Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25 – August 31, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519 - 537]A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520Navas A v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 521Santhy Krishnan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 522Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Others v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 524Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 525Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 526Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 527State of Kerala v. K. Surendran, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 528Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 529State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 530Harikumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 531Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and connecter Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 532Treasa K J v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 533Cochin Port Trust v State of Kerala and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 534Kerala Taxi Drivers Organisation v State of Kerala and Anr and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 535Vishnu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536V.D. Tomy v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 537Judgments/ Orders This WeekSeizure Of Forest Produce & Vehicle Used To Commit Forest Offence Must Be Made Within 'Reasonable Interval': Kerala High Court ClarifiesCase Title: A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that there is no need to simultaneously seize the forest produce and the vehicle used in committing a forest offence, however, there must be a reasonable nexus and a reasonable interval between the two seizures.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan was considering a question referred by a Single Judge to examine whether there was a divergent view made out in the decisions in Divisional Forest Officer v. Amina [1999 (1) KLJ 433] and DFO, Kothamangalam v. Sunny Joseph [2002 (3) KLT 641].Kerala High Court Directs State To Reconsider CBI's Request For Sanction To Prosecute Former PSU Officials In Corruption CaseCase Title: Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors and connected casesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520The Kerala High Court has set aside the State Government's refusal to grant sanction for prosecuting former officials of the Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation (KSCDC) including the ex-Chairman R Chandrasekharan and ex-MD K A Ratheesh, in a corruption case investigated by the CBI.Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, in his order directed the Industries Department to reconsider the CBI's request for sanction within three months, while keeping further trial proceedings in abeyance until then.Kerala High Court Rejects PIL Against Former Finance Minister Thomas Isaac's Appointment As Advisor To Kerala Knowledge Economy MissionCase Title: Navas A v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 521The Kerala High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging appointment of former Finance Minister Dr Thomas Isaac as the advisor of Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM).A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji while pronouncing the order said,"The State government has engaged as someone who is an expert in the field as an advisor, who has agreed to work on a voluntary basis. The writ is unsupported by proper research. It is unfortunate that respondent no.5 (Isaac) was subject to such petition. Writ petition is dismissed."Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Woman Cop Accused Of Misappropriating ₹20 Lakh Collected As Traffic FineCase Title: Santhy Krishnan v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 522The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 11) refused to interfere with an order of the trial court denying permission to the prime accused in Koodathayi Murder case, Jollyamma Joseph alias Jolly Joseph, to inspect the place of occurrence of crime along with her new lawyer.Justice V.G. Arun noted that the trial is at a fag end with 124 prosecution witnesses already examined and thus dismissed the petition challenging the impugned order of the trial court.Kerala High Court Slaps 25K On PIL Litigant For 'Suppressing Personal Interest', Says Parties' Credentials Must Be Disclosed At ThresholdCase Title: Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523The Kerala High Court imposed Rs. 25,000 fine on a public interest litigant who suppressed his "personal interest" in the matter and did not disclose proper credentials which amounts to abuse of law.The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji emphasized that there is a need to disclose the full credentials of petitioners in Public Interest Litigations (PILs) by way of detailed affidavits at the...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 25 – August 31, 2025

K. Salma Jennath

Tags