LiveLaw Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 7 - September 13, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499Nominal IndexAnsiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485V. Balan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 486K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 487Aneesh v. Akhil Das, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 488Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 489Southern...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Nominal Index
Ansiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
V. Balan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Aneesh v. Akhil Das, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
Southern Railway and Anr. v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. & M/s. SVCPL-JVEA v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
Zahid Shanavas v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
Geetha and Anr. v. S. Sreejith IPS and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
C. Madhavan v. CBI, Dr. S. Anil Kumar v. CBI and Ahmed Suhail v. CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
X and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
Abdul Kader and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. & Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v. Union of India and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Archana P.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLive (Ker) 496
Firoz Kunnumal and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Sabeena v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Hajara v. The Maintenance Tribunal and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Ansiba Hassan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court has asked the Magistrate to consider afresh the private complaint made by Drishyam actor Ansiba Hassan accusing actor Lakshmi Priya and two CAN Channel representatives of making sexually coloured remarks and circulating objectionable content against her.
Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering Hassan's plea challenging an order of the Magistrate refusing to to direct the police to register an FIR and open an investigation in the complaint.
Case Title: V. Balan v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
The Kerala High Court has held that authorities scrutinising caste claims under the Kerala (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Regulation of Issue of Community Certificates Act, 1996 cannot insist that members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes discharge the same burden of proof ordinarily expected of citizens when establishing their community identity.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. held that the denial of constitutionally guaranteed benefits to members of SC/ST communities must be confined to cases of patent fraud established by independent material available with the State.
Case Title: K. Thankamma v. Moljimol K.S. @ Mol G Mol K.S. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Kerala High Court recently held that a granddaughter, who is undergoing studies after availing a student loan, cannot be expected to maintain her pension-drawing grandmother.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed an octogenarian's plea against her daughter-in-law and granddaughter seeking maintenance from them as per the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.
Case Title: Aneesh v. Akhil Das
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
The Kerala High Court held that if the electronic signatures affixed to the plaint and vakalath in a suit complied with the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021, then the Courts cannot refuse to accept it merely because the Court does not have resources to verify the said signatures.
Justice Easwaran S. issued the direction in an original petition which has challenged the refusal of the Principal Munsiff Court to number a suit since the Court did not have any resource to verify the electronic signature of the parties in the Vakalath.
Case Title: Habibur Rahman v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
The Kerala High Court recently quashed a criminal case against a man booked under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for having sexual intercourse with a married woman allegedly on the promise of marriage.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“a married woman who voluntarily accompanies another man to a hotel room and has sexual intercourse with him cannot, merely on the basis of an allegation of a promise of marriage, contend that the sexual relationship was induced solely by such promise, particularly when her subsisting marriage was not in dispute… In the circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the consent for the sexual relationship was induced by any false promise to marry the de facto complainant or by any other deceitful means. Consequently, the materials placed on record do not disclose the commission of an offence under Section 69 of the BNS.”
Case Titles: Southern Railway and Anr. v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. & M/s. SVCPL-JVEA v. Marymatha Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
The Kerala High Court has allowed MARYMATHA-KRDCL, a joint venture of K-Rail and Marymatha Infrastructure Private Limited (MIPL), to participate in a tender to re-develop Chengannur Railway Station after the Southern Railways rejected its technical bid on 'hyper-technical' grounds.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. dismissed two writ appeals and upheld the decision of a Single Bench that permitted MIPL to participate in the tender process.
Case Title: Zahid Shanavas v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
The Kerala High Court has held that a subsequent failure to fulfil a promise of marriage cannot, by itself, retrospectively convert consensual sexual intercourse into a criminal offence under Section 69 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
Justice Jobin Sebastian, issued the directions in a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Case Title: Geetha and Anr. v. S. Sreejith IPS and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
The Kerala High court has held that deferring to grant ordinary leave over fresh law and order threat to the prisoners is not willful violation of previous directions of the High Court quashing restrictions imposed on leave.
Justice G.Girish made the observation in a contempt petition filed by mothers of the convicts in the Periya Double Murder Case, involving murder of two Youth Congress activists in Periya in Kasargod District.
