LiveLaw Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 19 - October 25, 2026
K. Salma Jennath
26 Oct 2026 10:30 AM IST
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 590 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
Nominal Index
Ravi E. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Remadevi T.L. v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
Mohammed Shameer Ali v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
Yeshwant Shenoy v. Bar Council of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
The State of Kerala and ors. v. Sebastian @ Sabu V.K., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
Shaji v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
Bureau of Indian Standards v. M/s. Mars Veneers and Boards and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
I. Bindhu v. M/s Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
SadiqaIi M v. Federal Bank and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
Adv. P.S. Subeesh v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title : Ravi E. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
The Kerala High Court has clarified that neither the High Court nor the State government can extend the timeline set by the Apex Court for temples and devaswoms to register themselves in the District Committee constituted under the Kerala Captive Elephant (Management and Maintenance) Rules, 2012.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas passed the decision referring to the directions laid by the Supreme Court in of Wildlife Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2016).
Case Title : Remadevi T.L. v. Reserve Bank of India and Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, ordered the State Bank of India (SBI) to refund an amount of ₹3.73 lakhs to a customer, who got scammed and reported about the cybercrime within 24 hours.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that the bank did not prove that she was privy to the fraudulent transaction and that she is entitled to be found to have 'zero liability' when she reported the fraud to the bank as well as the police promptly.
Case Title : Mohammed Shameer Ali v. State of Kerala and Ors. Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
The Kerala High Court recently quashed a sexual harassment case against a man after noting that there was an inordinate delay of 8 years in completing the investigation, mainly due to the non-cooperation by the defacto complainant.
Justice Jobin Sebastian considered the question as to whether mere filing of an undetected report by the police would confer a right upon the accused to seek quashing of FIR and answered it in the negative.
Case Title : Yeshwant Shenoy v. Bar Council of Kerala
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court has permitted the withdrawal of a plea challenging the formation of statutory committees of the Bar Council of Kerala.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed the petition as it was withdrawn.
The Court had previously issued notice to the Bar Council of Kerala in the plea. The plea filed by advocate Yeshwant Shenoy, an elected member of the XXII Bar Council of Kerala alleged that the constitution of statutory committees of the council did not follow the statutory procedures.
Case Title : The State of Kerala and ors. v. Sebastian @ Sabu V K
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
The Kerala High Court has held that the State's lack of ownership or physical custody over wild animals does not, by itself exclude the State from the liability for harm caused by them.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., made the observation while dismissing a Regular Second Appeal filed by the State against the concurrent findings of the Munsiff's Court, Kalpetta, and the Sub Court, Sulthanbathery.
Case Title : Shaji v. State of Kerala
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that placing of penis on minor's vagina amounts to penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that 'placing' penis on vagina after removing a child's underwear would amount to slightest degree of 'penetration', attracting the offence of penetrative sexual assault. He added that it is not the same as 'touching', which would attract the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 POCSO Act.
Mere Possession Of Fake ISI Mark Not An Offence Without Proof Of Its Use: Kerala High Court
Case Title : Bureau of Indian Standards v. M/s. Mars Veneers and Boards and Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the mere possession of spurious/fake ISI mark is not punishable under the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 unless its actual use is proved.
Justice A. Badharudeen referred to Sections 11, 12 and 13 of the BIS Act and held:
“In both sections 11 and 12, the legislature vigilantly incorporated the word 'used' and the legislature in its wisdom never intended the word 'possess' to fasten criminal culpability on mere possession of a spurious ISI mark…On scanning the statutory words in Sections 11 and 12, read with Section 33 of the BIS Act, the 'use' of a spurious ISI mark is punishable under the said provisions and mere possession of an object capable of affixing such a mark, without any evidence to establish its use in the manufacture of goods, does not attract the penal provisions of Sections 11 and 12, read with Section 33 of the BIS Act.”
