act for filing complaints against public authorities could discourage individuals from bringing their grievances before the Lok Ayukta.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed thus:
“The Act of 1999 is an Act that provides for conducting enquiries into any action, omission, or commission by the Authorities specified under the Act, to bring about transparency and accountability in the administration of such bodies. The Lok Ayukta, upon being informed of such illegalities, has the power to make recommendations to the State Government. This being an important remedy available to citizens to bring their grievances against the officers of the State and other public bodies, the Lok Ayukta, while exercising its power, has to ensure that this remedy is not rendered illusory. If needless deterrent actions are taken against complainants, it will discourage the parties from bringing their grievances against public authorities before the Lok Ayukta.”
Case Title: Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184
The Kerala High Court on Monday(17th March) allowed the petition challenging the appointment of Inquiry Commission to find a permanent solution in the dispute between the Munambam residents and the Waqf Board. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the order of appointment has to be set aside as the matter was still pending before the Waqf Tribunal.
Case Title: Dhanesh M v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 185
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that original printout obtained from the equipment after a breathalyzer test under Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act is admissible as evidence to establish drunken driving under Section 185 of the Act.
It is to be noted that breath analyzer test is used to measure breath alcohol content.
Justice V.G. Arun stated that typewritten copy prepared by the police after the breathalyzer test is conducted, is not admissible as evidence in Court.
Case Title: Ummu Kulsoom and Others v Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 186
The Kerala High Court recently observed that authorities should take a lenient approach while issuing birth certificate and not insist on strict evidence.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. in his order observed that the petitioner-parents had produced affidavits sworn by relatives, including the members of the house where the birth took place and these were "crucial documents which ought to have been taken into account" by the authorities.
Case Title: Ajaynath v N Shajitha Beevi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 187
The Kerala High Court has held that sanction is required to prosecute members of Kerala Police who are responsible for maintaining public order. The Court also relied upon Sarojini v Prasannan (1996) to clarify that maintenance of public order is a subset of law and order.
Justice Kauser Edappagath thus held that sanction was required to prosecute officers of the Kerala Police who were accused of assaulting a family over a parking dispute while they were discharging their official duties in Alappuzha beach during beach festival.
Case Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 188
The Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”
Case Title: Benny Mon v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 189
The Kerala High Court has allowed continuation of prosecution against an alleged offender under Section 279 of the IPC for rash and negligent driving, even while quashing proceedings against him under 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for drunken driving due to non-compliance of procedural requirements.
Justice G. Girish observed that Section 297 of IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act are totally distinct. The Court held that the reason for rash and negligent driving is irrelevant, rejecting the argument that prosecution under Section 279 IPC is unsustainable because drunken driving under Section 185 of MV is not established.
Case Title: All Kerala Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Protection Council v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 190
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition seeking further investigation under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of Inspector General into the death of Swami Saswathikananda.
Swami Saswathikananda was discovered dead at the bathing ghat on the banks of the Periyar river on the morning of July 01, 2002.
Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that investigation into the death of Swami was conducted several times and it was found that death occurred due to accidental drowning.
Case Title: XX v YY
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191
The Kerala High Court stated that a wife who leaves her husband and chooses to live separately without any justifiable reason is disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.
Justice Kauser Edappagath emphasized that right to each other's society, comfort and affection, commonly known as consortium is a fundamental aspect of marriage. It further stated that when either spouse withdraws from society of the other, it constitutes a withdrawal from the marital obligations.
Case Title: Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 192
The Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.”
Case Title: Sreeraj R v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 193
The Kerala High Court stated that appropriate action must be taken against a person accused of plucking hair from his private parts and putting it in Thulasithara. The Court observed that Thulasithara is a sacred place for Hindu religion and that his actions would affect the sentiments of Hindus.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that no action was taken against the accused, Abdul Hakkim and that no case was also registered against him.
Case Title: Jamsheer Ali v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 194
The Kerala High Court set aside the order of a Special Court cancelling the bail of an NDPS accused for involvement in a subsequent crime saying that the Special Court cancelled the bail mechanically and without considering the materials connected with the subsequent crime.
One of the conditions imposed on the accused while granting bail was that he should not commit any crime while on bail. The Special Court cancelled the bail noting that the accused was involved in another crime and violated the bail condition. The accused challenged this order saying that the special court cancelled the bail mechanically.
Justice P. G. Ajithkumar accepted this argument and set aside the order noting that in the order there was not even a subjective satisfaction that the accused had prima facie committed the subsequent offence. The High Court observed that since this was a matter concerning the personal liberty of the person, the court should have undertaken a summary enquiry first.
Case Title: Thomas Antony v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to formulate guidelines for anonymising details of the complainant from public domain during the enquiry proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Court stated that at present there is no mechanism under the POSH Act to anonymise the details of the complainant during the enquiry proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, however, clarified that this must not prejudice the rights of the employee against whom allegations are being made.