Case Title: C. Madhavan v. CBI, Dr. S. Anil Kumar v. CBI and Ahmed Suhail v. CBI
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 8) upheld the order of the Additional Special Court (SPE/CBI) – II, Ernakulam dismissing the discharge plea filed by three of the accused in the 2013 gold smuggling case.
The case relates to the smuggling of around 56 kg of gold worth Rs. 17.86 crores through Cochin International Airport, causing a loss of Rs. 1.83 crores customs duties and cess to the government of India.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the pleas preferred by accused C. Madhavan (A1), Dr. S. Anil Kumar (A8) and Ahmed Suhail (A11) and, observed that there are prima facie materials available against them from the prosecution records.
Case Title: X and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, has upheld the constitutional validity of the age limits imposed by the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 on intending couples seeking surrogacy services.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John dismissed an appeal filed by an intending couple challenging the Single Bench's dismissal of their plea challenging the age limits prescribed by the Act:
“we find that the age restriction in the Surrogacy Act is based on a reasonable relationship with the required aim sought to be achieved by the law and therefore, we find that the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard are not legally sustainable.”
Case Titles: Abdul Kader and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. & Ashraf @ Asharaf Moulavi v. Union of India and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court recently denied bail to Popular Front of India (PFI) leader Ashraf Moulavi (A2), and members Abdul Kader (A19) and Firoz (A20), who are accused in the murder of RSS leader S.K. Sreenivasan in Palakkad on April 16, 2022.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. dismissed the appeals preferred challenging the Special NIA court's refusal to grant them regular bail.
The Court was of the view that the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial are not sufficient to grant bail since they have not served substantial part of the sentence likely to imposed in the offences alleged for which there are prima facie materials.
Case Title: Archana P.S. and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLive (Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 11) granted anticipatory bail to 17 SFI activists and students of Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady for allegedly restraining and assaulting their Vice-Chancellor Dr. Ciza Thomas during a campus protest.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the order granting bail to the students, who are arrayed as the accused in the crime registered by the Kalady Police.
Case Title: Firoz Kunnumal and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court recently held that a single grave act of cruelty can constitute the offence under Section 498A IPC and that a series of acts are not necessary.
Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“not every instance of harassment, disagreement, or ill-treatment between spouses would, by itself, constitute “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498A of the IPC…At the same time, it cannot be said that a series of acts is invariably necessary to constitute cruelty. A single act, if sufficiently grave and of the nature contemplated by the statutory definition, may also constitute cruelty…”
Case Title: Sabeena v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court has held that a prosecution for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained against a relative merely on the basis of general allegations of domestic discord, harassment or insulting words, unless the materials disclose the requisite mens rea and a direct or proximate nexus between the accused's conduct and the suicide.
Justice Jobin Sebastian made the observation while allowing a criminal miscellaneous case in part.
Daughter-In-Law Not Liable When Senior Citizen's Own Children Alive: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Hajara v. The Maintenance Tribunal and Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court recently held that a daughter-in-law is not liable under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 when the senior citizen's children are alive.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that a daughter-in-law would not fall within the definition of 'child' nor 'relative' under the Act when the senior citizen has other children:
“A reading of Section 9 of the Act would show that it is only the “children or relatives who can be directed to make payment of monthly maintenance to the senior citizen”…I am of the opinion that a daughter-in-law has not been roped into the provisions of the statute. True, Section 2(g) of the Act defines the term “relative” as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen. However, since admittedly the 2nd respondent has other children, including the petitioner's deceased husband, even the provisions of Section 2(g) cannot be applied.”
Other Developments This Week
Case No: WP(C) No.16603 of 2026
Case Title: Case Title: The High Court Legal Aid Committee v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court recently recorded with appreciation the State government's decision to re-name the Mental Health Centres as 'Happiness and Wellness Centres'.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji was informed about the decision by Advocate General K. Jaju Babu, who submitted that this was in consideration of the Bench's earlier order.
