Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16- 37]Abad Builders Private Limited v State of Kerala and Others & other connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16Sajeev N. & Others v Anumol P. S. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 17Stephin Raj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 18C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 19Gargian Sudheeran v State of Kerala &...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 16- 37]
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
Judgments/Orders
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.”
Complainant Lodging Multiple FIRs Against Accused On Same Facts Violates Fundamental Rights Under Articles 21, 22: Kerala High Court
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.”
NDPS Act| 'Magic Mushroom' Not A Scheduled Narcotic/Psychotropic Substance, Can't Be Treated As A Mixture But Only A Fungi: Kerala HC
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”.
Cases Involving Serious Allegations Of Sexual Assault Cannot Be Quashed Even At Victim's Instance: Kerala High Court
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.”
Medical Evidence Of Hymen Being Intact By Itself Not Sufficient To Hold That There Was No Penetrative Sexual Assault Or Coitus: Kerala HC
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.
Other Significant Developments
Kerala High Court Directs Completion Of Census Of Captive Elephants Within One Month
Case Title: In Re Captive Elephants v UOI
Case No: WP(C) 31520 of 2024
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 13) ordered that the census of captive elephants in the State be completed before February 15.
The Court had in its earlier order on December 19, 2024 directed the State to constitute a committee in each district comprising of the District Collector and Divisional Forest from the District for conducting the survey. The Court said this was necessary to ascertain the legality over the ownership of these elephants and to allow the custodians to parade these elephants for temple festivals.
On the last date of hearing the Court had orally asked the State to specify what is the “sufficient space” that is to maintained between the elephants as given in Kerala Captive Elephants (Maintenance and Management) Rules, 2012.
During the hearing on Monday, division bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. asked the State to specify the distance to be maintained between elephants that are used for procession and the distance that should be maintained between the elephants and the public. The Court said that once the Rules had already said that sufficient space is to be maintained, the State cannot abstain from specifying the distance.
Kerala High Court Pulls Up Boby Chemmannur For Staying In Jail Despite Grant Of Bail
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 535/ 2025
The Kerala High Court has warned Boby Chemmanur of cancellation of bail granted to him in the sexual harassment case filed by a Malayalam Movie actress.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan orally stated that even though the release order was issued by 4.45 PM yesterday, the release order was not produced for his release. The Court noted that Boby Chemmanur was trying to garner media attention by delaying his release under the guise of protecting the legal rights of remand prisoners who were unable to secure release from jail.
Case Title: Shuhaib v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 619/ 2025
Shuhaib who was alleged to have leaked Class 10 Question Papers through his YouTube channel M S Solutions has approached Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail. He contends that he had only predicted probable questions based on the previous question papers.
The bail plea will be considered by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan.
Case Title: Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others
Case Number: WPC 1771/2025
The Kerala High Court today (January 15) refused to stay exhumation of Gopan Swami's body, a retired headload worker who as per his family (wife and children) reached the pinnacle of spirituality and attained 'Samadhi' on January 09, 2025.
Unconvinced by the family's claim that there was no suspicious circumstance surrounding Gopan's death, Justice C S Dias orally enquired how the man died and whether the family had obtained his death certificate.
Gopan Swami resided with his family in Thiruvanathapuram. The plea stated that he practiced sainthood and established an Ashram and constructed a Temple in his property during his worldly life. It is reported that the family buried his body, believing that he attained Samadhi as per his wishes . Based on the information given by the neighbours, the Police started an investigation into the suspicious circumstances surrounding his death and registered an FIR. The District Administration later ordered exhumation of his body for proper probe.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 22750/ 2018
The Kerala High Court was irked today at the audacity of the Kerala Secretariat Employees Association (KSEA) in allegedly installing an illegal hoarding in front of the State Secretariat, despite prohibitory orders passed by it.
"This Court is unable to understand how, even after repeated orders and action that have been issued and completed, anybody has the temerity to put up any board/flag, much less that of the size now reported. To add to this, it is alleged to have been put up by an Association, with its office bearers being civil servants," Justice Devan Ramachandran said.
The observation was made while hearing a 2018 plea concerning unauthorized boards/ banners in public places. The Court had earlier ordered that fine of Rs. 5,000 will be collected for every unauthorised board installed.
Case Title: Jannath v State of Kerala & Other Cases
Case Number: WPC No. 31205/2024 & Other Cases
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (January 16) orally observed that women in India face discrimination at multiple levels due their inter-sectionality, adding that the new legislation being drafted by the State to protect women at workplace in the aftermath of shocking revelations made by the Hema Committee Report, must address these issues. "Although we have tackled discrimination to some extent, inter-sectionality is not usually addressed...There is still a big gap in inter-sectionality discrimination in multiple levels. Like a Dalit woman, she faces discrimination in multiple levels, as a woman and due to her social status. Not so much in Kerala but in northern states, it is more," Special Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C. S. Sudha orally observed.
Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala V State Of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court today (January 16) expressed disinclination towards a resident's plea to enhance the compensation announced by the State government to rehabilitate the survivors of the deadly landslides that hit the hilly areas of Wayanad last year.
The State has announced a housing township or compensation capped at Rs. 15 lakh. Moreover, after resettlement, the survivors will continue to retain ownership of the land they own in affected areas.
Baiju Mathews, a local, sought an increase in the compensation amount. However, the Division Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. orally observed that the quantum of compensation is a 'policy decision' of the government, rooted in humanitarian grounds, and the affected population cannot claim it as a 'right' or contest its adequacy.
Case Title: Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 778/ 2025
Malayalam news channel Reporter TV's consulting editor Arun Kumar K and Sub-editor Shabas Ahammed S have approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a POCSO case, lodged for allegedly sexually harassing a child.
They are booked under Section 11(i) (Sexually harassing a child by words or gesture) of the POCSO Act.
The plea will be heard by Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan.