LiveLaw Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 12 - October 18, 2026
Anamika MJ
20 Oct 2026 9:31 AM IST
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 571 - 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
Nominal Index
Suo Motu Civil Reference v. Union of India and Ors. & connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
X v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
James V. Kurian and Ors. v V.K. Sam and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
K.A. Muhammed Ashraf and Anr. v. Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
Najeeb and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
Jolly John v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
Najeeb v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The State Of Kerala Represented By Deputy Superintendent Of Police v. Govt. of India and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
Pinarayi Vijayan v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors., and connected cases, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
S v J, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
District Court Bar Association and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
Prasanth K. v the District Collector and Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
X v. The District Police Chief and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Ayishath Ruksana v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
Biju v. State of Kerala, 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
X v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title : Suo Motu Civil Reference v. Union of India and Ors. & connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
The Kerala High Court, in a recent judgment, upheld the constitutional validity of Section 69 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which provides for automatic revocation of Wills made by Christians, upon their marriage.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that the provision has a laudable object and that it is not unfair, unfavourable or prejudicial merely because of non-applicability to Hindus.
Case Title : Suo Motu Civil Reference v. Union of India and Ors. & connected cases
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
The Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the differential treatment of wills made by Christians and Hindus upon marriage of the testator, as contemplated under Indian Succession Act, 1925, is not discriminatory.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar upheld the provision, which was challenged on the ground that it is arbitrary in application to Hindus and Christians.
Case Title : X v. State of Kerala and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
The Kerala High Court recently directed for the disbursal of the balance amount out of the mandatory financial aid payable to a transgender person towards post sex reassignment surgery (SRS) treatments.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan allowed the plea preferred by a transgender person alleging that he was not disbursed with the financial aid stipulated for post-operative treatments.
Case Title : James V. Kurian and Ors. v V.K. Sam and Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
The Kerala High Court has held that an alleged failure to inquire into a decree-holders's mental capacity cannot be reopened under Section 47 CPC after the decree has attained finality.
Justice C.S. Dias observed that the objection could not be reopened at the execution stage after the issue had been raised in the earlier rounds of litigation and the decree had attained finality.
Case Title : K.A. Muhammed Ashraf and Anr. v. Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
The Kerala High Court recently set aside a Single Bench order directing the Erattupetta Municipality Secretary to grant approval for introducing co-education scheme in Muslim Girls' Higher Secondary School, Erattupetta— a girls-only school.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering a writ appeal filed by the manager of a nearby boys' school and one K.A. Muhammed Ashraf (1st appellant), who had previously filed another plea (W.P.(C) No. 13677 of 2026) challenging the co-education plan.
Case Title : Jiostar India Pvt. Ltd. v. Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) directed the expeditious hearing and disposal of an appeal filed by Jiostar Pvt. Ltd. challenging a temporary injunction passed restraining the release of Hotstar webseries Anali, which is allegedly based on the Koodathayi murders.
The Bench of Justice Easwaran S. passed a direction:
"Since the appeal is against a grant of injunction, it would be appropriate that this Court directs the 2nd Additional Sub Court to finally dispose of the appeal after hearing the parties on or before 31.10.2026"
Case Title : Najeeb and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) refused to halt the trial in the murder of SFI Activist Abhimanyu, which is pending before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam.
Justice C. Jayachandran dismissed the plea preferred by accused nos. 24 and 25, finding that there are no merits in it.
Case Title : Jolly John v. State of Kerala and Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal case initiated against a teacher, who was accused of offences under the Juvenile Justice Act and the Indian Penal Code for pulling the hand of her student and causing injury to her.
Justice Jobin Sebastian noted that the teacher did not have any mala fide intention and only wanted to maintain discipline in the classroom since the complainant student was running around.
Case Title : Najeeb v. State of Kerala
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The Kerala High Court recently reversed a concurrent finding of guilt of a man, who was convicted under Section 292 IPC for the sale of obscene CDs in his shop.
Justice Jobin Sebastian relied on the decision in Harikumar v. State of Kerala and held that conviction based solely on the testimony of the investigating officer is not valid since the trial court did not independently verify whether the contents were obscene.
Case Title : The State Of Kerala Represented By Deputy Superintendent Of Police v. Govt. of India and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 14) gave a direction for comparison of the fingerprints of the suspects of the Sreekrishnapuram Double Murder case with those stored in the Aadhar database.
Justice G. Girish gave the direction to the Union and the Deputy Director of Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) in a plea preferred by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Palakkad.
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.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15) refused to grant permission to former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, daughter Veena T. and son-in-law/ex-Minister Muhammed Riyas to appeal against the Single Bench order directing Vigilance FIR against them in CMRL-Exalogic pay off case.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John today dismissed the leave petitions filed by the three seeking permission to appeal against the order.
Case Title : S v J
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
The Kerala High Court has observed that a man remarrying and having a child in the wedlock cannot be a legally recognisable defence to reduce maintenance amount for a child born in his first marriage.
Justice C. Jayachandran made the observation while considering a revision petition challenging a maintenance order issued by the Family Court, Kollam.
Case Title : Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan v. State of Kerala
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15) rejected the pleas moved by Sabarimala Gold Theft accused Roddam Pandurangaiah Naga Govardhan seeking permission to travel abroad for his daughter's graduation.
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed the pleas, which were preferred after the Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge, Kollam refused to release his passport or to permit him to travel to Australia for the graduation ceremony.
Case Title : District Court Bar Association and Anr. v State of Kerala and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (14 October) directed the State Government to appoint Special Public Prosecutors exclusively for cases under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) within six weeks.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. delivered the judgment while disposing of a public interest litigation which challenged a government order which permitted the Special Public Prosecutors appointed for POCSO cases to conduct non-POCSO cases instituted under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.
Case Title : Prasanth K. v the District Collector and Anr.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Kerala High Court has held that the amended requirements under Rules 83 and 86 of the Explosives Rules, 2008, meant for permanent fireworks shops, cannot be insisted upon while considering applications for temporary fireworks shops.
Justice G. Girish was considering a plea seeking directions to the authorities to consider an application for a temporary fireworks shop licence without applying the requirements introduced by the amendments.
Case Title : X v. The District Police Chief and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court recently came to the aid of an adult woman in an inter-faith relationship, who was alleged detained by her parents by taking away her mobile phone and interfering in her relation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a habeas corpus plea filed by the man whom she was in a relationship with.
Case Title : Adv. K.M. Shajahan v. State of Kerala and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
The Kerala High Court on Friday (16 October) disposed of a petition seeking a vigilance inquiry into the appointment of bodybuilders Chitharesh Natesan and Shinu Chovva as Armed Police Inspectors in the Kerala Police, observing that the legality of the government order denying prior approval for an inquiry under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be challenged separately.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment.
Case Title : Ayishath Ruksana v. State of Kerala and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
The Kerala High Court recently clarified that the detaining authority is bound to supply the detention order and material documents to a detenue in a language known to him and omission to do so violates fundamental rights under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. set aside the preventive detention of a Kannada-speaking man, who was detained under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (KAAP Act), after noting that he was not supplied with translated copies of the order and material documents.
Case Title : Biju v. State of Kerala
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
The Kerala High Court recently ordered re-trial while considering a convict's appeal after finding that the trial court acquitted him of 'attempt to rape' charges despite the victim giving a sterling testimony.
Justice A. Badharudeen further clarified that though an appellate court cannot suo motu enhance the conviction or punishment awarded to an accused while considering his appeal, it is empowered to order a re-trial as per the Apex Court decision in Nagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Case Title : X v. State of Kerala and Ors.
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
The Kerala High Court recently remarked that the police contacting an adult woman, who was reported missing, in order to complete investigation would not amount to harassment. It, however, added that the police cannot compel her to return home if she does not wish to do so.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a woman alleging harassment by the police.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title : Veena T. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan and Ors., Pinarayi Vijayan v. v. Adv. K.M. Shajahan
Case Number : WA 2121/ 2026 (Filing No.), WA 2122/ 2026 (Filing No.)
Former Chief Minister of Kerala and Leader of Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan and his daughter Veena T., founder of Exalogic Solutions Pvt. Ltd., have moved appeals before the Kerala High Court challenging the Single Bench order directing registration of Vigilance FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic pay off case.
They have also filed petitions seeking leave/permission to move the appeal since they were not made party in the proceedings before the Single Bench.
Case Title : State of Kerala and Anr. v The Kerala Police Officers' Association and Ors. and connected cases
Case Number : WA 2100/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Monday (12 October) admitted the appeals challenging a Single Judge's decision that quashed the government order restructuring the recognised police associations.
The Division Bench comprising Dr. Justice A.K. Jaysankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K admitted the appeals.
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.)
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 13) reserved its verdict in the petitions filed by former Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter Veena T. and her husband Muhammed Riyas seeking permission to appeal against the Single Bench order directing the Vigilance director to register FIR against them in the CMRL-Exalogic pay off case.
The Division Bench of Justice K. Natarajan and Justice Johnson John however, refused to grant an interim stay of the judgment.
The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 11) designated Guinness World Record holding lawyer P.B. Menon as a senior advocate with effect from October 12.
Case Title : Anil Kumar P.K @ Anil Pillikkal v Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : WP(PIL) 204/ 2026
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (14 October) directed the Project Director of Project Implementation unit Cochin, National Highways Authority India to dispose of the representation seeking deferment of toll collection at Nattika Toll Plaza on National Highway - 66 within three weeks.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M issued the directions in a public interest litigation challenging the proposed commencement of toll collection at the Nattika Toll Plaza.
Case Title : Tomin J. Thachankary v. State of Kerala
Case Number : Crl.A 1239/2026
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15) suspended the sentence awarded to former Director General of Police Tomin J. Thachankary, who was found guilty in a disproportionate assets case.
Justice A. Badharudeen allowed Thachankary's plea seeking to suspend his sentence, which was filed along with his appeal.
Case Title : Suo Motu v. Chief Secretary and Ors. and connected case
Case Number : WP(C) 35016/ 2026 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 15) called for urgent practical solutions from various authorities in the State for ensuring road safety and for implementing its earlier directions in this regard.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar today observed:
"This Court appraised the learned counsels appearing for the parties that time is of essence and the directions of this Court will have to be implemented without any delay."
Kerala High Court Refuses To Stay Order Reconstituting State Waqf Board
Case Title : K.S. Hazma v. State of Keralam and Ors., C.K. Usman Haji v. Union of India and Ors.
Case Number : WP(C)Nos. 36037 & 36041 of 2026
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (October 17) refused to stay the State Government's order dated October 16 reconstituting the State Waqf Board and appointing 9 new members.
Justice S. Manu, however, made it clear that the reconstitution of the Board as per Exhibit P9 would be subject to the outcome of the two writ petitions challenging the order.