Case No: WP(PIL) 180/2026
Case Title: Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
A public interest litigation has been moved before the Kerala High Court raising concerns regarding the effective functioning of the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA), an independent body constituted as per the Kerala Police Act, 2011 to consider complaints against police officers
The PIL also highlights the issue of non-appointment of an independent Chief Investigating Officer (CIO) despite earlier directions in Jaffer Khan v. State of Kerala & Ors [2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 266], where a Division Bench had directed the State Government to finalise the appointment of an independent CIO in the Authority within 60 days from April 2022.
Case No: WP(Crl.) 1326/ 2026
Case Title: Rahul K. Easwar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Commentator and right-wing activist Rahul Easwar has moved the Kerala High Court seeking action against videos on social media platforms allegedly containing vulgar and sexually explicit remarks against Sabarimala deities Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma.
Easwar also sought a direction to the police authorities to act upon his complaint and register a formal criminal case against Dalit writer-activist Sunny M. Kapikad, who allegedly made these remarks.
When the matter came up before Justice G. Girish, Easwar's counsel submitted that steps will be taken to issue notice to Meta and Kapikad. Accordingly, the case was posted to September 10 for further consideration.
Kerala High Court Stays Trial In 2016 Puttingal Devi Temple Fireworks Tragedy Case
Case Title: K.P. Jabbar v State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(Crl.) 1271/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Monday (07 September) stayed the trial in the Puttingal Devi Temple Fireworks Tragedy Case.
Justice G. Girish issued the stay in a petition challenging the notification replacing the Special Public Prosecutor who was conducting the trial in the Additional Sessions Court - II, Kollam.
The Kerala High Court Chief Justice has nominated Senior Advocate Sumathi Dandapani and Advocate Girija K. Gopal to be co-opted to the Bar Council of Keralam (BCK).
The decision was made after considering the suggestions given by the elected members in a meeting convened to discuss the nomination of co-opted women members following recent Apex Court directions.
Case No: WP(C) No.16603 of 2026
Case Title: Case Title: The High Court Legal Aid Committee v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court has permitted the Indian Medical Association (IMA) and Indian Psychiatric Society (IPS) to raise their objection to the renaming of Mental Health Centres as 'Happiness and Wellness Centres' as notified by the State government.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji recorded the submissions made by Senior Advocate V.V. Asokan on behalf of IMA and IPS that the entities have some objections regarding the new name and that an opportunity may be granted to place the same before the competent government authority.
Case No: Crl.MC 7287/2026
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Social commentator and right-wing activist Rahul Easwar has moved the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the FIR registered against him in 2025 based on a Malayalam film actress' complaint accusing him of targeting her on media and making obscene comments on her body and dressing.
In the private complaint, the actress has stated that following her sexual harassment complaint against businessman Boby Chemmanur, Easwar started targeting her on media channels and social media platforms.
Case No: WP (PIL) No. 92 of 2026
Case Title: Angels Nair v. Union of India and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (September 9) directed the District Collectors/Magistrates in the State to file affidavits detailing compliance with the mandatory requirements under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Regulation of Livestock Markets) Rules, 2017 in their respective districts.
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.
Case No: Election Petition No. 6 of 2026
Case Title: Abdul Rasheed C.H. @ C.H. Rasheed v. N.K. Akbar and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (September 9) directed Meta and Google to preserve the Facebook page of Guruvayur MLA N.K. Akbar along with certain posts and Youtube videos allegedly made with his consent making allegations against IUML Candidate C.H. Rasheed during election campaign, allegedly to prejudice Rasheed's prospects.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon passed the order in the election petition filed by Rasheed alleging that Akbar engaged in corrupt practices under Section 123(4) and 123(3A) of the Representation of People Act.
Case No: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 998/2026
Case Title: X and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (September 9) stayed the order of the Juvenile Justice Board, Alappuzha that allowed the escorted movement of the children in conflict with law (CCL) for evidence collection in the Karuvatta murder case.
Justice G. Girish stayed the JJB's order dated September 7 in a criminal revision petition filed by 3 of the CCL Nos. 1 to 3 in the crime registered by the Haripad Police Station.
An elected member of the 13th Bar Council of Kerala, as well as the Bar Council of India, Advocate N. Manoj Kumar, has written to the Chief Justice of the Kerala High Court, Justice Soumen Sen, objecting to the co-option of Advocate Girija Gopal as a woman member of the Kerala Bar Council.