Case Title: Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 196
The Kerala High Court stated that ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to facilities provided by assessee in a resort, hence liable to be taxed.
“the main activities of the assessee as per the brochures produced before the assessing officer, are canoeing, motor boat cruises, houseboat stay, trekking, Alleppey beach visit, coir factory visit, elephant ride, Kathakali, temple dance, dramas, Mohiniyattam and Kalaripayattu. Therefore, the main activities of the assessee are not running the hospital but providing a resort and other facilities and the Ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to that of the facilities” observed the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Case Title: Sajeer A v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 197
The Kerala High Court stated that Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 56 of the KVAT Act against assessment order passed pursuant to remand.
The Division Bench of Justices A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “when the fresh assessment order was passed consequence to the remand, the original assessment order ceased to exist in law and thereafter the only assessment order that survived for the purposes of exercise of the power of revisions under Section 56 was the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Authority.”
Case Title: Ramakrishnan Nair V P J Varghese
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 198
The Kerala High Court has held that liability to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act will not lie against any person other than the owner and the insurer of the vehicle because the claimant need not plead or establish negligence.
Section 163A deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation on a structured formula basis.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar relying upon the Division Bench decision in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Madhavan M (2011) observed thus
Case Title: Gilbert Cheran v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 199
The Kerala High Court has refrained from interfering with the State's decision to officially send delegates to the Republic of Lebanon for the consecration ceremony of Joseph Mar Gregorius as the new Jacobite Catholicos on March 25.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu noted that sending an official delegation is a policy matter of the State and found no pre-existing judicial order or statutory provision for restraining the State from doing so.
Case Title: The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 200
The Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that
“there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the “lawfulness” of an audit objection.”
Case Title: Noushad v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 201
The Kerala High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a lawyer who allegedly committed rape on a minor girl. The Court observed that prima facie case was made out against the lawyer and that his bail application cannot be entertained due to bar under Section 482 (4) of the BNSS.
Section 482(4) BNSS bars grant of bail to a person booked under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 65 BNS relates to rape of women under age of 12 years. Section 70(2) BNS penalises gang rape of minor.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan on perusing case diary, report submitted by the Victim Rights Centre of KeLSA and counselling report observed thus:
“…if the facts narrated by the prosecution and the victim are correct, it is unfortunate because the petitioner is from a noble profession. After going through the statement of the victim (if it is correct), a human being cannot complete reading it without tears in their eyes because the allegation is that the petitioner abused a minor girl, without her consent. The allegation is that the petitioner, who is a lawyer gave alcohol to the victim and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual intercourse with a minor girl. If the facts are correct, it is a shame to the profession. Such a person is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court.”
Valid Adoption By Christians Made As Per Civil Law Is Recognized Under Canon Law: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Mary Joseph and Another v Thomas Joseph and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 202
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no prohibition under Canon Law for a valid adoption for Christians.
Thus, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that though there is no personal law in India for Christians recognising adoption, a valid adoption as per the civil law is recognised by Canon Law.
Case Title: State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra Revi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203
The Kerala High Court observed that to see whether special rules of a service are repugnant to the general provisions of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), it has to be checked whether both provisions can co-exist in a given situation without going into a collision course.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar in its order said:
“When there is an inconsistency between two statutory provisions which occupy the same field of operation and both cannot co-exist together, it is said that they are repugnant to each other. In order to consider whether a provision in the Special Rules applicable to a particular service is repugnant to the general provisions contained in Ks & SSR, it is beneficial to apply a simple test viz., whether both provisions can co-exist without going into a collision course while applying them in a given situation.”
Case Title: South Indian Bank Ltd. v Jahfer M
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 204
The Kerala High Court reiterated that while a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not adjudicate on creditor's application for taking possession of the secured assets, they are required to clearly apply mind since it can have drastic consequences. The Court stated that this is the reason why the Parliament has empowered high officials like Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrates under Section 14 to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets.
Justice Gopinath P. observed that an order under Section 14 cannot be issued in printed format by merely filling in necessary details without application of mind.
Case Title: P J Francis v C D Jose
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205
The Kerala High Court observed that a tenant who is ordered to pay enhanced fair rent to the landlord cannot be burdened with the payment of a substantial amount in arrears due to delay in the completion of judicial proceedings.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that burdening a tenant with a lump sum liability undermines the very purpose of Rent Control Act, which is to safeguard the tenants from exploitation.
Case Title: Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 206
The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition seeking to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of MLA Antony Raju in the evidence tampering case. Justice Kauser Edappagath took into account the fact that the trial has already commenced and there is a direction from the Supreme Court to finish the trial within a year.
Case Title: Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
The Kerala High Court has said that if a person who is eligible to be placed to any other grade/post/cadre or service based on "seniority or such other criteria" relinquishes such a "right" in writing, he cannot change his stance later to say that he should be considered senior to those who have been placed on such a position that he had relinquished.
A division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar noted that as per Rule 38 of Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), once a right or privilege is relinquished in writing, those right/privilege need not be recognised.
