- Home
- /
- High Courts
- /
- Kerala High Court
- /
- Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up:...
Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 6 – 12, 2025
Manju Elsa Isac
13 Jan 2025 7:00 PM IST
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3- 15]Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3- 15]
Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
Uvais Muhammad K.C. And Another V. State Of Kerala And Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Harish Kumar KP v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Alex C. Joseph v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 3
While considering whether cross-examination of witnesses present in court can be done from a remote point, the Kerala High Court said that the courts can allow advocates to conduct cross-examination through video conferencing mode.
Justice V. G. Arun said that courts need not deny such request just because it is not expressly allowed in Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala), 2021. The Court however added that the permission need not be granted as a right but can be allowed if there are valid reasons.
Case Title: Manjusha K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 4
While refusing to order CBI probe into former Kannur ADM Naveen Babu's death, the Kerala High Court today observed that accused merely having ties with the ruling political dispensation is not ground to transfer investigation from the hands of the State investigation agency.
However, Justice Kauser Edappagath observing that victim has the right to take part in the investigation of the crime (Jagjeet Singh and Others v Ashish Mishra @ Monu and Anr (2022)) and the right to be informed about the progress in the investigation within 90 days (Section 193(3) of BNSS), the Court asked the SIT to inform Babu's wife about the progress of investigation.
Case Title: Sreekumar A. V. v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 5
The Kerala High Court on Monday (6th January) expressed strong condemnation against DC Books, Kottayam for issuing a public notice regarding release of CPI(M) Central Committee Member and former LDF Convenor EP Jayarajan's alleged autobiography, without his consent.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan however "reluctantly" granted anticipatory bail to Sreekumar AV, the publication's Senior Deputy Editor, in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v State of Bihar and Another (2014).
Case Title: John Varghese v Laila Beegam A. R. and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 6
Kerala High Court has said that as per Rule 4 of Appendix XII A of Kerala Service Rules (KSR), officers who opt for Leave Without Allowance, can lose chances of promotion which may arise, only during the period of leave and not thereafter.
The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar in its order said, "Rule 4 itself explicitly limits the consequences provided therein as to the chances of promotion only 'during the currency of the period of leave'. In other words, the said rule states only that the officers shall lose the promotion chances as may arise with reference to their seniority in the post from which they proceeded on leave, during the currency of the period of leave, and not thereafter".
Case Title: Snigdha Kumar v The Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 7
The Kerala High Court has recently said that a complainant can seek her a copy of her own statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC in order to prefer a protest petition.
After perusing the contents of the refer report, Justice C Jayachandran rejected the argument of the prosecution that the report is not final and that it can be investigated further on after collecting new evidence. It said:
"It is true that in every case, further investigation can be conducted, if new evidence surfaces, as enabled by Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. However, such an option on the eventuality of surfacing new material cannot affect the finality of a refer report/final report under Section 173(8), as things stand established as of the moment. "
Case Name: Smt. Ambily Jose V. Sub Registrar And Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 8
Justice C. S. Dias Court on Monday (January 6) reiterated that in light of the State amendment made to Section 213(2) of the Indian Succession Act, a person nominated as an executor can establish their right over wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians without obtaining a probate.
For context, Section 213 states that an executor of a Will can only establish his/her right after probate of the Will is granted by the competent Court. Probate is essentially a legal process declaring the validity of a Will and granting a right to administer the deceased's estate. However, the State amendment to the Act which came into force in 1997 inserted that “this section shall not apply in the case of Wills made by Muhammadans or Indian Christians”.
Case Name: Dr. Shiny Antony Rauf V. State Of Kerala And Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 9
Justice C. S. Dias (on January 06) observed that though, under the Consumer Protection Act, there is no provision to stay the execution of an order passed by the District or State Commission, the Commissions possess inherent power to stay the same.
Case name: R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR v. STATE OF KERALA and Others.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 10
The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 6) observed that a man making comments about a woman's body structure calling it “fine” prima facie amounts to a sexually coloured remark.
Justice A Badharudeen thus refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the Petitioner for offences including Section 354A(1)(iv), 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 120 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 (Act).
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court has observed that Section 19 of POCSO Act which mandates reporting of POCSO offence is not carved out as an exception to Section 197 CrPC which pertains to requirement of sanction to prosecute public servants.
In doing so Justice K. Babu observed that Section 197 CrPC/Section 218 BNSS are meant to safeguard the public servants from being dragged into vexatious proceedings while discharging official duty.
Case Name: GEORGE P.O v. State of Kerala and another.,
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 11
The Kerala High Court (on December 20) observed that the mandate of reporting offences provided under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is not of an official character and the person has to report it in his personal capacity.
Case Name: Uvais Muhammad K.C. And Another V. State Of Kerala And Another.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 12
Justice C. S. Dias held that permission to donate human organs cannot be rejected unless there is cogent material to establish a commercial element.
In doing so the court added that if the donor claims that the donation is made purely out of altruism, their statement must be accepted if there is no credible evidence to prove the contrary.
Case : Harish Kumar KP v Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 13
In an important judgment, the Kerala High Court held that vehicles with Bharat (BH) registration have to pay the motor vehicle tax as per the rates prevailing in the State where the registration is sought. The Court held that the Central Government does not have the power to prescribe the rate of motor vehicle tax for BH series vehicles, as motor vehicle taxation is a subject falling within the domain of the States.
A single bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh delivered this significant verdict in a batch of writ petitions filed by vehicle owners who were aggrieved by the Kerala Motor Vehicle Department's refusal to register their vehicles under the BH series without paying the State's tax.
Case Name: MURALIDHARAN v. STATE OF KERALA.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 14
The Kerala High Court (on January 08) observed that the principle of res ipsa loquitur (accident speaks for itself) can be extended to criminal cases, only as an aid for assessment of evidence. The maxim does not embody any rule of substantive law nor a rule of evidence., said the Court.
The Bench of Justice K Babu observed thus while acquitting an accused, convicted of rash and negligent driving. It was the prosecution's case that the accused was a driver of a private bus. He drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and hit a KSRTC bus. The accident, inter-alia, caused causing death of two persons who were travelling in the KSRTC bus. The Trial Court applied the principle of res ipsa loquitur and concluded that the private bus went to the wrong side of the road. Thus, the present revision petition was filed before the High Court.
The Court observed that the document relied upon by the magistrate contained the facts that the investigating officer saw at the scene. However, the officer did not give any evidence regarding the place of occurrence.
Case Title: The Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd v. T.M. George
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 15
A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed an appeal by the Arpookara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. The bench upheld an Arbitration Court's order to pay full back wages to a former employee. The court held that employers bear the burden of proving that the employee was gainfully employed during his suspension period. In the absence of such proof, the court ruled that illegally terminated employees are entitled to full compensation.
Other Important Developments This Week
Kerala High Court Refuses To Order CBI Probe Into ADM Naveen Babu's Death
Case Name: Manjusha K v CBI & Others
Case Number: WP (Crl) 1297/2024
The Kerala High Court today refused to order CBI probe into death of former Kannur ADM Naveen Babu. Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered the DIG (Kannur) to supervise the ongoing SIT investigation.
Case Title: Nigoshkumar M. v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 27/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Monday (6th January) while considering the bail petitions of Mridhanga Vision proprietor Nigoshkumar, his wife Mini C. and CEO Shameer Abdul Rahim in connection with the accident of the MLA Uma Thomas asked why they didn't pause the program after the incident.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan asked the petitioner to produce the brochure of the event to know on what promise they demanded money from the participants.
Periya Double Murder Case: Kerala High Court Suspends Sentence Of Four CPI(M) Activists
Case Title: Manikandan and Others v Deputy Superintendent of Police and Others
Case No: Crl.A 17/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (8th January) suspended the sentence of 4 convicts in the Periya double murder case, including the former CPI(M) MLA K. V. Kunhiraman.
The Division Bench comprising Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian relied on the recent Supreme Court decision as per which the sentence is to be suspended when appeal is unlikely to be heard before completion of sentence.
Case Title: Dr. B. Unnikrishnan v Sri. Mohammed Hanish IAS and Another
Case No: Con. Case (C) 2718 of 2023
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (January 8) issued bailable warrant against Dr. Rajan N. Khobragade IAS, Additional Chief Secretary in the State's Health and Family Welfare Department for non-compliance of its 2023 order and non-appearance despite the direction of the Court.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice C. Jayachandran passed the above order while dealing with a Civil Contempt case.
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 22750/ 2018
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (8th January) suggested the creation of a website where citizens can upload complaints about unauthorized boards erected in the State. The observation was made by Justice Devan Ramachandran while hearing a 2018 plea concerning unauthorized boards/ banners in public places.
Case Title: N Prakash v M V Govindan Master
Case Number: Con Case (C) No. 3252/2024
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (9th January) issued notice of appearance to various CPI(M) leaders, Congress activists and State officials for allegedly committing contempt of its directions by blocking public roads to conduct events.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. found prima facie case against the Respondents and issued notice.
Case Title: In Re Captive Elephants v UOI
Case No: WP(C) 31520 of 2024
The Kerala High Court has sought a report from the Malappuram District Collector on an elephant reportedly running amok during the BP Angadi Nercha at Tirur on January 8, injuring 29 persons and killing one.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Gopinath P. ordered that the report should include a comprehensive description of the incident, the permission sought by the organizing committee, the permissions granted and the conditions imposed for using elephants in the event.
Case Title: Martha Jacob v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 41377/ 2024
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (January 9) asked the Government Pleader to apprise it about the time frame within which regulations can be framed for appointing custodians for living wills in all Local Self Government Institutions in the State.
Justice C. S. Dias made the observation in a petition filed by a septuagenarian seeking a direction from the Court to appoint a competent officer in Cochin Corporation as a custodian to receive her living will which contains directions on the steps to be taken and treatments to be given to her at a stage where she is no longer able to give informed consent.
Businessman Boby Chemmanur Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Bail In Sexual Harassment Case
Case Title: C. D. Boby @ Boby Chemmanur v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 535/ 2025
Businessman Boby Chemmanur has moved an appeal before the Kerala High Court, seeking bail in a sexual harassment complaint raised by a prominent Malayalam film actress.
Boby was denied bail by the Ernakulam Magistrate Court on Thursday (9thJanuary) and remanded to 14 days judicial custody.
Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala V State Of Kerala
Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Kerala HC on Friday (10th January) noted that the Centre Government by via a recent letter to the State has freed Rs. 120 Crore in the SDRF for utilization by the State. The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. observed:
"The Central Government essentially accepts the proposal that was mooted by us in our previous order and has agreed to the freeing up of the amount of ₹120 crore for immediate use of the State government in connection with the ongoing rehabilitation proceedings at Wayanad. The said amount can be used, in relaxation of the SDRF and NDRF norms of the Central Government"
Rahul Easwar Moves Kerala HC Seeking Anticipatory Bail In Complaint Filed By Actress
Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 571/ 2025
Rahul Easwar moves Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in the complaint registered by Malayalam movie actress.
Reportedly, Rahul Easwar made adverse comments against the dressing style of the actress while discussing the Boby Chemmanur case in news channel debates. Boby Chemmanur is currently in judicial custody in the case of sexual harassment filed by the actress.