LiveLaw Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 04 – October 11, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 545 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 570Nominal IndexS. Aswakumar v. Kochouseph Chittilappilly, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 545Hiran Das Murali v. Regional Passport Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 546Ameya Sandeep (Minor) v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 547K v. I, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 548K.P. Babu v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 549X v....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 545 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Nominal Index
S. Aswakumar v. Kochouseph Chittilappilly, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Hiran Das Murali v. Regional Passport Officer and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
Ameya Sandeep (Minor) v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
K v. I, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
K.P. Babu v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 549
X v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
N.A. Thoufeeque v. The State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
Jalaja M. v. The District Police Chief and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
A v. D, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
Aswathi G.R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
Balan P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
Udayan v. X and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
X and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
Anilkumar v. Anitha Kumari and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
Mohammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
Sindhu S. Nair. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) and Anr. v. Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Ors. and M/s C. Jacob & Company v. Tritvam Apartment, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala State Waqf Board v M.K. Venu and Ors. and connected case, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
Prasad Mahendragiri v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
P. Imbichi Koya v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
X v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
Prof. Monamma Kokkad v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
K.C. Unni and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
Rajendran v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
C.R. Neelakandan v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Kerala High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Businessman Kochouseph Chittilappilly
Case Title: S. Aswakumar v. Kochouseph Chittilappilly
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed the criminal contempt case initiated against businessman Kochouseph Chittilappilly for allegedly making remarks against a sitting judge.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. set aside the Advocate General's order granting sanction to initiate contempt proceedings against Chitillapilly.
Case Title: Hiran Das Murali v. Regional Passport Officer and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Regional Passport Officer, Ernakulam to issue a customized Police Clearance Certificate (PCC) to Malayalam rapper Vedan to enable him to perform abroad.
Justice Murali Purushothaman was considering a writ petition filed by Vedan, officially known as Hirandas, who sought a Police Clearance Certificate after he was invited to perform in UK and Ireland.
Case Title: Ameya Sandeep (Minor) v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to consider a representation seeking the inclusion of rugby in the Kerala State School Athletic and Games Meet.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas issued the direction while disposing of a writ petition filed by a plus one student who is a rugby player. The petitioner claimed to have participated in the 2026 National Rugby Championships in the Girls Under-18 category.
Case Title : K v. I
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that husband's consent or acceptance is immaterial when Muslim wife invokes extra-judicial divorce in the form of 'Khula'.
The Division Bench of Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held:
“'Khula' is the form of divorce conferred upon the wife similar to 'talaq' conferred upon the husband. The recognition of 'khula' as a form of divorce is directly available from the Holy Quran. In Chapter II Verses 228-229, Quran confers rights on both husband and wife to unilaterally divorce the spouse. The husband cannot refuse to accede to the request of the wife. The validity of 'khula' does not depend upon the acceptance or consent of the husband; rather, it constitutes a right available to the wife for dissolution of the marriage. The significance of invoking 'khula' is absolute.”
Case Title: K.P. Babu v. Land Revenue Commissioner and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court has observed that a public opinion or public objection cannot be considered as a reason to reject an application for explosive license, unless accompanied by a valid ground recognisable in the Explosive Rules.
Justice C. Jayachandran was considering a writ petition challenging orders that rejected the petitioner's application for an explosive license.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court recently held that low IQ or intellectual disability would not make an accused unfit for trial if he has the functional capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.
Justice Jobin Sebastian referred to Section 368 [Procedure in case of person with mental illness tried before Court] of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and observed:
“It is significant that the mere fact that an accused has a low IQ or suffers from intellectual disability does not, by itself, render him incapable of making his defence or unfit to stand trial. The statutory test is whether the disability or mental condition is of such a nature as to render the accused incapable of entering upon his defence. Therefore, the existence of an intellectual disability has to be considered in the context of the actual functional capacity of the accused to understand and participate in the proceedings. If the mere existence of intellectual disability or a low IQ were sufficient to render an accused incapable of standing trial, every person suffering from such disability would, irrespective of the degree of functional capacity possessed by him, be excluded from criminal proceedings.”
Kerala High Court Directs Restoration Of Damaged Munakkal Beach Facilities
Case Title: N.A. Thoufeeque v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
The Kerala High Court has directed the authorities concerned including the Kerala Maritime Board to examine allegations of damage to public amenities at Munakkal Beach in Thrissur and take appropriate steps for their restoration.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the direction in a public interest litigation which alleged that 'Muziris Golden Vibes' a public company owned by the Government that manages and develops the Muziris Heritage Project had caused damage to the walkways, steel handrails, wheelchair ramps and lawns at Munakkal Beach.
Case Title: Jalaja M. v. The District Police Chief and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, directed the Chairperson of Payyanur Muncipality in Kannur to convene a meeting to demarcate a space for street vendors so that they do not encroach upon any footpath.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan remarked:
“Payyanur town needs a practical and humane response to footpath encroachment. It is true that the economic vulnerability of poor street vendors should be recognised; at the same time, we cannot overlook that pedestrians are forced onto the busy road because the pavement has been occupied. If anyone obstructs the public's free movement on the pathway, the Municipality and the police should address it. Street vendors can do business without encroaching on the pathway in a place earmarked for them. The Municipality should make necessary arrangements to ensure that their livelihood is not denied.”