Case Title: Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207
The Kerala High Court has held that an executive order integrating Armed Reserve and the Armed Police Battalion into a common cadre called Kerala Civil Police, shall not override the statutory effect of the Kerala Police Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules) and its subsequent 2017 amendment.
Case Title: National Insurance Co.Ltd. v John Thomas & Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
The Kerala High Court ruled that while calculating compensation for a deceased individual who was working abroad, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal should determine the compensation based on the exchange rate prevailing at the date of filing the petition, rather than the exchange rate on the date of the accident.
Justice Johnson John relying upon the Apex Court decision in Shyam Prasad Nagalla v Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation (2025) in which it was held that compensation should be calculated based on the exchange rate which was prevalent on the date of the filing of the claim petition.
Case Title: Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court has expressed concerns over the absence of legal provisions to effectively combat cyberbullying and online harassment and remarked that cyberbullying in the form of abusive remarks or derogatory content towards others is inadequately being addressed through the current legal framework.
Noting that even the recently enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 has no direct provisions on cyberbullying, Justice C. S. Sudha observed that online harassment which does not have sexual overtones also needs to be addressed.
Case Title: Chaithanya v The New India General Ins.Co.Ltd.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The Kerala High Court observed that the father and the younger siblings of the deceased are also entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency over the death of the deceased, who was only 26 years old at time of the motor vehicle accident.
While upholding the finding of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the father and siblings of the deceased, Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that dependency does not necessarily mean financial dependency only.
Case Title: Naduvil Grama Panchayat V Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Kerala High Court criticised a Grama Panchayat for engaging in third round of litigation over an amount of rupees fifty thousand.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that public funds were utilized for pursuing litigations and emphasized the need to know when to put an end to it.
Case Title: Jomon v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court observed that while considering the bail plea of an accused booked under NDPS Act, the concerned court need not look into violation of mandatory provisions of the Act.
In doing so Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan underscored that at the stage of considering bail, only FIR, seizure memo and witness statements recorded by police are before the court based on which a prima facie finding cannot be given.
Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Kerala High Court has held that Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not penalize a person for his past actions, but penal consequences only follow when the accused utilizes the proceeds of the crime from past actions for money laundering after the enactment of PMLA and the amendment to its schedule in 2009.
The Court thus held that Section 3 of the PMLA criminalizes the act of money laundering and does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution.
The appellant/petitioners had assailed the act of the Enforcement Directorate on the ground that penalising a person for any act done in the past on the basis of subsequent legislation is prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus ruled that there is no retrospective application of penal laws and hence there is no violation of Article 20 (1).
Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Kerala High Court has held that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam (BSA) grant discretion in the manner for summoning and examining witnesses, allowing the Trial Court to determine whether to proceed with the PMLA trial or to keep it in abeyance until the predicate offence trial is concluded.
A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that delaying the PMLA trial until the conclusion of the trial in the predicate offence could result in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) losing key witnesses. However, the Court also pointed out that if the accused is acquitted of the predicate offence, the PMLA trial would ultimately be rendered futile.
Case Title: Shuhaib K. v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
The Kerala High Court has granted regular bail to K. Shuhaib, Founder and CEO of M. S. Solutions, booked for leaking State Board Class 10 Question Papers through his YouTube channel
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan said Shuhaib has already been investigated by the IO, after getting his custody. The Court said that 'indefinite incarceration; is not necessary in this case.
Case Title: Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
While dismissing the petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the alleged CMRL scam, the Kerala High Court observed that unnecessary corruption investigation into a public servant may cause a blemish on is career or reputation.
In his 59-page judgment, Justice K. Babu observed that Kuzhalnadan could not place any 'facts' constituting the offence and had leveled the allegations based on mere suspicions.
Case Title: Umer Ali v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
The Kerala High Court has held that the report of a government expert obtained under Section 293 of the CrPC cannot be considered as a formal substitute for a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act which is used to prove the validity of electronic evidence.
At this juncture, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan outlined the difference between certificate produced under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and a government expert's report under Section 293 of the CrPC.
Case Title: Nitheesh K. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums.
Customs Department Can't Invoke Expired Bank Guarantees: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
The Kerala High Court stated that invocation of the expired bank guarantees by Customs Department is not permissible under law.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. was addressing the issue of whether customs department can invoke expired bank guarantees.
Case Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
The Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.
The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.
Case Title: Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed writ appeals challenging an order that remanded a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court held that an Appellate Authority must properly consider prior judicial observations when reconsidering disciplinary action and cannot simply adopt a judicial review approach. The court held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings; it requires the Appellate Authority to address the case on merits rather than limiting itself to procedural review.
Case Title: XX vXX
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Kerala High Court affirmed the decision of a Family Court granting divorce to a wife who alleged that her husband was not interested in having physical relations or children with her due to some superstitious beliefs.
The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha remarked that the husband's disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfill his marital duties.