Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208 – 225]Hans Joseph v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208Neonova Munnar LLP and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 209Shajeer v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 210Ratheesh v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 211Sreekumar M.R and Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 212State of...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208 – 225]
Hans Joseph v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
Neonova Munnar LLP and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
Shajeer v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
Ratheesh v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
Sreekumar M.R and Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
Aloysious Fernandez Dickson v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
Rajan C.G. @ Rajan Chittitappally @ Rafi and Ors. v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
N.K. Prasannan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
XXX and Anr. v. Kerala Society Security Mission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
Faseela and Ors. v. Jaleel, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
M.K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v. The Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Temple Advisory Committee v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
Yahya Khan N. v. Sainaba T.P. and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
N. Bharathi Amma v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
Dileep K.G. v. Swapna Dileep and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
V.V. Rajesh v. The District Police Complaint Authority and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Hans Joseph v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 208
The Kerala High Court has made it clear that the decision regarding repartriation of mortal remains is decided on the basis of rules and not at the wish or desire of the successor or legal heir of the deceased.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The transfer of mortal remains cannot be at the wish or desire of any successor or legal heir of a person, though the same can certainly be a relevant consideration. Eligibility to transfer the mortal remains of a dead person has to be decided primarily on the basis of citizenship as well the relevant rules in force. Since burial of a dead body has serious and numerous legal implications, it has to be done on the basis of relevant rules.”
Kerala High Court Refuses To Lift Ban On Munnar Glass Bridge, But Directs Collector To Revisit Issue
Case Title: Neonova Munnar LLP and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 209
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 17) directed the District Collector, Idukki to decide on the issue of re-opening of the glass bridge in Munnar that was erected without any permit from the Kerala Adventure Tourism Promotion Society.
The Division Bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Johnson John gave the direction while considering an appeal against an interim order of the Single Judge refusing to stay an order prohibiting the use of the glass bridge.
Case Title: Shajeer v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 210
The Kerala High Court recently held that accidental brushing against the official car of a judge while overtaking would not constitute the offence of assault on public servant.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M. quashed all criminal proceedings initiated against the driver of a private bus booked for allegedly injuring and obstructing the official driver of a judicial officer.
Case Title: Ratheesh v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 211
The Kerala High Court recently held that the probative value of fingerprint evidence gets eroded if the same is collected at the police station instead of place of recovery in cases where there is no direct evidence.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian acquitted a murder convict, who was found guilty by the Sessions Court on the basis of circumstantial evidence alone.
Case Title: Sreekumar M.R and Ors. v. Travancore Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 212
The Kerala High Court has held that tenants remain liable to pay rent even after a Section 3-D acquisition notification under the National Highways Act, 1956, until actual surrender of possession.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar were delivering the judgment in a plea which sought to declare that the petitioners are not liable to pay any rent or arrears to the Travancor Devaswom Board (TDB), when the property has been acquired under Section 3D notification of NH Act.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Election Commission of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 213
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (21 April) permitted the State's Devaswom Minister to convene a coordination meeting for the upcoming Thrissur Pooram festival, while the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for the general elections to the State Assembly remains in force.
Justice S. Manu, allowed the writ petition filed by the State Government, and has imposed conditions in conduct of the meeting.
Case Title: Aloysious Fernandez Dickson v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 214
The Kerala High Court has held that the Magistrate's power to dismiss criminal complaints under Section 204(4) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must be exercised judiciously and supported by reasoned orders rather than invoked mechanically.
Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was delivering judgment in a criminal miscellaneous case, which challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed by the petitioner for failure to take steps for the issuance of a summons to the accused.
Case Title: Rajan C.G. @ Rajan Chittitappally @ Rafi and Ors. v. Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (April 21) granted bail to three Maoists, who are accused in the 2016 Malappuram Arms case relating to a large-scale arms training inside the reserve forest in Nilambur (Malappuram) by the members of proscribed terrorist organization CPI(Maoist).
The Vacation Bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice P.M. Manoj granted them bail after noting that three other co-accused in the case, who were charged with the very same offences, were earlier granted bail by the High Court.
Case Title: N.K. Prasannan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 216
The Kerala High Court recently ruled that a Magistrate entertaining a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) has the power to review its order so as to rectify its mistake.
In the criminal revision petition before Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, the petitioners had challenged the dismissal of an application to vacate an injunction order passed by the Magistrate under a wrong premise.
Case Title: XXX and Anr. v. Kerala Society Security Mission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 217
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that failure to serve copies of complaint and other relevant documents and denying opportunity for cross-examination to the accused in a workplace sexual harassment complaint violates principles of natural justice.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering a writ petition challenging the report of the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) that made adverse findings against the petitioners, which in turn, led to the passing of a termination order against them.
Case Title: Faseela and Ors. v. Jaleel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 218
The Kerala High Court has held that Gram Nyayalayas established under the Gram Nyayalayas Act 2008, cannot exercise jurisdiction over maintenance proceedings under Chapter IX Cr.P.C (pertaining to orders for maintenance of wife, children and parents) in areas where a Family Court has been established.
In doing so the court held that since Family Courts Act which is a special law, has not expressly altered by the Gram Nyayalayas Act, therefore provisions of the prior will prevail.
Justice K. Babu passed the order in a transfer petition filed by a wife and her children seeking to move a maintenance case from the Gram Nyayalaya at Kuttiyadi to the Family Court at Vadakara.
Case Title: M.K Suresh Kumar and Anr. v. The Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 219
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the validity of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, dismissing a writ petition that challenged the amendment to Section 104(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
Justice Gopinath P. delivered the judgment.
