Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132 - 147]New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132 - 147]
New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
X v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
Ashique v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
Shwetha Menon v. State of Kerala and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
Adv. P.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
State Nodal Officer and Ors. v. Manoj M.S. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
Jayalekshmi L. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
Professor M.K. Sanoo v. State of Kerala and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Koshy Abraham v. Shaji and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: New India Assurance and Ors. v The Federal bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 132
The Kerala High Court has held that losses suffered by a bank due to fraudulent ATM withdrawals using debit cards issued by other banks are not covered under a Banker's Indemnity Insurance Policy when the policy expressly excludes losses arising from the use of ATMs.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar set aside a trial court decree that had directed the insurer to indemnify the bank for losses caused by ATM fraud.
Case Title: Ajeesh Kalathil Gopi v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 133
The Kerala High Court recently closed the public interest litigation seeking a direction to the State to ensure uninterrupted functioning of Out-Patient Departments (OPD) and all essential medical services in Government Medical Colleges in view of the indefinite boycott by the Kerala Government Medical College Teachers' Association (KGMCTA), initiated on February 16.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.R. observed that the medical services is an essential service and it is the State's duty to ensure that the same is uninterrupted.
Kerala High Court Allows Accused To Renew Passport With 5-Year Validity For Overseas Employment
Case Title: Rafeek v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 134
The Kerala High Court recently permitted a person accused in two criminal cases to renew his passport with a validity of 5 years in order to enable him to travel abroad for his new job in Oman.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea wherein the petitioner had filed applications in both the cases before the trial court for permission to renew his passport and to travel abroad. Though these applications were allowed, the trial court did not specify the validity period of the passport.
Case Title: Saheer v. The Ombudsman for Local Self Government and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 135
The Kerala High Court recently held that a complaint against a Village Officer cannot be entertained before the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a plea preferred by a Village Officer aggrieved by the proceedings pending against him before the Ombudsman that was initiated on the basis of a complaint.
Case Title: Union of India and Anr. v. Mohanan Madathil Koliyat
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 136
The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that a reasoned opinion by a Medical Board is indispensable in denying disability pension to armed forces personnel.
The division bench comprising Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John were delivering the judgment in a writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging an order of the Armed Forces Tribunal.
Bail In POCSO Case Can Be Set Aside If Victim Not Heard : Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 137
The Kerala High Court has held that bail granted to an accused in offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act can be set aside if the victim or guardian is not given an opportunity to be heard before the bail order is passed.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar was considering a criminal miscellaneous case seeking to set aside the bail order granted by the Sessions Court Kottayam to the accused in a case under Section 351 (Criminal Intimation) BNS and sections of POCSO Act.
Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 138
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 10) dismissed a plea alleging violation of privacy of government employees and judges by the State by sending bulk messages to their phone numbers, which was illegally accessed from SPARK [Service Pay Roll Administrative Repository for Kerala].
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas pronounced in open court:
"Thus, if used for legitimate purposes, including for good governance in a social welfare State, the data collected can be utilised without falling within vice of infringement of the right to privacy of an individual...Since KSITM is a part of government of Kerala and the impugned message was sent through the Whatsapp account registered in the name of KSITM by using the data in its possession, if the nature of the message was not for any illegitimate purpose, such messaging has to be regarded as irreproachable. Hence, the question boils down to whether the data was used for a legitimate purposes...As this Court has already held that, there is neither any material to indicate that any data has been transferred to the Chief Minister's office nor are there any particulars available to conclude that the Chief Minister or his office had any access to such data, there is no merit in this writ petition. The message sent by KSITM informing details about DA and HBA cannot be regarded as violating the right to privacy of the recipients of those messages. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed."
Case Title: Ashique v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 139
The Kerala High Court recently held that when an accused, who is already under judicial custody, is arrested in relation to another case following a production warrant under Section 302 BNSS, there is no need to separately inform him of the grounds of arrest.
The reasoning of the Court was that as per Form 37, relating to the order requiring production of a person in prison as per Section 302, there is a specific direction to the officer-in-charge of the jail to inform accused of the contents of the order and to deliver him the attached copy and this amounts to sufficient communication.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, however, clarified that in such cases, it is mandatory to inform the relative of the accused.
Case Title: Vellinakshathram and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 140
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the plea preferred by the editors of Vellinakshatram magazine seeking to quash the criminal complaint initiated against them for allegedly defaming an actor by redisplaying on their website the derogatory comments made against him in a Facebook group.
