Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 3 - March 9, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149 – 165]Manjusha K v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149N Prakash v R Ashakumari, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152Ibrahim Sherif K V Malathi B P and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153Lt. Gen Sukhdeep Sangwan and Others v Bijukumar S. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 154XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 156Edwina Benny v Union of India and Others & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 157Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158Shuhaib v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 159Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160Abdul Wahid T. K. v Habeebullah PT & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 161George Cyriac v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 162The Joint Commissioner v Nishad K U, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 163Sammil v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 164B Ajai v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 165Judgments/ Orders This WeekKerala High Court Dismisses Appeal By ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe Into His DeathCase Title: Manjusha K v CBICitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 3) dismissed the writ appeal moved by Manjusha, wife of deceased ADM Naveen Babu, seeking CBI probe into his death.The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the writ appeal stating that there is no legitimate apprehension that the present investigation conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is partial or improper.Advocate General's Order Declining Sanction To Initiate Criminal Contempt Not Subject To Challenge In Court: Kerala High CourtCase Title: N Prakash v R AshakumariCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150The Kerala High Court held that refusal of sanction by the Advocate General for initiating criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is not justiciable.Justice C.S. Dias passed the above order by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Joseph Kuzhijalil v Joseph Pulikunnel (1995).[Juvenile Justice Act] Offence Of Wilful Neglect Must Be Committed Intentionally, Not By Accident Or Inadvertence: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151The Kerala High Court recently held that to constitute the offence of wilful neglect as given under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the act should be done deliberately or intentionally and not by accident or inadvertence.In the instant case, the prosecution alleged that a 6-year-old child who was residing in the Home For Mentally Deficient Children was assaulted and killed by 4 other inmates for urinating while sleeping. It was found out that one of the inmates who attacked the child was a major. Apart from him, 3 other inmates who had attained majority were staying in the institution. It is alleged that the Multi Task Providers of the institution and the petitioner, who was superintendent of the said home, violated specific instructions by allowing major inmates to stay with minors.Justice C. Jayachandran observed that even if the petitioner had actual charge and control over the deceased, it could not be said that there was 'willful neglect' as given under the provision.Merely Protesting Or Shouting Slogans Doesn't Violate Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19; Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed Casually: Kerala HCCase Title: Sharmina S v Sub Divisional MagistrateCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing a lady to show cause why she should not ordered to execute a bond for rupees fifty thousand with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year under Section 130 of the BNSS.Justice V G Arun stated that the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed casually by referring to crimes registered for holding public demonstrations.The Court stated that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably without arms and to form associations or unions, subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court stated that threat apprehension to breach of peace and public tranquillity must be imminent.Clear Evaluation Criterion Known In Advance By Aspirants Crucial To Maintaining Integrity Of Exams: Kerala HC Pulls Up PSC For Last-Minute ChangeCase Title: Ibrahim Sherif K V Malathi B P and connected casesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153The Kerala High Court held that Public Service Commission (PSC) cannot arbitrarily prescribe minimum mark criteria for each compartment of a single examination, after the written examination is over without informing the candidates in advance.The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that setting clear...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 3 - March 9, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags