Citations: 2026 : LiveLaw (Ker) 397 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 418Nominal IndexP. v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398V v. P and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400P. Gopinathan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v Muhammed...
Citations: 2026 : LiveLaw (Ker) 397 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
Nominal Index
P. v. R, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
V v. P and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
P. Gopinathan v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v Muhammed and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
Shresha N. and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
Ismail C. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
A v. B., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
Naman Ajay v. Union of India and Ors. and Karthika Sivaji v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
Mubina Muhamed K.M and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
Anju Mary Francis v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
Anil Kumar P.R v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Eruvessy Grama Panchayath v Tankappan, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
Dipin Edavana v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Mar Joseph Pamplany v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
Joshy K.J. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
X v. The State Medical Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: P. v. R
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, observed that married life must be reviewed as a whole and that a few instances would not amount to cruelty.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. made the observation while dismissing a matrimonial appeal preferred by a husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition.
Case Title: Mahesh B. @ Mahesh Panju and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 398
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression "persons distinguished in the field of visual arts" under the Regulations governing the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022, must receive a broad, contextual interpretation and cannot be confined to its dictionary meaning, observing that the Government must have flexibility in constituting award juries.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while delivering the judgment in writ challenging the Kerala State Television Awards, 2022.
Case Title: V v. P and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 399
The Kerala High Court has held that a husband's failure to pay maintenance to his wife and child constitutes economic abuse amounting to domestic violence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging concurrent orders directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and minor daughter under Act.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 400
The Kerala High Court recently closed suo motu proceedings concerning the procurement of pooja materials for Sabarimala rituals after the Travancore Devaswom Board's (TDB) decision to end the long-standing practice of Administrative Officers procuring Vazhipadu (offerings) materials.
Calling the arrangement a "grossly unholy practice in a holy place", the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar directed the Board to implement similar procurement reforms across all temples under its administration.
Kerala High Court Upholds Law That Limits Interest On Delayed Gratuity To Gratuity Amount
Case Title: P. Gopinathan v. Union of India
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 401
The Kerala High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the second proviso to Section 8 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, holding that the statutory cap restricting recoverable interest on delayed gratuity to the amount of gratuity itself is a matter of legislative policy and does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering a writ petition filed by a retired employee challenging the provision after he was denied a portion of the interest recovered from his employer through revenue recovery proceedings.
Case Title: Inspector General of Registration and Anr. v Muhammed and connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 402
The Kerala High Court has held that a power of attorney (PoA) executed by a person residing abroad in favour of a person in India relating to an immovable property, must be compulsorily registered under Section 17(1)(g) of the Registration Act, 1908, before it is used to sell the said property.
A Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K delivered the judgment in a writ appeal filed by the State of Kerala against separate judgments of a Single Judge.
Case Title: Santhosh v. E.A. Sainaba and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 403
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, clarified that in motor accident cases, the compensation awarded to a pillion rider cannot be reduced because the motorcycle rider is liable for contributory negligence.
Justice Anil K. Narendran rendered the finding in an appeal filed by a pillion rider challenging the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal's award in an accident involving a two-wheeler and a stage carriage.
Case Title: Shresha N. and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 404
The Kerala High Court denied pre-arrest bail to six DYFI leaders, who were booked for assaulting police officers during protest march against the State's liquor policy.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath found that the allegations against the applicants were very serious and that custodial interrogation is necessary for investigation, which is still in the preliminary stage.
Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Man Booked For Hurling Bomb At Wrong House
Case Title: Ismail C. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 405
The Kerala High Court recently denied anticipatory bail to a man, who is booked for hurling a bomb, albeit at the wrong house.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath dismissed the pre-arrest bail application filed by the man, who was arrayed by the Kannur Kuthuparamba police in a crime.
Wife's Offer To Resume Cohabitation Can't Defeat Husband's Divorce Plea After Failed Reconciliation Attempts: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A v. B.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision observed that a husband cannot be denied divorce merely because his wife stated that she is ready and willing to resume cohabitation, when the many attempts at their reconciliation failed.
