Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270 - 285]All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270 - 285]
All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Rahiman v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
Wilfred Jose v Jayapal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
Lawrence and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
A. Raju v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
MRPN Minority Shareholders Customers Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
Anto Augustine and Ors v Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: All India LPG Distributors Federation (Kerala Circle) and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Kerala High Court has held that LPG distributors do not possess a vested legal right over customer bases built during the course of distributorship operations.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim was considering two writ petitions filed by a registered All India Association of LPG Distributors and other individual LPG Distributors in various parts of the State of Kerala.
Case Title: Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 18) dismissed the bail application preferred by astrologer Rajan Babu @ Murari Thantri, who was arrested on February 9 for allegedly raping a minor girl on the pretext of conducting an 'exorcism' on her.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed:
“A perusal of the case diary would reveal that the accusation against the applicant is very serious, and it prima facie shows a premeditated criminal act on his part. The available medical records would show that bite marks were seen on the lips of the minor victim. The victim has narrated the entire incident in the FIS. I see no reason to disbelieve the same. That apart, the blood stains belonging to the victim were recovered from the place of occurrence along with her bloodstained dress. It is true that the final report has already been filed. However, considering the seriousness of the allegation, I am not inclined to grant bail to the applicant.”
Case Title: Rahiman v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
The Kerala High Court recently held that omission to sign the First Information Statement (FIS) by the informant alone would not make it inadmissible in evidence if the informant gives evidence in tune with the statement given in the form of first information.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“omission to get signature of the informant in the FIS alone would make the FIS totally inadmissible in evidence, is the question, in fact, poses for consideration. In response to this query, it is held that the mere failure or omission on the part of the informant to put signature in the FIS is not a reason to disbelieve the FIS or the entire prosecution case, when the informant while giving evidence admits and supports the case of the prosecution in tune with the statement in the form of first information given by the informant.”
Case Title: T.M. Manju v Bar Council of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Kerala High Court has held that a registered Homoeopathic practitioner cannot enrol as an advocate unless she first cancels her registration as a medical practitioner.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment while dismissing a challenge against the Bar Council of Kerala's refusal to enrol a Homoeopathic doctor as an advocate while her name continued in the register of medical practitioners.
Case Title: Kannan v. M/s. Adisiva Enterprises and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Kerala High Court recently held that power of attorney holder's incompetence to institute a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be raised as a ground to assail conviction at the stage of revision, if not raised earlier.
Justice G. Girish referred to Section 465 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides when the finding or sentence passed by a competent court is reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.
Case Title: Wilfred Jose v Jayapal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that in cheque bouncing prosecutions, the initial burden rests upon the complainant to prove the transaction and once this burden is discharged, the complainant can avail the presumptions in its favour laid down in Section 139 NI Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a criminal appeal filed against the acquittal of an accused in a cheque dishonour case involving ₹3 lakh.
"Now it is necessary to address how the complainant in a prosecution alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act would be able to discharge his initial burden in the matter of transaction and execution of cheque alleged to be dishonoured, so as to avail the presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the NI Act.”
Case Title: Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
The Kerala High Court has said that an institution's Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) can inquire into sexual harassment complaints against the institution's Director if he does not have control over the affairs and management of the institution and is an “employee” appointed by the institution's executive committee.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering an appeal challenging the decision of the Single Judge, who dismissed a plea by the Director of Integrated Rural Technology Centre (IRTC).
Case Title: M. B. Faisal v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the Syndicate of a University cannot challenge the orders passed by its Chancellor, who is exercising powers of appeal, as the same would be against institutional hierarchy and discipline.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed that the Chancellor is the head of the University as well as the appellate authority with respect to the decisions taken by the Syndicate in matters of disciplinary proceedings and therefore, the Syndicate has to give effect to the orders passed by the Chancellor, being the superior authority.
Case Title: Abdal Rahim H. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (May 21) dismissed the appeal challenging dismissal of a plea to stall release of the movie 'Kaalam Paranja Kadha' that is allegedly inspired by the sensational Venjaramoodu Mass Murder case.
When the matter came up today before the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K., Advocate Sajju V. appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal has become infructuous since the movie has already been released. He then prayed for withdrawing the appeal.
CrPC | Accused Has Absolute Right To Use Section 161 Statements To Contradict Witnesses During Cross-Examination: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Lawrence and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 279
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, clarified that an accused has an absolute right to use the previous statements given by the witnesses to the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of shaking the veracity of their evidence and making it untrustworthy.
Justice A. Badharudeen held:
“it is the absolute right of the accused to use previous statements during cross-examination of the maker of the same for the purpose contradicting the maker to shake the veracity of the evidence spoken by him and to make it as untrustworthy of credit, and the same is the main purpose of cross-examination as well.”
Tribunals Can't Dispose Appeals Through 'Cryptic Orders', Must Record Reasons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Renjini K.K v Mannancherry Grama Panchayat and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 280
The Kerala High Court has held that quasi-judicial tribunals cannot dispose of appeals through cryptic conclusions and are legally bound to issue reasoned, speaking orders that disclose the basis of their decisions.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgement while setting aside an order of the Tribunal for Local Self Government Institutions that had upheld a Panchayat's refusal to regularise a building and assign it a number.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 281
The Kerala High Court recently closed the suo motu case initiated in the light of an unauthorized helicopter movement over Sabarimala temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar noted that a crime has been registered at the Pamba Police Station for the offence under Section 118(e) of the Kerala Police Act [Penalty for causing grave violation of public order or danger] and that investigation revealed that the same belonged to the Indian Coast Guard.
Periodic Replacement, Maintenance Cost Of Prosthetic Limb Must Be Factored Into Motor Accident Compensation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Ummer C.K. v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 282
The Kerala High Court recently enhanced the compensation granted to a person, whose leg was amputated following a motor accident, so as to give him a just compensation for the purpose of maintenance and periodic replacement of his prosthetic leg.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha granted Rs. 30 lakhs for periodic replacement and maintenance after noting that artificial leg is not a one-time expense:
“A prosthetic limb is not a one-time expense. It requires periodic replacement, maintenance, physiotherapy and adaptation over the claimant's lifetime. Therefore, the Courts/Tribunals must adopt a humane and realistic approach while assessing compensation. Merely awarding the present cost of an artificial limb would be wholly inadequate. A young person will require several replacements in the course of his life, particularly because prosthetic technology advances and wear and tear make periodic renewal inevitable. Compensation must accordingly include future medical expenses, recurring replacement costs, rehabilitation expenses and loss of amenities of life.”
Case Title: A. Raju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 283
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted a man, who was convicted of offences under the Abkari Act, observing that he is entitled to the benefit of doubt since there was no signature or seal of the Magistrate who certified the correctness of the inventory as required under Section 53A.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“In the present case,… there is nothing to indicate that the Magistrate had verified and certified the correctness of the inventory, particularly when neither the signature nor the seal of the Magistrate is found in such a crucial document. When the procedure prescribed under Section 53A of the Abkari Act is not strictly complied with, and when the residue of the contraband after drawing sample is not produced before the court, coupled with the absence of satisfactory evidence regarding its lawful destruction or disposal, the very seizure of the contraband becomes doubtful. In such circumstances, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.”
Case Title: MRPN Minority Shareholders Customers Welfare Association v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 284
The Kerala High Court recently closed a plea preferred by the shareholders' association of Mary Rani Popular Nidhi Ltd. seeking further action on the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO)'s Final Report.
The company is part of the Popular Finance Group that orchestrated the ₹2000 crore scam, known as the “Popular Finance Scam”.
Justice Viju Abraham closed the writ petition recording the submission that the Centre has already filed criminal complaints before the Additional Sessions Court, Ernakulam and that it has also initiated winding up proceedings of the company.
Case Title: Anto Augustine and Ors v Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 285
The Kerala High Court has held that social media intermediaries cannot be compelled to remove allegedly defamatory content unless a competent court or authorised government agency first determines the content to be unlawful.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A., delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by M/s Broadcasting Company Pvt. Ltd., a news and current affairs content broadcasting channel.
Other Important Developments This Week
Senior Adv Jaju Babu To Be Kerala Advocate General; T Asaf Ali Director General Prosecution
The newly elected UDF Government in Kerala has decided to appoint Senior Advocate Jaju Babu as the Advocate General.
T. Asaf Ali has been appointed as the Director General of Prosecutions.
Case No: Con.Case (C) No. 908 of 2025
Case Title: Kadakampally Manoj v. Mohammed Hanish
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 18) questioned why the Principal Secretary, Industries Department (Cashew) of the State government did not personally appear before it after being directed to do so.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a contempt plea initiated against the Secretary for denying sanction for the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to prosecute allegedly corrupt ex-officials of the State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC).
Case No: SSCR No. 14 of 2026
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 18) flagged the alleged misappropriation of funds by the Administrative Officers of the Travancore Devaswom Board for the last 10 years or so in relation to procurement of items required for 'Ashtabhishekam' in Sabarimala temple. Ashtabhishekam refers to a sacred ritual in which the deity's idol is bathed with eight auspicious substances.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition initiated based on a report by the Sabarimala Special Commissioner alleging misappropriation of funds by the Administrative Officers of the TDB for the past 10 years or so.
Sabarimala Gold Theft: Kerala High Court Grants SIT Two More Weeks To Complete Investigation
Case No: WP(C) No. 40608 of 2025
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Monday (May 18) granted two more weeks to the Special Investigation Team to complete its probe into alleged misappropriation of gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and door frames of the Sreekovil in Sabarimala temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar perused a report submitted by Sri. S. Sasidharan, the Investigating Officer, and noted that the statements of 391 witnesses have been recorded.
Dr Vandana Das Murder Case: Convict Moves Kerala High Court Challenging Conviction, Life Sentence
Case No: Crl.A 664/ 2026
Case Title: Sandeep G. v. State of Kerala
Sandeep G., who was found guilty by the trial court for the the murder of Dr. Vandana Das, has moved the Kerala High Court challenging his conviction and life sentence.