Physical Disability Immaterial If Husband Has Means To Maintain Wife: Kerala High Court
Case Title: A v. D
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a person cannot evade his responsibility of maintaining his wife after entering into marriage despite knowing that he is incapable of fulfilling his conjugal obligations.
Justice G. Girish made the observation while dismissing a revision petition filed by a man challenging an order directing him to pay ₹10,000 per month as maintenance to his wife.
Case Title: Aswathi G.R. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 6) has set aside the prevention detention of BJP Councillor from Thiruvananthapuram Sugathan R., who is presently detained in Viyyur Jail (Thrissur) as per the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAPA).
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. today delivered the verdict in a writ petition preferred by Sugathan's wife to quash the order of preventive detention passed on June 8 as well as the order of approval issued by the State government.
Case Title: Balan P.K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court has ordered a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the disappearance of a Tripura State Rifles jawan who went missing more than 14 years ago while travelling by train from Kerala to Guwahati.
Justice G. Girish observed,
“Peaceful sleep of the civilian is at the cost of sleepless nights, vigilance and sacrifice of the soldier. The civilian society of the Nation in return, owes a responsibility to stand by the soldier who protects them, in case he faces a crisis in personal life.”
Case Title: Udayan v. X and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court recently held that hiding live-in relationship with another woman and child born in it would amount to 'deceitful means' employed to have sexual intercourse with a woman as per Section 69 BNS.
Justice A. Badharudeen made the observation while considering a plea for anticipatory bail under Section 18A of the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act.
Case Title: X and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
The Kerala High Court recently refused to quash the matrimonial cruelty case against the parents-in-law of a woman, who allegedly referred to her as 'servant without wages' and 'cancer in their lives'.
Justice G. Girish observed that there are multiple incidents of matrimonial cruelty attributed against the husband's parents and that the same are prima facie sufficient to attract the offence under Section 498A IPC. It was opined that the veracity of the same are to be tested in trial and the case cannot be quashed at the present stage.
Case Title: Anilkumar v. Anitha Kumari and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court recently held that courts cannot impose deposit of a percentage of the award amount as condition while considering an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay in preferring an appeal.
Justice Jobin Sebastian opined that such a condition may be justified when the appellate court is considering an application for stay of execution of the award but not while considering an application for condonation of delay.
Case Title: Mohammed J.I. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 7) declined the plea for in-camera trial in the SFI activist Abhimanyu murder case which is pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Justice C.S. Dias upheld the order of the trial court that dismissed the accused's request for in-camera trial.
The Court, however, directed the trial court to ensure that there is no photography or video-recording of the trial or the accused while they are inside the courtroom.
Case Title: Sindhu S. Nair. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court recently ordered police protection after the manager of a school obstructed the headmistress' entry for wearing churidar instead of saree.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan also declared that a citizen's choice of attire is a part of fundamental right:
“What dress one wears is ordinarily a matter of personal choice of every citizen of this country. No one or society as a whole can dictate how a citizen should dress without the backing of the law. This is a part of the fundamental rights of every citizen…I declare that a citizen's attire is his/her choice, and nobody can insist that it conform to society's customs, nor can anybody dictate that it be in a manner acceptable to society, especially when no law backs it. These are individual choices of the citizen. If any such dictate is made, it is the duty of the law-enforcing authority to take appropriate steps in accordance with law forthwith.”
Case Title: Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) and Anr. v. Tritvam Apartment Owners Association (TAOA) and Ors. and M/s C. Jacob & Company v. Tritvam Apartment
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 7) held that the Goshree Islands Development Authority (GIDA) is entitled to set up commercial kiosks at the Queen's Walkway in Kochi.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. set aside an order of the Single Bench, which barred construction of the kiosks citing that the same would affect the legal rights of the pedestrians.
Waqf Tribunal Can Permit Interrogatories Under Order XI CPC: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Kerala State Waqf Board v M.K. Venu and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court has held that a Waqf Tribunal possesses the power to permit parties to deliver interrogatories under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as it is deemed as a civil court under Section 83(5) of the Waqf Act, 1995.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. delivered the judgment in appeals filed by the Kerala State Waqf Board challenging the orders of the Waqf Tribunal that allowed the delivery of interrogatories to the State Waqf Board.
Case Title: Prasad Mahendragiri v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court recently held that utterance of general abuse or obscene words at a woman without any specific allegation of a sexually coloured remark would not attract the offence of sexual harassment as per Section 354A(1)(iv) of the Indian Penal Code.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“the mere utterance of obscene words would not, by itself, automatically attract an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC. There must be a specific allegation that the accused had made sexually coloured remarks against the de facto complainant. A general abuse directed at a woman does not, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 354A(1)(iv) of the IPC.”
Case Title: P. Imbichi Koya v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
The Kerala High Court recently held that an authorized government officer's complaint is not necessary to prosecute a notary, who intentionally participates in document forgery.
Justice A. Badharudeen held that the afore protection provided under Section 13(1) of the Notaries Act would be applicable only when the notary is performing the duties under the statute.
Case Title: X v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, appointed a guardian for a 93-year-old woman with dementia and Alzheimer's disease while considering her sister's plea under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas remarked that courts must appoint guardians for persons with dementia or Alzheimer's disease if the conditions get worse and if satisfied that the circumstances warrant it.
Kerala High Court Directs Police To Strictly Enforce Public Smoking Ban, Calls For Awareness Drives
Case Title: Prof. Monamma Kokkad v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
The Kerala High Court has recently directed the State Police to continue complying with its earlier judgment prohibiting smoking in public places and strictly enforce the applicable statutory provisions.
The Court further directed the government authorities to conduct awareness programmes on the legal prohibition and the harmful effects of passive smoking.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M.issued the directions while disposing of a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by retired professor Monamma Kokkad, who alleged that the prohibition against public smoking was not being effectively enforced across Kerala.
Case Title: Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 9) directed the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau to register an FIR incorporating offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena and son-in-law Mohammed Riyas in the CMRL-Exalogic payoff case.
Justice A. Badharudeen further held that the government's decision to conduct preliminary enquiry without registration of FIR is illegal considering the facts of the case since the Directorate of Enforcement passed on information regarding commission of PC Act offences while investigating offences under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act [PMLA].
Case Title: K.C. Unni and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 9) ordered further investigation into the death of violinist Balabhaskar, who had a fatal car accident in 2018.
Justice G. Girish allowed the plea preferred by the late musician's parents and directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to entrust the investigation to an officer of proven integrity, not below the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police.
Case Title: Rajendran v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man convicted under Section 354 IPC, holding that the alleged act of hitting a woman on her chest with an elbow, in the circumstances of the case, did not establish the requisite intention to outrage her modesty.
Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the criminal revision petition and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Chalakudy, which had subsequently been affirmed by the Additional Sessions Court-III, Thrissur.
Case Title: C.R. Neelakandan v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
The Kerala High Court recently disposed of a public interest litigation that raised concerns over the protection of passengers' personal data collected at airports through digital systems, such as Digi Yatra.
When the matter came up on Wednesday, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed:
"The issue raised by the writ petitioner cannot be ignored, as we find that the privacy of citizens is being compromised."
Other Developments This Week
Five Additional Judges Sworn-In As Permanent Judges Of Kerala High Court
On 05 October, 2026 the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court, Justice Soumen Sen administered oath of office to the newly appointed Permanent Judges of the Kerala High Court -
(i) Justice P. Krishna Kumar,
(ii) Justice K.V. Jayakumar,
(iii) Justice Muralee Krishna S,
(iv) Justice Jobin Sebastian, and
(v) Justice P.V. Balakrishnan
Case No: WP(Crl.) 1497/ 2026
Case Title: Kerala Public Service Commission and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 5) questioned why the members of the Kerala Public Service Commission were not cooperating with the Crime Branch investigation into the alleged irregularities in the examination for recruitment to the State Planning Board.
Justice A. Badharudeen was hearing a plea moved by the KPSC challenging Crime Branch FIR registered to probe into the alleged irregularities.
Case Title: AIIMS Kasargod Janakeeya Koottayma v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Case Number: WP(C) 18550/ 2024
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (07 October) questioned the Centre's stand on the long-pending proposal to establish an All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Kerala, asking whether the State's comparatively better healthcare infrastructure had effectively become a “handicap”.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar was considering writ petitions seeking establishment of AIIMS under the Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY).
Kerala High Court Directs State To Notify Anti-Ragging Guidelines Within Two Weeks
Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v. Government of Kerala and Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 8600 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (06 October) directed the State Government to notify the proposed Anti-Ragging and Student Welfare Guidelines, 2026, within two weeks, while observing that issues relating to enhanced punishment and reclassification of ragging offences would require amendments to the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran was considering a public interest litigation moved by KeLSA (Kerala State Legal Services Authority), seeking stronger laws to combat the menace of ragging within educational institutions.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 40608/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 7) set timelines for the Special Investigation Team to request for prosecution sanction and for submitting final reports in the Sabarimala Gold Theft cases.
Time has been granted till October 25 in the Doorframes case. In the Dwarapalaka idols case, the time granted is till November 25.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar recorded the submission made by Sasidharan IPS, the investigating officer heading the SIT that the report from the National Metallurgical Laboratory is yet to be received and is expected to be ready by October 12.
Case Title: Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: WP(PIL) 92/ 2026
The Kerala High Court has recently warned that if the District Collectors fails to constitute the District Animals Markets Monitoring Committees in every district within a period of eight weeks, directions will be issued to close down all livestock markets.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M issued the direction in a public interest litigation seeking stoppage of cattle markets operating without thatched roofs, in violation of the Livestook Market Rules.