Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 03 - 09, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74 – 91]Sneha Vijayan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74State of Kerala v Pradeepkumar A.V, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 75Biju Abraham and Another v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76Ciby George v District Collector & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 77Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 80Dr V K Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 81Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 82The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Sindhu K. & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 83Harilal S v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 84Jamal K. M. v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 85M.G. Sreejith V. M/S MSS Hospital And Nursing College Pvt. Ltd and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 86Anilkumar V K v Sunila P., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 87Kamakshikutty K.P V State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 88State of Kerala and Others v V. P. Aboobacker, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 89Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 90Uneen v Shoukathali, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91Judgments/ Orders This Week[KAAPA] Detaining Authority Has Duty To Provide Legible Copies Of Relevant Documents To Detenu: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sneha Vijayan v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74The Kerala High Court has held that the detaining authority under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA) has a duty to provide the detenu with legible copies of all relevant documents forming basis for the detention, including the detention order.The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that detenu would get an effective opportunity to file a representation before the Advisory Board and Government only when he has legible copies of relied-upon documents.Interim Orders Affecting Substantial Rights Of Parties And Causing Prejudice Are Appealable While Writ Petition Is Pending: Kerala HCCase Title: State of Kerala v Pradeepkumar A.VCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 75The Kerala High Court has reiterated that interim orders that affect the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and cause significant prejudice, are appealable during the pendency of the writ petition under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed thus: “The impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge is not an order merely procedural in nature. Such an order, touching upon the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and causing substantial prejudice to the appellants, is an interim ordera qualified for challenge in an appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.”Kerala High Court Flags Exponential Rise In Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says It Includes Her 'Moral And Psychological' ModestyCase Title: Biju Abraham and Another v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment expressed concern over the exponential rise in cases relating to outraging a woman's modesty. Justice A. Badharudeen said that though the law has been strengthened in the matter of sexual offences, the effective implementation of the same should be ensured.Kerala High Court Orders Demolition, Reconstruction Of Housing Towers Built For Personnel In Armed Forces Citing Structural IssuesCase Title: Ciby George v District Collector & Connected CasesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 77The Kerala High Court has ordered the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for the demolition and reconstruction of Chander Kunj Army Towers (Towers B and C).Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. further directed the District Collector to constitute a committee with experts for a proper implementation of the demolition and reconstruction of the towers with equal size and facilities.When Delay In Trial Is Solely Due To Prosecution's 'Lethargy', Personal Liberty Overrides S.37(1)(b) Of NDPS Act: Kerala HC Grants BailCase Title: Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78The Kerala High Court recently held that when the prosecution is solely responsible for the delay in concluding the trial, the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the effect of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.Justice A. Badharudeen in the present case noted that the trial could not be completed on time due to 'lethargy on the side of the prosecution'. The Court however added that bail cannot be given on the ground of delay in completion of trial if it is seen that the accused has contributed to the delay in any way.Kerala High Court Permits NDPS Accused To Go Abroad For Employment, Says Comparison With Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi 'Unwarranted'Case Title: Sooryanarayanan v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79The Kerala High...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 03 - 09, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac