Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162 - 174]
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
Vaibhav Y. Kini and Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
X v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v. Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
K.G. Manjumol v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
Linson K. Thomas v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachiriyil Joseph, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
Vijesh C.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v Jiohotstar Pvt. Ltd. and Anr
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 162
The Kerala High Court has recently (17 March) declined to restrain the release of the web series “Anali” on the OTT platform JioHotstar. The Court held that the petitioner has an effective alternative statutory remedy under the Information Technology Rules, 2021.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the plea moved by Koodathayi murder accused Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly against the release of the web series while reserving the petitioner's liberty to pursue appellate remedy under Rule 12 of the Information Technology Rules 2021.
Case Title: The Metropolitan Archbishop, The Archeparchy of Kottayam and Anr. v. Knanaya Catholic Naveekarana Samithy and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 163
The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 23) held that the practice of endogamy among the Knanaya Christians is not an essential religious practice and excommunicating members for marrying outsiders violates their fundamental rights under Articles 21 and 25 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Easwaran S. dismissed the appeals filed by the Archeparchy of Kottayam and the Knanaya Catholic Congress, and upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
Case Title: Vaibhav Y. Kini and Ors. v. Mahatma Gandhi University and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 164
The Kerala High Court recently extended a helping hand to a few law students of St. Dominic's College of Law, after they were barred from writing their examinations due to attendance shortage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that the college failed to conduct requisite number of classes and if it had the minimum number of hours, the students could have made up for the shortage in attendance or at least reached the condonable limits.
Kerala High Court Calls For 'Child-Centric' Custody Approach, Urges Parents To Rise Above Conflict
Case Title: X v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 165
The Kerala High Court has recently underscored the urgent need to shift from a parent-centric to a child-centric approach in custody disputes, highlighting the severe emotional toll such litigation imposes on children.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha made the observation while considering a habeas corpus petition filed by a mother alleging illegal detention of her two minor children by their father.
Case Title: Fr. K. K. Mathews, Son of Kuriakose v. Rev. Fr. C. K. Issac Cor Episcopa and Connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 166
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 24) allowed the appeals filed challenging a 2024 order of the Single Judge directing the Collectors of Ernakulam and Palakkad districts to take over possession of six churches involved in the Orthodox – Jacobite faction feud.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. pronounced the order in open court:
"In a dispute relating to the religious affairs of a church, which is a parish church governed by the 1934 Constitution, the High Court cannot direct the civil administration to take over possession of the church. In appropriate cases where repeated disobedience of the decree passed by the competent court has resulted in a law and order situation, the High Court, being the constitutional court, can render justice by granting police protection to ensure that there is no law and order issues in the conduct of religious services and other affairs to said church in accordance with the 1934 Constitution as held by the Apex Court..."
Case Title: K.G. Manjumol v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 167
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that a widow is not disentitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency for the reason that she is employed or remarried subsequent to her husband's death in a motor accident.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen held:
“The material date for deciding the compensation is the date of accident/death. Any subsequent act cannot deprive her from compensation. Though she had a job at the time of accident, that cannot be a reason to deprive her from dependency compensation because, the claim petitioner was also in her young age at the time of accident and death of the husband has resulted into loss of dependency…a view is taken by the court disentitling a woman on account of her remarriage, the court will be discouraging the widow from remarrying, after her husband's death.”
Case Title: Sabu M. Jacob v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 168
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (24 March) directed the Central Government to take a time-bound decision on a representation alleging violations of the Union Government's Broadcasting guidelines in the operation of Malayalam news channel 'Reporter TV'.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas disposed of the petition.
The petitioner, who is the president of the political party Twenty20, had approached the Court seeking a limited relief namely, a direction to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting (MIB) to act upon a representation submitted on February 2, 2026.
Case Title: Linson K.Thomas v Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 169
The Kerala High Court has held that statutory confidentiality provisions under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be invoked to deny an accused employee access to relevant documents in disciplinary proceedings.
Justice N. Nagaresh, delivered the judgment.
The present petition was filed seeking to quash the order transferring the petitioner from Thiruvananthapuram Region to Karnataka Region and subsequently to Andhra Pradesh Region.
Case Title: Puthuparambil Raju v. Kachiriyil Joseph
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 170
The Kerala High Court has held that that right to seek rescission of a contract accrues upon the expiry of the time stipulated in the decree for deposit of balance consideration and not upon the receipt of notice of the subsequent proceedings.
Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered the judgment in an original petition in a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale of an immoveable property.
Case Title: Vijesh C.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 171
The Kerala High Court has held that temporary surrender of land for a public infrastructure project does not amount to a transfer requiring prior statutory sanction under Section 29 of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments (HR & CE) Act, 1951.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, were delivering the judgement in a writ petition challenging the road widening project leading to the Madayikavu Bhagavathy Temple in Kannur District.
Case Title: Arun Kumar P. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 172
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that it is not necessary to mention the exact quantity of contraband seized in the notice communicating the grounds of arrest if it is specified that the nature of quantity is small or intermediate or commercial.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the intention behind mentioning the quantity is to enable the accused to know whether the offence if bailable or not and if the nature of quantity is mentioned, then it amounts to substantial compliance of the requirement under law for communicating arrest grounds.
Case Title: Dhanya Devadas v The Kerala State Election Commission and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 173
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the State Election Commission (SEC) must mandatorily issue a show-cause notice and afford an opportunity of hearing, before disqualifying candidates for failure to file election expense accounts under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the common judgment in a batch of writ petitions challenging disqualification orders issued under Section 33 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994.
