Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228 – 240]Balu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 229Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananda v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 230Amal Nisham v The State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 231K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker)...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228 – 240]
Balu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananda v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
Amal Nisham v The State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
State of Kerala v Rishikesh and Others & Varsha Deepak v Rishikesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
Thevan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
Asha Lawrence and Another v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Tile: Balu v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228
The Kerala High Court held that the State Government Order blanketly prohibiting premature release of persons convicted of murdering a woman is not conducive to a welfare state.
“A blanket stance that a person who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State” observed Justice Kauser Edappagath.
The Court observed that the factors that have a bearing on the concept of reformation cannot be ignored merely because the accused murdered a woman. The petitioner was 18 years old when the murder was committed and now, he is 45. The probation report mentioned that the convict could lead a normal life after release by doing agricultural labour in his own village. The police authorities, the probation officer, the Superintendent of Prisons and the Jail Advisory Committee have recommended the premature release of the petitioner.
Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 229
The Kerala High Court on Monday (7th April) disallowed Dileep's appeal seeking CBI investigation into the Malayalam actress sexual assault case. Dileep is the 8th accused in the case and is accused of hatching the conspiracy of the crime.
The Bench of Justice A. M. Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar today proceeded to dismiss the appeal, noting that trial before the Principal District and Sessions Court in Ernakulam is heading to completion.
Case Title: Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananda v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 230
The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananada popularly known as Swami Bhadrananda for allegedly promoting enmity on grounds of religion by posting derogatory comments on his Facebook page.
Justice V. G. Arun quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was a long delay in filing the police report. The FIR against Bhadrananda was filed in 2016, while the final police report was filed only in the year 2023.
Case Title: Amal Nisham v The State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 231
The Kerala High Court has granted 15 days parole to Mohammed Nisham who was convicted in a 2015 case of killing a security guard by running over him.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan granted the leave in an appeal filed by Nisham's wife taking into account the favourable report given by the probationer officer. The Court held that the convict was entitled to parole under Kerala Prison and Correctional Services (Management) Rule, 2014.
CSR Funds Scam: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Founder Of National NGO's Confederation Anand Kumar
Case Title: K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (9th April) denied bail to KN Anand Kumar, the founder and Managing Trustee of National NGO's Confederation who is presently in judicial custody in the CSR Scam case.
"Dismissed", ordered Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan.
Case Title: K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232
Remarking that Indian jails are well equipped to deal with any casualties to prisoners, the Kerala High Court has observed that a person arrested in serious offences cannot be released on bail merely by claiming to be 'sick' and relying on the first proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan stated that the first proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS is applicable only in cases where a prison Medical Officer submits a report that the prisoner cannot be given medical treatment within the prison facility. It also noted that bail may be given in cases where the prisoner is nearing the end of his life.
Case Title: State of Kerala v Rishikesh and Others & Varsha Deepak v Rishikesh and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 233
The Kerala High Court has reversed a Sessions Court order acquitting five RSS workers from charge of murdering Deepak, a Janata Dal (United) party Office Bearer.
A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the appeal preferred by the State and Deepak's wife, and sentenced the quintet to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC.
Case Title: Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234
The Kerala High Court held that the Employee Provident Fund Organisation, after having received a contribution to the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) based on the actual salary, cannot deny the employees a higher pension saying that the contributions were not made in the corresponding month.
Justice Murali Purushothaman ordered so in a petition filed by employees who retired from Milma.
Case : Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 235
In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.
A bench comprising Justice Dr Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran has declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. The bench reasoned that the provision went against the definition of "supply" given under Article 246A of the Constitution.
Case Title: Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court has flagged the rising trend among media houses publishing 'mere allegations' leveled by a party against the other, without proper verification, only to increase their TRP (Television Rating Point).
Stating that it is both their journalistic and moral responsibility to not publish one-sided story and to verify the news before telecast, Justice A. Badharudeen urged,
"it is high time for the channels and medias to be more vigilant while giving news items in channels and medias in any form to have an enquiry with regard to the truth of the matter or to include the version of the other side (the person against whom the allegations are levelled) after hearing him, or somebody on his behalf capable of explaining the stand of the other side, then, the medias may report both versions to the viewers and readers to decide what actually is the truth behind the news."
Case Title: Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 11) quashed a POCSO case registered against Asianet News journalists and staff for allegedly conspiring and disclosing the identity of a minor rape survivor, in order to get high TRP.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the alleged offences are not made out from the facts of the case. It however cautioned channels against airing allegations without hearing the other side or enquiring into the truth of the allegations.