Dr. Vandana was a 22-year-old house surgeon, who was stabbed to death, in May 2023 while she was on duty at a Taluk hospital in Kottarakkara, Kollam.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar admitted the appeal on Tuesday (May 19).
Case Title: Marakkar v. State of Kerala & connected cases
Case No: Crl. Appeal No. 598/2023 & connected cases
The Kerala High Court has called for the appearance of the convicts in the murder of Madhu, a mentally challenged tribal youth, who was brutally lynched to death for stealing rice from a grocery shop in Attappady, Palakkad in February 2018.
The Court also said that it would pronounce the judgment on the day fixed for their appearance (May 25).
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order in the appeals preferred by the convicts as well as a victim appeal preferred by Madhu's mother.
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings v Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) 104/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (19 May) initiated suo motu proceedings over Mundathikode fireworks accident which claimed 17 lives.
Mundathikode Fireworks accident occurred on April 21 at a firework unit at Mundathikode, which is situated about 16 km from Thirssur. The unit was preparing materials for the Thrissur Pooram.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the notice to the respondents.
Case No: B.A. No. 1644 of 2026
Case Title: Moh Farmaan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Madhya Pradesh government on Wednesday (May 20) challenged before the Kerala High Court the maintainability of the anticipatory bail plea moved by Viral Kumbh Mela star Monalisa Bhosle and her husband Farmaan in the crime lodged after Bhosle's father filed a complaint before MP police alleging abduction of his daughter.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the MP Director General of Police, submitted before Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath that the present petition, being a regular anticipatory bail plea, is not maintainable before the Kerala High Court since the FIR was registered in Madhya Pradesh. He relied on the Apex Court decision in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka.
Advocate Mohammed Shah Appointed As Additional Advocate General Of Kerala
The newly-elected UDF government has appointed Advocate Mohammed Shah as the Additional Advocate General of Kerala.
Shah was an elected Member of the Kerala Bar Council from 2018 to 2026.
Case No: IA No. 1/2026 in WA No. 1029 of 2026 (Filing No.)
Case Title: K.A. Muhammed Ashraf and Anr. v. Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (May 21) allowed the leave petition preferred by the Managers of neighbouring schools to appeal against the order that directed the Secretary of Erattupetta Municipality to grant approval for introducing co-education scheme in Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School, Erattupetta— a girls-only school.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. however, clarified that the writ petitioner's right to raise question of maintainability of the writ appeal would not be affected.
Case No: WA 1093/ 2026 in Con.Case(C) 908/2025
Case Title: Mohammed Hanish v. Kadakampally Manoj
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (May 21) questioned the locus standi of the State in filing an appeal against a Single Judge's order directing personal appearance of Mohammed Hanish, Principal Secretary of the Industries Department (Cashew) of the State, in a contempt case.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John orally asked the government pleader appearing for Mohammed Hanish:
"How State files contempt appeal? Contempt against who? It is in the name of the person Mohammed Hanish? How State appearing? State filing appeal? It's an individual case. Contempt is against a person. It's a basic tenet, State can't file…He has not given vakalath to you…He has to contest and he has to say he has not committed wilful disobedience of any order…Individually, he can appoint an advocate. He can take out the case…But how is the State having interest in filing the appeal?…You verify and give judgment that State can file appeal in the contempt application against contemner."
Case No: WP(C) 17339 of 2026
Case Title: Kerala State United Nurses Association v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday (May 22) orally asked the State government to get instructions as to why services rendered by nurses are not declared as an "essential service", adding that if declared as an essential service, nurses would have no right to go on strike.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was hearing a plea by the Kerala State United Nurses Association alleging that certain private hospitals have taken in interns and unregistered nurses to work.
Case No: WP(C) 17422/ 2026
Case Title: All India Digital Cable Federation and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Kerala High Court on Friday (May 22) stayed the proviso to Clause 5.4.1 of the TV Ratings Policy 2026 issued by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB), which says that viewership arising out of Landing Page shall not be counted in the viewership measurement and that Landing Page can be used only as a marketing tool.
The MIB had issued the 2026 Policy vide an order dated March 27, 2026 for replacing the 2014 Policy Guidelines for Television Rating Agencies in India.
Senior Advocate Arun Kathpalia today submitted before Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas that though the Policy has presently not come into effect, the same not be enforced.
Case No: Crl.A. No. 1563 of 2019
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to submit details on facilities available for the rehabilitation of persons acquitted on the ground of unsoundness of mind, after observing that such persons cannot languish in mental institutions due to lack of adequate rehabilitation facilities.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order in a criminal appeal in which it had acquitted a man, who was found guilty of the murder of a young boy by the trial court, on the ground of unsoundness of mind.
Case Title: Hari Devageeth v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 268
The Kerala High Court recently observed that the appropriate government has a duty to give proper awareness to transgender persons regarding preservation of their sperms or oocytes before they begin sex-reassignment treatment.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen remarked:
“It is the bounden duty of the appropriate Government to give proper awareness to the transgender persons regarding preservation of their oocytes or sperms, before they start treatment for change in their gender.”