Kerala High Court Dismisses Journalist MR Ajayan's Review Plea, Upholds ₹40K Cost For Moving Vacation Bench Without Urgency

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (03 February) dismissed a review petition filed by M R Ajayan, a freelance journalist, against an order of the vacation bench, imposing costs which amounted to a total of Rs 40,000.

A division bench comprising Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the review petition challenging an interim order of the Vacation bench of the Court, which found Ajayan had filed Section 8 interlocutory applications before it, without any urgency.

For context, Section 8 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 deals with the Powers of the Vacation Judge. A Section 8 petition is generally filed before a vacation bench when the matter is of urgent nature.

The vacation bench of the Court had found that the petitioner had filed four different interlocutory applications in different matters before the Court and failed to show the reason for urgency.

The matters included the petition seeking CBI investigation into the affairs between CMRL and Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan; PIL relating to Paliyekkara Toll Plaza, petition relating to Sabarimala Makaravilakku season, and a petition seeking CBI enquiry into Sabarimala Gold Theft.

During the vacation sitting, the lawyer representing the petitioner also failed in his representation.

The vacation bench thus imposed costs of Rs. 10,000/- each in all four cases, which totalled to Rs. 40,000/-, by a common order, even though the matters were different and distinct.

When the matter was taken up today, the Court observed that there was no error apparent in the impugned interim order and ordered,

“Considering the circumstances under which the Section 8 petitions were filed, in matters pending before this Court citing an urgency that was never there as noticed by the bench that passed the interim order. There is no error apparent in the order that requires consideration.”

The Court also cautioned that the cost will not be confined to Rs.10,000 if such instances are repeated.

“If there is one more instance the cost will not be confined to 10,000" the court said.

Case Title: M R Ajayan v Union of India

Case No: RP 126/ 2026 in WP(PIL) 24/ 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

Counsel for Petitioner: V R Manoranjan

Counsel for Respondent: K M Prabhakaran, Anjana K, O M Shalina, C Dinesh, Latha Prabhakaran, Saina Mariyam Baby

Click Here To Read/ Download Common Interim Order