The Section 104(1) of the Code repealed statutes including, the Trade Unions Act, 1926, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, and Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. But, the 2026 amendment, which incorporated Section 104(1A) in the Code stated that the functioning of the Tribunals and statutory authorities functioning under the repealed Acts must continue adjudicating disputes until the other statutory authorities become functional under the Code.
Case Title: Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 220
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that existence of a compromise decree in a civil suit does not ipso facto render the criminal prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act non-maintainable.
Justice C.S. Dias refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in a cheque dishonour case since only the civil court, and not the criminal court, recorded the settlement and passed decree.
Case Title: The Temple Advisory Committee v. Cochin Devaswom Board and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 221
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 24) permitted the Temple Advisory Committee of Sree Vadakkumnatha Temple to install advertisement boards in Vadakkumnathan Kshetra Maidan during Thrissur Pooram.
The vacation bench of Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar allowed a Devaswom Board Application filed by the Temple Advisory Committee challenging an order of the Cochin Devaswom Board that denied permission to install advertisement boards.
Case Title: Yahya Khan N. v. Sainaba T.P. and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 222
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction in a cheque dishonour case.
The petitioner before Justice C.S. Dias had pleaded guilty before the Magistrate, which sentenced him to undergo imprisonment till the rising of the court and to pay a compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs to the complainant.
Case Title: N. Bharathi Amma v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 223
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the State cannot be directed to return the land that it acquired from a person even if the purpose of the acquisition became impossible or redundant.
It, however, added that the State had a duty to maintain the land properly and put it to use as is legally mandated.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by a land owner whose property was acquired by the State more than 37 years ago for the 'Kallada Irrigation Project' (KIP).
Case Title: Dileep K.G. v. Swapna Dileep and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 224
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, held that a magistrate has inherent power to restore a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act that was dismissed for default.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar opined:
“for ensuring the effective protection under the D.V.Act it is to be held that a Magistrate who has power to dismiss a case for default inherently has the power to restore it, upon sufficient cause being shown.”
Case Title: V.V. Rajesh v. The District Police Complaint Authority and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 225
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, clarified that Section 110 of the Kerala Police Act grants power to the Police Complaints Authority to recommend registration of criminal cases against even retired police officers for custodial torture.
Justice P.M. Manoj was considering a writ petition challenging the order of the District Police Complaints Authority, Alappuzha that dismissed the writ petitioner's complaint alleging custodial torture.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 86/2026
Case Title: T.K. Sayedali v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 17) recorded the submission of the standing counsel for the Lakshadweep Administration that no construction would be done in the No-Development Zone while developing a tourist resort in Kavaratti Islands.
The Division Bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice Johnson John was considering a public interest litigation preferred by a resident of the island raising various environmental concerns and statutory violations with respect to a 105-crore-construction-project to develop 'Paradise Hut Resort' near the Western Jetty area at Kavaratti Islands.
Case Title: Hotel Soorya Swagath v. State of Kerala and Connected matter
Case No: WP(C) 15391/ 2026 and connected matter
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (21 April) stayed an order issued by the State Government, declaring 'Dry Day' near Kerala - Tamil Nadu Border, ahead of Tamil Nadu Assembly Election on April 23, 2026.
The Vacation Bench of Justice S. Manu noted that the State could not show any provision which confers such power on it. Moreover, under Section 135C of the Representation of People Act 1951 prescribes a ban on sale of liquor only within polling areas.
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 86/2026
Case Title: T.K. Sayedali v. Union Territory of Lakshadweep and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (April 21) appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect whether any construction is being done by the Lakshadweep Administration in the No-Development Zone, in furtherance of its project to develop a tourist resort in Kavaratti Islands.
The vacation bench of Justice Gopinath P. and Justice P.M. Manoj passed the order while hearing a public interest litigation preferred by a resident raising various environmental concerns and statutory violations with respect to the Administration's 105-crore-construction-project to develop 'Paradise Hut Resort' near the Western Jetty area at Kavaratti Islands.
Case No: WP (PIL) No. 92 of 2026
Case Title: Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors.
A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court praying for stoppage of cattle markets operating without thatched roofs, in violation of the Livestock Market Rules.
The PIL has been moved by Angels Nair, the Secretary of the NGO Animal Legal Force Integration, who has highlighted the situation of 'chilling cruelty' in the cattle market in Perumbavoor where cattle are tied up closely without any access to water or a roof and exposed to the scorching sun.
Case No: WP(PIL) 93/2026
Case Title: V.K. Venkitachalam v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 24) issued notice to the parties in a public interest litigation seeking judicial intervention against the mistreatment of captive elephants during the Thrissur Pooram, which is scheduled to be held on April 26 this year.
The vacation bench of Justice A.A. Ziyad Rahman and Justice K.V. Jayakumar admitted the PIL and the government pleader took notice on behalf of the State, the Principal Chief Conservator and Assistant Conservator of Forests, the Thrissur and Palakkad District Collectors and the Thrissur District Police Chief.
Centre Notifies Appointment Of Adv AK Preeta As Kerala High Court Judge
The Central Government has notified the appointment of Advocate AK Preeta as an Additional Judge of the Kerala High Court.
Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal announced it in a social media post.
Case Title: Kerala N.G.O Union v. Election Commission of India and connected matters
Case No: WP(C) 14279/ 2026 and connected matters
The Kerala High Court on Friday (24 April) directed the counsel for the Election Commission of India (ECI) to obtain instructions on applicability of Rule 27 of Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 with regard to postal vote of officials on election duty.
The Vacation Bench of Justice P. Krishna Kumar issued the order while considering a batch of petitions which alleged large-scale denial of voting rights to government officials deployed for election duty for the Assembly elections held in the State on April 9.