Case Title: Thevan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 237
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a 91-year-old man who was accused of attacking his 88-year-old wife with a knife, whereby she sustained serious injuries.
Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the 91-year-old should be allowed to live with his wife in his old age.
Case Title: C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 238
The Kerala High Court stated that once tax has been assessed, entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.
“The assessee had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes,” stated the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence and Another v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 239
The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 11) dismissed the review petition filed against the Single Bench decision that dismissed Asha Lawrence's challenge against the donation of the body of her father–CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence–to a medical college.
While disposing off the case, Justice V. G. Arun observed that since the single Bench decision has been appealed, the review petition is not maintainable before the Single Bench. The Court said that the petitioners will have the right to seek appropriate remedies.
Case Title: M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 240
The Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act.
The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration.
It may be true that the sales across the counter in the canteen may be within the threshold limit, but however that by itself will not enable the assessee to contend that it is not bound to take registration under the provisions of the KVAT Act, opined the Division Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.
Other Important Developments This Week
Munambam Land Dispute: Kerala High Court Stays Order Cancelling State Appointed Inquiry Commission
Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others
Case No: WA 603/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Monday ( April 7 ) passed an interim order staying the decision of single judge setting aside the appointment of Inquiry Commission set up by the State "to find a permanent solution" concerning dispute of land ownership between the residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu passed the interim order in the State's appeal against a March 17 decision of the single judge which had cancelled the appointment of an Inquiry Commission set up by the State to resolve the land dispute between residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board.
Kerala HC Advocates' Association Moves High Court Against 'Exponential Increase' In Court Fees
Case title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (Khcaa) V/S State Of Kerala & Other
Case No: WP(PIL) 14/ 2025
Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA), has moved a Public Interest Litigation petition before the High Court challenging the increase in Court Fees and imposition of Ad-Valorem fees without an upper limit brought about through an amendment in the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
The petition has also challenged Section 73A of the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act which exempts State and its functionaries from paying court fees. It was pointed out that that the State is the biggest litigant and the blanket exemption given to the State is arbitrary, illegal and without any logic.
Actor Sreenath Bhasi Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail In Hybrid Ganja Case
Case Tile: Sreenath Bhasi v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 5057 of 2025
Malayalam actor Sreenath Bhasi has filed a petition before the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail after a woman arrested near Alappuzha for allegedly possessing hybrid ganja worth approximately Rs. 2 Crore reportedly revealed that movie actors Sreenath Bhasi and Shine Tom Chacko were her clients.
When the case was taken up on 7th April, the Counsel informed Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan that he was withdrawing the petition. The Court allowed the same.
The Kerala High Court Advocates' Association passed a resolution today to abstain from court proceedings on 09.04.2025 to protest the hike in court fee brought into effect by the Kerala Finance Act 2025.
Case title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (Khcaa) V/S State Of Kerala & Other
Case No: WP(PIL) 14/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (8th April) directed the State Government to place before it the materials it relied upon to raise the court fee.
“The learned Additional Advocate General undertakes that the material which was before the Government based on which the impugned enactment was passed will be annexed to the counter reply” the bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed.
President of the Association Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy instructed by Advocate Shinto Mathew Abraham appeared before the Court and insisted that the operation of the amendment be stayed and specifically pointed that as per the changes, even victims have to pay 1% court fee for claiming compensation. The Court however refused to allow this saying that they cannot stay a legislation without first hearing the State.
he Kerala High Court on 9th April dismissed a series of cases for default, citing non-appearance of counsel.
A large number of lawyers did not appear before the Court on 9th as the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) has called for a 'pen-down protest' against State's decision to hike court fee.
The Bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. opined that the protest was "illegal and preposterous" especially when the KHCAA has filed a PIL raising the same issue and the matter is pending before the Chief Justice's Court.
Centre Notifies Transfer Of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari From MP HC To Kerala High Court
The Central Government has notified the transfer of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari from Madhya Pradesh High Court to the Kerala High Court.
Case Title: Jomon Puthenpurackal v State of Kerala
Case No: Crl.MC 8044/ 2018
The Kerala High Court on Friday (11th April) ordered CBI enquiry into former Chief Secretary of Kerala K. M. Abraham in a case of illegal amassment of wealth.
The order was passed by Justice K. Babu in a petition filed by Jomon Puthenpurackal, a popular activist.