Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 19 - January 25, 2026

Nominal Index [Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32 - 48]Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32 Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37Hari v. The State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38Thenu Jeyapriyan and Anr. v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 39Soumya Gopal v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 40Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala and connected matter, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 41Sohan V M v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 42Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 43Vijith v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 44Esai Clara v State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 45Sangeetha Lakshmana v Registrar General and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 46Athul P. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 47Indian Association Of Physical Medicine And Rehabilitation (IAPMR) v. Union of India and Ors. and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 48Judgment/ Orders This WeekVictim's Statement Alone Can Sustain Charge Under SC/ST Act: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Reshmi Saseendran v. State of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 32The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that an accused cannot be discharged merely because the statements of the witnesses do not disclose ingredients of the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2018.Justice A. Badharudheen clarified that if the statement of the aggrieved person prima facie discloses the offence, then that would be sufficient.Authorised Govt Officer's Complaint Necessary To Prosecute Notary: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Malu K. v. State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 33The Kerala High Court recently clarified that as per Section 13(i) of the Notaries Act, a complaint by an officer authorized by the government concerned is necessary for taking cognizance of offence committed by a notary public exercising functions under the Act.Justice C. Pratheep Kumar, after referring to the provision and noting non-compliance, set aside all further proceedings against a notary arrayed as an accused in a crime. Motor Accident Claims | Carrying Two Pillion Riders On Motorcycle Doesn't Establish Contributory Negligence: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Bineesh v. Mathew Joseph and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 34The Kerala High Court recently clarified that contributory negligence cannot be attributed on a victim of a motor accident merely because he was carrying two pillion riders on the motorcycle.Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that the insurer must bring in evidence showing that the act of carrying two pillion riders had a direct and proximate cause, connecting it with the accident.Dismissal For Default Alone Can't Justify Rejection Of Restoration Plea Citing Lack Of 'Vigilance': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Pradeep S v Gopakaumar Nair and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 35The Kerala High Court has recently held that a dismissal for default alone cannot justify the rejection of restoration plea citing lack of vigilance.Justice T R Ravi made the observation in a petition challenging rejection of an application seeking restoration of execution proceedings, which were dismissed for default.Kerala High Court Orders State Bar Council To Refund ₹5K Excess Enrolment Fee Collected From LawyersCase Title: Adv. Shani A.R. and Ors. v. Bar Council of Kerala and Anr.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 36The Kerala High Court on Monday (January 19) directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund the excess amount collected from seven lawyers to conduct their enrolments.Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas directed the Bar Council of Kerala to refund to each of the petitioners the excess fee of Rs. 5000 collected from them within 2 weeks of receipt of the judgment.Kerala Land Reforms Act | Article 226 Can Be Invoked To Divest Land Vested With Govt: High CourtCase Title: P G Thomas Tharakan v The State Land Board and Ors.Citation: 2026 LiveLaw(Ker) 37The Kerala High Court has recently held that while excess land vests absolutely in the Government upon issuance of an order under Section 86 of the Kerala Land Reforms Act, 1963 (KLR Act), the constitutional courts may still exercise its power under Article 226 to order divesting such land in exceptional circumstances to prevent injustice and violation of property rights under Article 300A of the Constitution.Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment.S.399 IPC | Preparation For Dacoity Requires Five Or More Persons: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Hari v. The State of KeralaCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 38The Kerala High Court, in a recent ruling, clarified...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up : January 19 - January 25, 2026

Anamika MJ

Tags