Justice G. Girish held that the offence of defamation as provided under Section 499 IPC makes no distinction between first time publication of defamatory content and redisplaying it. Unless the impugned act falls within the seven exceptions provided under the provision, redisplaying defamatory content already published on another platform can attract the offence, the Court opined.
Case Title: Shwetha Menon v. State of Kerala and another
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 141
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (March 11) quashed all further proceedings in the FIR and private complaint lodged against Malayalam actor Shwetha Menon for allegedly acting in movies and advertisements containing obscene and vulgar visuals.
Justice C.S. Dias was considering a plea by the actor seeking to quash all further proceedings against her prusuant to the complaint and FIR.
Case Title: Adv. P.T. Joseph v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 142
The Kerala High Court has held that notification inviting application only for Government Pleader cannot be used for the appointment of Public Prosecutor.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the Rule 7 of the Kerala Government Law Officers(Appointment and Conditions of Service) and Conduct of Cases Rules, 1978 enables the Government to separate the offices of Government Pleaders and Public Prosecutors at any Court and make separate appointments.
Case Title: State Nodal Officer and Ors. v. Manoj M.S. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 143
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that a party invoking writ jurisdiction must approach the court with clean hands, holding that suppression of a prior blacklisting order disentitles a contractor from equitable relief.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. further clarified that public authorities may still be directed to release payments for work already executed, subject to contractual recoveries and claims of secured creditors.
Quantity Of Contraband Not Relevant For Preventive Detention Under PITNDPS Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jayalekshmi L. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the quantity of contraband is not a relevant factor to decide whether a detention order under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act) should be passed against a person found engaged in illicit traffic of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a plea preferred by the mother of the detenue against whom a detention order was passed under Section 3(1) of the PITNDPS Act ordering him to be detained for a period of one year.
Kerala High Court Orders Removal Of Vellapally Natesan As SNDP General Secretary
Case Title: Professor M.K. Sanoo v. State of Kerala and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 12) ordered the removal of Vellappally Natesan as the General Secretary of the Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam).
Justice T.R. Ravi opined that directors of the Yogam were disqualified since they failed to file audited accounts for 3 consecutive years, in violation of the provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore, the office bearers, including Natesan, were found to be disqualified.
Case Title: Koshy Abraham v. Shaji and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
The Kerala High Court has held that a decree holder with a charged decree enjoys priority over unsecured decree holders under Section 73 of CPC while challenging court auction sales under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) .
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar was delivering the judgment in an appeal challenging the dismissal of an application to set aside an execution sale conducted by the Sub Court, Thodupuzha.
Kerala High Court Upholds Direction To Implead Local SHO In Bank Account Defreezing Petitions
Case Title: Blue Star Aluminium & Door House v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The Kerala High Court has upheld the a direction requiring petitioners seeking defreezing of bank accounts to implead the local Station House Officer (SHO ) of the police station having jurisdiction over their address as a party respondent in such writ petitions.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment in appeals arising out of orders of the Single Bench dated 10 December 2025 and 15 December 2025.
Other Important Developments This Week
2017 Actress Assault Case: Kerala High Court Condones 17 Days Delay In State's Appeal
Case No: Crl.A 295/ 2026
Case Title: State of Kerala v Sunil N.S. @ Pulsar Suni and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (10 March) condoned the 17 days delay in the appeal filed by the State challenging a sessions court order acquitting actor Dileep of all charges in the 2017 Actress Assault case and seeking enhancement of the punishment for the convicted persons.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian condoned the delay and issued notice to the respondents.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 1756/2026
Case Title: Rahul Mamkootathil v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (March 11) stayed the order of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Thiruvalla that directed Palakkad MLA Rahul Mamkootathil to submit the passcode of his mobile phone, which was seized by the investigating officer in the third rape case alleged against him.
Justice C. Jayachandran passed the interim order granting stay after hearing the arguments advanced by Senior Advocate Sasthamangalam S. Ajithkumar, who represented Mamkootathil.
“If Every State Should Have AIIMS, Why None In Kerala Yet?”: Kerala High Court Asks Centre
Case Title: AIIMS Kasargod Janakeeya Koottayma v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Case No: WP(C) 18550/ 2024
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (11 March) asked the Union Government on the criterion applied for the purpose of prioritizing the establishment of AIIMS.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering writ petitions seeking establishment of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) under the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY).
Case Title: Muhammed Shiyas v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) 55/ 2026
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging a two-page jacket advertisement issued by the Kerala government through the Information and Public Relations Department (I&PRD) in several newspapers, alleging misuse of public funds for political messaging.
The Petitioner, who is the District Congress Committee President of Ernakulam, seeks judicial scrutiny of the advertisement published on March 5, 2026.
The Division Bench Comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. directed the Respondents to file counter affidavits and reply within 10 days.
PIL Moved Before Kerala High Court To Quash Padma Bhushan Awarded To Vellappally Natesan
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 38/2026
Case Title: Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi v. Union of India and Ors.
A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court seeking a direction for quashing the conferment of Padma Bhushan to Vellappally Natesan.
The present plea has been filed by Sree Narayana Dharma Prabodhana Sarnrakshna Samithi, which has pointed out that Natesan has been arrayed as an accused in several criminal cases, for various offences including cheating, misappropriation of funds, etc. He is also arrayed as an accused in several vigilance cases.
The Kerala High Court has decided to drop the proposal to reopen the Media Room inside the Court for media briefings after the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) unanimously decided in its General Body meeting to request not to proceed with the same.
The decision to close down the Media Room was taken following several incidents of physical altercations between lawyers and media personnels that occurred in July 2016. It has been reported that one advocate was injured when the media personnel pelted stones near the Chamber Complex of the High Court while protesting.
Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v. Government of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) No. 8600 of 2025
The Kerala High Court has recently (10 March) directed the State to set a deadline for submission of remarks by the concerned departments to expedite the process of finalising the Anti-Ragging Bill in the State,
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran were considering a PIL moved by KeLSA(Kerala Legal Service Authority), seeking stronger laws to combat ragging within educational institutions.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev T
The State government has moved the Kerala High Court seeking to cancel the bail granted to Kandararu Rajeevaru @ Rajeev Thantri, who is arrayed as an accused in the Sabarimala gold theft case.
The plea also seeks to expunge the alleged adverse remarks made by the Special Judge against the investigation, stating them to be 'unwarranted and prejudicial to investigation'. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) is carrying out the investigation in the cases based on the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 16773 of 2020
Case Title: Kerala State Legal Services Authorities v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently sought the central government's stand on whether a Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) can be established in the State.
The Special Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran was considering a plea preferred by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) outlining among others, the issue of high pendency of NDPS trials due to lack of sufficient scientific officers in the Forensic Science labs.
Case No: WP(PIL) 26/ 2026 and connected cases
Case Title: T.G. Sunil v. State of Kerala and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Friday (March 13) orally remarked that a very meticulous investigation is being carried out by the Special Investigation Team (SIT), which includes some of the best persons in the country, while probing the Sabarimala gold theft cases.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was hearing a batch of pleas seeking CBI inquiry into the case.
Kerala High Court Summons Home Secretary Over Failure To Pay Mediator Fees & Victim Compensation
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors
Case No: WP(C) 42844/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (12 March) summoned the Home Secretary of the State to be personally present in the Court noting the unsatisfactory progress with regard to the payment of fee to the Mediator and victim compensation.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the directions.
Case No: SSCR No. 7 of 2026
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Government Pleader on Thursday (March 12) undertook before the Kerala High Court that uninterrupted service of sanitation workers shall be ensured at Sabarimala.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar recorded the submission while considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner's report regarding financial malpractices of casual labourers and permanent duty staffs.
Case No: SSCR No. 43/2026
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court on Friday (March 14) asked the State to inform whether the Suchitwa Mission can provide expertise or technical support to remove the clothe waste remaining in river Pampa discarded by Sabarimala pilgrims.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar noted the submission of the Standing Counsel appearing for the Travancore Devaswom Board that almost 95% of the waste has been moved whereas certain pockets in the area still contain accumulated clothes in the deeper and uneven portions of the river bed.
Case No: DBAR No. 1 of 2026
Case Title: Joint Director v. Secretary
The Kerala High Court on Friday (March 14) noted serious irregularities in the accounting process related to Aadiya Sishtam Ghee sales in Sabarimala temple and directed the State Audit department to carry out an audit and place a detailed report before it.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order in a Devaswom Board Audit Report (DBAR) petition initiated on the basis of an interim report submitted by the Joint Director of the Kerala State Audit Department, Travancore Devaswom Board Audit Wing, after verification of Aadiya Sishtam ghee sales carried out during the recent Mandala-Makaravilakku season.