The Chief Justice, pursuant to the directions of the Supreme Court, had nominated two names to be co-opted as women members - Senior Advocate Sumathy Dandapani and Advocate Girija Gopal.
Case No: WP(C) No. 14599 of 2020 and Crl.MC No. 5539/2020
Case Title: M.S. Anil v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 10) ordered the personal appearance of Additional Chief Secretary of the State Backward Classes Development Department to explain why the SIT's request for prosecution sanction was not considered despite its direction.
Justice A. Badharudeen ordered:
"Direction of this Court is not complied in the matter of deciding prosecution sanction. Since there is no justification for not complying, the prayer of the public prosecutor to grant further time is rejected. Post tomorrow for the appearance of the Additional Chief Secretary for Backward Classes to explain why he failed to comply with the order."
229 Posts Needed To Strengthen Consumer Commissions In Kerala; High Court Seeks Govt Progress Report
Case Title: Adv. J Surya v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Case No: WP(PIL) 53/ 2026 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (10 September) directed the State government to apprise the progress made towards creating 229 posts for the purpose of infrastructural development of Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions across the State, including the State Commission.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V. M issued the order while considering a PIL relating to the infrastructural development of Consumer Redressal Commission across the State.
Kerala High Court Directs Meta To Block Facebook Video Containing Vulgar Remarks About Sabarimala Deities
Case No: WP(Crl.) 1326/ 2026
Case Title: Rahul K. Easwar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 10) directed Meta to temporarily block and disable a video on Facebook, which allegedly contains vulgar and sexually explicit remarks against Sabarimala deities Lord Ayyappa and Malikappurathamma.
Justice G. Girish viewed the afore post while considering a plea moved by right-wing activist Rahul Easwar, seeking takedown of the objectionable contents and registration of a formal criminal case against Dalit writer-activist Sunny M. Kapikad, who allegedly made these remarks.
Keralam Govt Enhances Retirement Age Of District Judicial Officers From 60 Yrs To 62 Yrs
The Government of Keralam has issued an order on Thursday (September 10) enhancing the age of superannuation of the judicial officers of the District Judiciary from 60 years to 62 years.
The decision comes following the Apex Court's direction on July 22 in All India Judges Association case to all States/UTs to consider enhancing the retirement age of District Judges to 61 years, after consulting with the respective High Courts.
Case Title: C.P. Ajithkumar v. State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 32680/ 2008
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (10 September) expressed displeasure over the continuing concerns relating to reckless driving and violations of traffic regulations in Kochi, despite assurances given by the police that steps would be taken to improve road safety, particularly with regard to heavy vehicles and private buses.
Justice Devan Ramachandran made the observation while considering the petition dealing with poor road conditions in the State.
Case No: WP(C) No. 14599 of 2020 and Crl.MC No. 5539/2020
Case Title: M.S. Anil v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 11) expressed its displeasure in the manner of handling of prosecution sanction in the Microfinance Fraud case, in which SNDP Yogam officers, including Vellappally Natesan, and former Managing Directors of Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Ltd. (KSBCDC) are accused.
Justice A. Badharudeen was informed by the Additional Chief Secretary of the Backward Classes Development Department, who appeared in person as per Court's direction, that she did not receive the files related to the case till yesterday.
Case No: WP(C) 31188/2026
Case Title: Dinesh Menon v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Businessman Dinesh Menon has moved the Kerala High Court seeking a declaration that Mani C. Kappan is disqualified to continue as MLA of Pala constituency following his conviction in 4 cheque dishonor cases in Mumbai earlier this month.
On September 1, the Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Borivali, Mumbai - Judicial Magistrate (First Class), 43rd Court had convicted Kappan for the offences under the Negotiable Instruments Act based on the complaints preferred by Menon.
The Kerala High Court Chief Justice has set 6 weeks as maximum time for disposal of anticipatory bail applications while setting 2 weeks as maximum time to dispose of regular bail applications before the High Court.
It has been further directed that, in regular bail application, the time granted for obtaining instructions shall not exceed seven working days.