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen dismissed a wife's appeal challenging the decree of dissolution of marriage granted to the husband by the Family Court.
Case Title: Muhashib v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 407
The Kerala High Court recently granted bail to an NDPS accused after finding that the legal requirement to inform his relative or friend about arrest was not satisfied in the case.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the grounds of arrest was communicated only to the father of the applicant's live-in partner, who is a co-accused (accused No. 2) in the case. This, according to the Court, did not satisfy the legal requirement under Section 48 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
Case Titles: Naman Ajay v. Union of India and Ors. and Karthika Sivaji v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 408
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 29) held that salary income of the parents must be included while deciding whether a person falls under Creamy Layer or not for the purpose of reservation in professional colleges.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas dismissed two writ petitions filed by KEAM and NEET aspirants praying for a declaration that they fall under the Non-Creamy Layer after their applications were declined for high income.
Case Title: Asha S.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 409
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to consider the representation preferred by the women conductors of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) seeking two days' paid menstrual leave.
Justice Viju Abraham directed the State government to consider and pass orders on the petitioners' representation without delay, within 3 months from the date of receipt of the judgment after affording them an opportunity of hearing.
Case Title: Mubina Muhamed K.M and Ors. v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 410
The Kerala High Court has observed that the existence of a complaint cannot be used by the police to compel the opposite parties to settle or abide by any demands of the complainant. The Court further added that such an action or conduct cannot be resorted to under the guise of any inquiry.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a petition alleging harassment by the police by compelling the appearance of the petitioner before the police without any basis.
Case Title: Anju Mary Francis v. Kerala Public Service Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 411
The Kerala High Court has held that the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) cannot deny the facility of a scribe to an eligible candidate merely because she does not have a benchmark disability of 40% or more under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon delivered the judgment in writ petition filed by a 21 year old woman challenging KPSC's refusal to provide her with a scribe for the LD Typist examination.
Kerala High Court Upholds 60 Years Age Bar On Reappointment Of Government Law Officers
Case Title: Anil Kumar P.R v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 412
The Kerala High Court has held that a Government Law Officer who accepted an appointment subject to the condition that his tenure would end on attaining the age of 60 years cannot subsequently challenge that condition and seek reappointment or extension after crossing the prescribed age limit.
Justice Viju Abraham dismissed a writ petition filed by a former Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the Additional District and Sessions Court-II, Pathanamthitta, challenging the State Government's refusal to consider his request for reappointment by granting age relaxation.
Case Title: The Eruvessy Grama Panchayath v Tankappan
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 413
The Kerala High Court has held that a Grama Panchayat can be held liable to pay compensation to victims of stray dog attacks where the injury is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of its failure to discharge statutory duties imposed under the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act and the Animal Birth Control framework.
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment in a regular second appeal, resolving conflicting Single Bench decisions on whether local bodies incur civil liability merely because a person is bitten by a stray dog.
Case Title: Dipin Edavana v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has held that when a complainant levels serious allegations against a public official, compelling the complainant to participate in a joint hearing with the very officer accused of misconduct violates the principles of fairness and natural justice.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition challenging a compliance report submitted by the Additional Chief Secretary, Home & Vigilance Department, which had concluded that the petitioner's allegations against senior police officer S. Sreejith, IPS, were "false and vexatious."
Case Title: Mar Joseph Pamplany v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has recently (27 July) closed a writ petition filed by Mar Joseph Pamplany, seeking police intervention to prevent alleged criminal trespass inside St. Mary's Cathedral Basilica, Broadway, Ernakulam, after the petitioner informed the court that no further relief was required.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the order, making it clear that the dismissal of the writ petition would not prejudice the rights of any party in the civil disputes pending between them.
Case Title: Joshy K.J. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that putting a vibrating machine on the victim's vaginal opening amounts to 'penetrative sexual assault' punishable under the POCSO Act as well as rape punishable under the Indian Penal Code.
Justice A. Badharudeen referred to Section 3 of the POCSO Act [Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act], which defines penetrative sexual assault and Section 375 IPC, and opined:
“Here M.O2 vibrator fixed with M.O1 penis like structure was placed on the vagina of the victim in vibrating mode…placing a vibrating machine on the orifice of the vagina viz., labia majora, or vulva, by itself would be sufficient to find insertion of M.O1 on the vagina and the same is sufficient to hold that a person committed penetrative sexual assault as defined under Section 3(b) punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Similar is the position with regard to the offence of rape defined under Section 375(b) of the IPC.”
Case Title: X v. The State Medical Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court recently held that a person under the MEDISEP scheme cannot be denied reimbursement of treatment expenses merely because he went to a non-empanelled hospital.
Justice Viju Abraham allowed the plea seeking expeditious consideration of his application for reimbursement of treatment expenses for Acute Myeloid Leukaemia.
Kerala High Court Asks Guruvayur Devaswom To Consider Re-Naming Ritual Named After Court
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 Live Law (Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court recently asked the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to consider renaming its 'kodathi vilakku' event in the temple as it may be mistaken to have some endorsement by the judiciary.
The event is organized by the advocates practicing in Chavakkad Court and conducted during Ekadashi festival in Guruvayur temple.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, however, refused to ban the event.
Other Developments This Week
Case No: WP(C) No. 16514 of 2023 & WP(C) No. 16530 of 2023
Case Title: Sangita Iyer v. Guruvayur Devaswom and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently passed an interim order giving a slew of directions to the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee (GDMC) for ensuring the welfare of 39 elephants, which are presently at Punnathur Anakkotta in Thrissur District.
Punnathur Anakkotta is owned by the Guruvayur Devaswom, and it houses the Devaswom's elephants, which are dedicated for temple rituals and festivals.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the directions in a plea seeking to classify Punnathur Anakkotta as a zoo under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Case No: WP(C) No. 21065 of 2026
Case Title: MB v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 28) directed the State government to ensure that the viral Kumbh Mela star is not taken out of the jurisidictional limits of Cochin city against her will and without its further orders.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, thus, effectively barred the Kerala Police from handing her over to the Madhya Pradesh Police without the Court's permission, after being informed that the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) had directed the Kerala DGP to ensure that she is handed over to the MP Police in accordance with due process of law.
ED Officials Attack: Kerala High Court Seeks State's Response On Bail Plea Of Accused
Case Nos: Bail Appl. No. 4201 of 2026 and connected cases
Case Titles. Kiran P.S. v. State of Kerala and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 29) sought the State's response on the regular bail plea preferred by Kiran P.S., who is arrayed as an accused in the crime registered pursuant to the attack on Enforcement Directorate officials.
The case refers to the alleged attack on ED officials and damage to vehicles following an ED search operation at the residence of Opposition Leader Of Kerala, Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter on May 27.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath today granted time to the public prosecutor to take instructions in the matter and posted it tomorrow along with connected cases.
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 6414/2026
Case Title: Ansiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Malayalam actor Ansiba Hassan has moved the Kerala High Court challenging a Magistrate order, refusing to direct the police to register an FIR and open an investigation against actor Lakshmi Priya and two others, based on Hassan's complaint.
According to her plea, Hassan had preferred the complaint stating that the accused persons circulated objectionable videos of her on social media with an intent to tarnish her reputation and subject her to harassment and public humiliation.
Case No: DBP No. 61 of 2023
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 28) directed the Guruvayur Devaswom Managing Committee to take immediate corrective measures to ensure conduct of audit of the finances of the Board in strict compliance with the Guruvayur Devaswom Act.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar issued the directions after flagging many issues presently faced in the concurrent audit mechanism contemplated under the Act.
Kerala High Court Stays Operation Of Govt Order Reorganising Police Associations In State
Case Title: Kerala Police Association v. The State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 26155/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (30 July) stayed the operation of a Government Order that restructures police personnel associations.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the interim direction on a plea filed by Kerala Police Association (KPA).
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 6414/2026
Case Title: Ansiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 30) admitted a plea filed by actor Ansiba Hassan challenging a Magistrate order, refusing to direct the police to register an FIR and open an investigation against actor Lakshmi Priya and two others of CAN Channel, based on Hassan's complaint.
Justice Jobin Sebastian granted time to the public prosecutor representing the State, the SHO Palarivattom and the District Police Chief, Ernakulam to take instructions in the matter and posted the case after one week.
Case No: OP (Crl.) No. 23/2022
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 30) orally questioned the State for not complying with its direction to fast-track investigation into the FIRs registered pursuant to its order based on actor Dileep's plea against media trial and alleged publication of trial details in the 2017 Actress Assault case.
On February 20, the Court had directed the State to complete the investigation in the FIRs within two months. Last month, the Court had orally warned that it would initiate contempt proceedings if there is failure to comply with the order and complete investigation.
When the matter came up before Justice Jobin Sebastian, the public prosecutor sought time to take instructions in the matter.
Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges BCI Chairman's Orders "Controlling" State Bar Council After Fresh Elections
Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v. Bar Council of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 26232/ 2026
A writ petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court challenging a series of orders issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI), contending that the BCI has no statutory authority to continue exercising control over the affairs of the Bar Council of Kerala after the newly elected XIII Bar Council was constituted.
The petition has been filed by advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy, an elected member of the XIII Bar Council of Kerala.
Case No: Filing Number El.Pet. 6/2026
Case Title: T.I. Madhusoodhanan v. V. Kunhikrishnan and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 30) sought the response of Payyannur MLA V. Kunhikrishnan in the election petition filed by CPI(M) leader T.I. Madhusoodhanan challenging the former's recent victory in the 2026 Assembly Elections.
Justice G. Girish issued notice to the MLA and posted the case to September 8 for further consideration.
Kerala High Court Extends Stay On Sexual Assault Case Against 'Manjummel Boys' Director Chidambaram
Case No: Crl.MC No. 6026/2026
Case Title: Chidambaram S. Poduval v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 30) extended the stay granted to Manjummel Boys director Chidambaram S. Poduval in the sexual assault case alleged against him.
On July 20, the Court had stayed all further proceedings in the committal proceedings pending against the director before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam. It had also issued notice to the de facto complainant.
Justice Jobin Sebastian extended the stay and posted the case to September 11 (Tuesday) for awaiting return of notice to the complainant.
Ex-Devaswom Minister Moves Kerala High Court Challenging BJP MLA V. Muraleedharan's Election Win
Case No: Filing No. El.Pet. 8/ 2026
Case Title: Kadakampally Surendran v. V. Muraleedharan and Ors.
An election petition has been moved by CPI(M) leader and former Minister for Co-Operation, Tourism, and Devaswom Kadakampally Surendran challenging the victory of BJP MLA and former Union minister V. Muraleedharan from Thiruvananthapuram's Kazhakoottam constituency.
When the case came before Justice Harisankar V. Menon, Senior Advocate T. Krishnanunni appearing for Surendran sought permission to answer the defects noted by the Register.
Case Title: Adv. S. Deepak v. The Kerala State Election Commissioner and Ors.
Case No: WA 1435/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 28) issued notice to the State Election Commission and 20 councillors of the Thiruvananthapuram Municipal Corporation in an appeal seeking to invalidate the election of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor— on the ground that 20 councillors who participated in the election had taken an invalid statutory oath.
The appeal also challenges the Single Judge's decision protecting the official acts of those councillors despite declaring their oath legally invalid.
A Division Bench comprising Justice K. Nataraj and Justice Johnson John issued notice on the writ appeal filed by advocate S.P. Deepak and posted the matter for further consideration on August 17.
Case Title: K.S. Sabarinadhan v. Rajeev Chandrasekhar
Case No: El. Pet. 3/ 2026 (Filing No.)
Former Congress MLA K.S. Sabarinadhan has approached the Kerala High Court challenging the election win of BJP State President, Rajeev Chandrasekhar from Thiruvananthapuram's Nemom constituency.
When the matter was taken up, before Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A, the counsel for the petitioner sought time to cure the defects in filing.
IUML Candidate CH Rasheed Moves Kerala High Court Challenging CPI(M) MLA NK Akbar's Election Win
Case No: Filing No. El.Pet. 7/ 2026
Case Title: Abdul Rasheed C.H. @ C.H. Rasheed v. N.K. Akbar
An election petition has been moved before the Kerala High Court challenging the election win of CPI(M) MLA N.K. Akbar from Thrissur's Guruvaryur constituency.
Akbar has been serving as Guruvayur MLA since 2021. The challenge was made by runner-up and Indian Union Muslim League candidate C.H. Rasheed.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon granted time to the counsel representing Rasheed to verify the defects noted by the Registry.
Case No: Filing No. El.Pet. 10/ 2026
Case Title: Jaisappan Mathai v. Reji Cheriyan
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 31) sought the response of Kuttanad constituency MLA Reji Cheriyan to the the election petition challenging his victory in the recent Assembly elections.
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan issued notice to the Congress MLA and posted the case to August 20.
Case Title: T.N. Prathapan @ Prathapan T.N. v. C. Ravindranathan @ Prof. C. Ravindranath
Case No: El. Pet. 4/ 2026 (Filing No.)
An election petition has been moved challenging the election win of CPI(M) MLA Prof. C. Ravindranath from Thrissur's Manalur Constituency.
C. Ravindranath, who has been the member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly from Puthukkad constituency in Thrissur since 2011, contested from Manalur during the 2026 Assembly election. He had also served as the Minister for General Education from 2018 - 2021.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A granted time to the counsel representing petitioner, who sought time cure the filing defect.
Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v Bar Council of India and Ors. and Prasad Chandran and Anr v BCI and Anr.
Case No: WP(C) 26232/ 2026 and WP(C) 25168/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 31) stayed the operation of an order issued by the Chairman of the Bar Council of India (BCI) constituting a Limited Interim Authority for the Bar Council of Kerala, holding that the inclusion of a former Bar Council Chairman who was no longer an elected member prima facie violated the democratic scheme of the Advocates Act, 1961.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the interim order while admitting two writ petitions challenging the BCI Chairman's order dated June 30, 2026.
Case No: WP(C) 29179/ 2025
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.
In March, the Court had ordered the State to establish Special NDPS Court in Thrissur, Palakkad, and Manjeri and, to operationalise two additional courts at Thiruvananthapuram and Ernakulam, which were earlier sanctioned by the government.
It had also directed appointment of permanent staff in these courts to ensure long-term accountability and institutional loyalty. Moreover, there was a direction for the State to approach the central government as per the Scheme for Special Assistance to States for Capital Investment 2025- 2026 for financial assistance.
The Special Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran orally questioned the State as to why the courts have not been established despite repeated extension of time.
Case Title: C.P. Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 32680/ 2008
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 31) directed the Kochi Corporation to formulate a comprehensive protocol for pedestrian infrastructure across the city within one month, noting that the Supreme Court's recent declaration of safe footpaths as a fundamental right requires local authorities to ensure meaningful protection of pedestrian rights.
Justice Devan Ramachandran passed the direction while monitoring issues relating to the condition of roads and public infrastructure in the State.
Case Title: Rahul K.T. v. St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church
Case No: RP1394/ 2025 in WP(C) 22750/ 2018
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 31) questioned the State Government's failure to implement its directions against unauthorised flags, banners, hoardings and festoons in the State, observing that continued inaction by statutory authorities would reduce the rule of law to a "sheer mockery."
Justice Devan Ramachandran thus directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit explaining the steps taken to ensure compliance with its previous judgment.