Case Title : I. Bindhu v. M/s Thiruvananthapuram Service Co-operative and Anr.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that all Judges are equal in status and power and that no Bench, irrespective of its strength, can assume a supervisory role over another or advise, counsel or criticise Judges on how they should act or record their decisions.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji made the observations while considering a writ appeal.
Case Title : SadiqaIi M v. Federal Bank and Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
The Kerala High Court has recently emphasised that the integrity of the justice delivery system depends not only on the accuracy of judicial decisions but also on the credibility, probity and professional conduct of the lawyers who participate in the process.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji made the observation in an appeal seeking to expunge a portion of adverse observations made against an advocate in a judgment.
Kerala High Court Strikes Down Guideline Restricting Production Of Arrested Persons Before Magistrates After 5 PM
Case Title : Adv. P.S. Subeesh v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
The Kerala High Court on Friday (23 October) set aside the State Government's guidelines that preferred the production of arrested persons before Judicial Officers between 10 AM and 5 PM and treated production after 5 PM as permissible only in exceptional circumstances.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed,
"The provisions must accordingly be examined against the requirement that an arrested person be afforded prompt judicial scrutiny, timely access to legal assistance and an effective opportunity to challenge the legality of arrest and detention, while preserving the investigating agency's ability to undertake lawful and time-sensitive investigative steps. An executive protocol cannot dilute the safeguards guaranteed by the Constitution and the governing statute, whether directly or through procedural arrangements that have the effect of discouraging compliance with them. Though the State is entitled to adopt reasonable measures for the safety of Judicial Officers and other persons involved in the remand process, those measures must operate consistently with the statutory powers of investigation, the duty to produce an arrested person without unnecessary delay, and the constitutional protection of personal liberty."
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title : Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors and connected case
Case Number : WP(C) 42844/ 2025 and connected case
The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to release ₹9,73,85,000 towards victim compensation claims involving 225 cases pending before the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department within five weeks.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the directions in suo motu proceedings concerning the functioning of mediation centres in Kerala.
Case Title : Adv. Shamem M.S. v. The State of Kerala and Ors.
Case Number : WP(PIL) 192/ 2026
A public interest litigation has been filed before the Kerala High Court seeking directions to the State government and police authorities to introduce comprehensive guidelines governing the recognition and functioning of police associations, with the stated objective of protecting police discipline, political neutrality and the impartial administration of criminal justice.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. has issued notice before admission to the respondents and posted the matter for 28th October.
Case Title : Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors., Veena T. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors., Mohammed Riyas P.A. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors
Case Number : WA 2121/ 2026 (Filing No.), WA 2122/ 2026 (Filing No.), WA 2123/ 2026 (Filing No.)
The appeals preferred by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, daughter Veena T. and son-in-law/ex-Minister Muhammed Riyas against the Single Bench order directing Vigilance FIR against them in CMRL-Exalogic pay off case is likely to be heard by the Kerala High Court on Monday (October 26).
The appeals were mentioned before the Division Bench of Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar. The Bench has posted the matter to be heard on Monday (October 26).
Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Reconstitution Of State Waqf Board, Says New Members Have Already Assumed Office
Case Title : C.K. Usman Haji v. Union of India and Ors. and connected case
Case Number : WA No. 2186 of 2026 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 23) issued notice before admission on the appeals challenging a Single Bench order refusing to stay a government order (GO) reconstituting the State Waqf Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice Basant Balaji heard detailed arguments by Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar and Advocate P. Chandrasekhar for the appellants, and Advocate General K. Jaju Babu for the State. It then issued notice by special messenger to the members of the reconstituted Board and posted the case to Thursday (October 29).
Case Title : Tomin J. Thachankary v. State of Kerala
Case Number : Crl.A 1239/2026
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (October 24) sought the response of the State to a plea preferred by ex-Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary seeking to go abroad for rejoining his work.
Thachankary has sought to modify the conditions imposed by the Court while suspending the sentence awarded to him by the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance), Kottayam in the disproportionate assets case.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the prosecution objections must be heard before considering the plea and posted it to November 2 for further consideration.