Case Title: Gokul K. v. The Chief Election Commissioner Of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 174
The Kerala High Court on Friday (27 March) directed the Chief Election Commission of India to consider a representation filed against BJP leader B.Gopalakrishnan for making alleged communal remarks during a campaign in Guruvayur constituency amid the upcoming State assembly elections.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the ECI to decide the representation in two months.
The Court was considering a writ petition moved by Kerala Students' Union (KSU) leader Gokul.
Other Important Developments This Week
Kerala High Court Stays Judgment Removing Vellappally Natesan As General Secretary Of SNDP Yogam
Case No: WA 693/ 2026 and connected cases
Case Title: V.K. Natesan and Ors. v. Dr. K. Reghu Anchayil and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 23) stayed the operation of the judgment ordering removal of Vellappally Natesan and others as directors of Aruvipuram Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalana Yogam (SNDP Yogam).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a batch of appeals preferred against the judgment of the Single Judge by which certain directors of the SNDP Yogam, including former General Secretary Vellappally Natesan, were disqualified.
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 804 of 2025
Case Title: Ajmal v. Fathima Ajmal and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently (January 21) passed an order asking the Kerala High Court Bar Association and the Bar Council of Kerala to decide whether the action of an advocate, who made baseless allegations against a sitting judge, would amount to professional misconduct.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar passed the order in a Criminal Revision Petition filed by a husband challenging the order of the appellate court in enhancing the maintenance awarded by the Magistrate to his wife and minor child to Rs. 25,000 each.
Case No: WP(C) No. 29179 of 2025
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State government to operationalise five new NDPS Special Courts in the State within 3 months and to appoint permanent staff in these courts to ensure long-term accountability and institutional loyalty.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran, while considering a suo motu petition initiated to curb drug menace in the State, also directed the State to request for financial assistance from the Central Government within one week.
Case No: WP(C) Nos. 42844 and 48511 of 2025
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
The Additional Chief Secretary of Kerala's Finance Department has filed an affidavit before the High Court stating that the department has authorised an amount of ₹36.50 Crores for clearing the arrears of victim compensation and ₹12.26 Crores towards settlement of arrears of mediator fees.
Last week, the Court had remarked that it would pass orders to attach the Treasury accounts of the State government in case the amounts due to the Victim Compensation Fund and the fees to the mediators are not paid within a week.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was hearing two pleas, including a suo motu petition concerning the infrastructural requirements of mediation centres, adequate support staff and regular office stationary.
Case No: WA 746 of 2026
Case Title: Dr. Rasheed Ahammed P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 26) said that it will hear next week an appeal challenging single judge's order dismissing a plea alleging privacy violation of government employees and judges by the Chief Minister's Office by sending bulk messages to their phone numbers.
It was alleged by the appellants that these numbers were illegally accessed from SPARK [Service Pay Roll Administrative Repository for Kerala].
When the matter came up before the Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, the Court orally said that it would hear the matter finally next Tuesday (March 31).
Case Title: Shaji J. Kodankandath v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 37/2026
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (26 March) has accepted an apology from the Editor of Deepika Daily over the publication of an inaccurate news report that misrepresented a prior court order.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. were hearing a public interest litigation filed by lawyer and Congress politician Shaji J. Kodankandath.
Case No: WP(Crl.) 548/2026
Case Title: Athul M.C. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 26) sought the State's stand on the plea by the 1st accused seeking supervised investigation by a senior police official to look into the alleged assault on Health Minister Veena George at Kannur Railway Station.
When the matter came up for consideration today, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath granted time to the prosecutor to take instructions and posted it after summer vacation.
Case No: WP(C) No. 8332 of 2025
Case Title: Sangeerthana M. and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 26) asked Indian Tobacco Company (ITC) and Gold Flake Corporation Ltd. to respond to an allegation made in a public interest litigation that printing the words 'Honeydew Smooth', 'Flavour like never before' and 'More flavours, more experiences' on cigarette packets amounts to a violation of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008.
Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. also directed the other respondents in the PIL, including the Central and State governments, the Cochin Corporation and the Commissioner of Police to file affidavits regarding the issue.
Case No: WP(C) No. 40608 of 2025
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (26 March) granted additional time to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the Sabarimala gold theft case to complete the investigation, citing the need for scientific analysis before concluding the investigation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar considered a progress report submitted in person by SIT Investigating Officer S. Sasidharan, IPS.
Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v Suo Motu Proceedings initiated by High Court and Others
Case No: RP 288/ 2026 in JPP 1/ 2026
While hearing a plea pertaining to alleged misconduct by advocates in Bank Account Defreezing Cases, the Kerala High Court remarked that it cannot be presumed that the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association has no information about its members who allegedly misused their position as an advocate and misled the court in such cases.
This, after the bar body in its affidavit stated that at present it has no information about such members. The court further said that it "expected" the KHCAA to "at least conduct a basic enquiry" to identify the individuals and not to leave it to the Court to make a reference of the names of such persons for cancellation of their membership and for informing the Bar Council of India of such acts.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M was considering a review petition filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) in suo motu judicial practice and procedure proceedings where it had earlier directed that no writ petition or similar plea seeking defreezing of bank accounts shall be entertained unless the Station House Officer (SHO) concerned is made a party respondent.