Nominal Index: [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473- 537]Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476C.A.N. Subramoniya Sarma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473- 537]
Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
C.A.N. Subramoniya Sarma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
SR Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
Thankamma and Ors v Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
Musthafa N P and Anr v The State Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
Suo Motu v R. Rajesh, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
M/s Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. State Information Commission and Ors and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
Ratheesh K G v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Bindhu K P v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
Jose v The Sub Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 489
S Sheeja v Maintenance Appellate Tribunal and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
Elvin John Mathew v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 495
Gowri Sankari V.S. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
Mariamma Joseph and Others v Director of Local Fund Audit and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Abdulla P. v. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
Zubair C.A. and Anr. v. Project Director, NHAI and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
Adv. Richard Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
Appachan v. SI of Police and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
Luckose Joseph v State of Kerala, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 505
Suo Motu v. AAA, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
Muhammed Bilal and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
Dr. Sivaprasad v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
M.K. Aravindakshan and Anr. v. M.R. Pradeep and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
Suo Motu v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
Manilal v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
Sulaiman M S and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
A. Chandran v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
T.M. Hariprasad v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
Liviya Jose v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
Bhargavan Pillai and Ors. v District Geologist and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
Sukumaran and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
Navas A v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
Santhy Krishnan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Others v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 524
Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
State of Kerala v. K. Surendran, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
Harikumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and connecter Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
Treasa K J v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
Cochin Port Trust v State of Kerala and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
Kerala Taxi Drivers Organisation v State of Kerala and Anr and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
Vishnu v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
V.D. Tomy v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
Judgments/ Orders This Month
Case Title: Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
The Kerala High Court recently held that presence of other children is not a valid defence against a mother's plea seeking maintenance from her son.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a revision petition filed by the son challenging maintenance of Rs. 2000 granted by the Family Court to the 100-year-old mother.
It refused to accept the argument of the petitioner that the mother (respondent 1) was living with one of her other sons and that there were old children capable of maintaining her.
Case Title: Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
The present writ petition was filed seeking the quashing of an order passed by the NCLT, Kochi Bench. By that impugned order, the adjudicating authority has directed the resolution professional to reject the claim filed by the home buyers, including the petitioner.
Justice T.R. Ravi observed that in the present case the final hearing was concluded and then the order was passed, based upon the affidavit of the respondent. The bench noted that it is evident from the admitted facts that the adjudicating authority has accepted and recorded the affidavit that was filed after the hearing, and the order itself has been issued relying on the contents of the said affidavit. The bench noted the adjudicating authority should have heard the petitioner and like persons on the contents of the affidavit.
Case Title: Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the State government to constitute a committee to look into the independence of the Social Audit Society under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREGA) Scheme.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a PIL filed by Adv. George Pulikuthiyil, former ombudsman of the MGNREGA Kerala State Mission.
Case Title: Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
The Kerala High Court recently held that in the absence of a notification recognizing a foreign country as a reciprocating country, an Indian court cannot recognize a power-of-attorney executed by a foreign notary public.
Justice K. Babu observed, “I am of the considered view that the mandate of Section 57(6) of the Indian Evidence Act that the Court shall take judicial notice of the seals of notaries public can be made applicable to a power of attorney executed before a notary public in a foreign country only if the foreign country is a reciprocating country. In the absence of proof of reciprocation of the foreign country where the power of attorney was executed before the notary public the presumption regarding identification and authentication as provided in Section 85 of the Evidence Act would not arise.”
Case Title: C.A.N. Subramoniya Sarma and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 477
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 30) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking improvement of pedestrian pathway and safety in East Fort area of capital city, Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji stipulated timelines for implementing the short-term and long term measures outlined by the Transport Commissioner in the affidavit submitted before the Court.
Case Title: SR Educational & Charitable Trust v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 478
The Kerala High Court recently said that the State government is legally bound to pay rent and compensation to the owners of a private building, which it used or took over invoking the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005.
Justice N. Nagaresh in his order observed that the buildings and valuable equipment belonging to the petitioner educational agency, were taken over by the State authorities during the crucial time of Covid-19 pandemic.
Case Title: Thankamma and Ors v Regional Joint Labour Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 479
The Kerala High Court held that a manager of a factory, as defined under Section 2(f) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, can be considered the lawful employer for the purpose of gratuity proceedings, even in the absence or death of the proprietary owner.
Justice K Babu delivered the judgement, dismissing a challenge brought by the legal heirs of the former proprietor of Thankam Cashew Factory. The petitioners contended that a gratuity award passed on October 4, 2023, was void ab initio since it was rendered against a deceased person.
Case Title: Vinu C. Kunjappan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 480
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a person for failing to lower the National Flag for almost 2 days after hoisting it during an Independence day celebration.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath considered whether offences under Section 2(a) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, read with Part-III, Section III, Rule 3.6 of the Flag Code of India, 2002 were made out in the case.
Kerala High Court Orders Reconsideration Of Woman's Request To Donate Kidney To Husband's Friend
Case Title: Musthafa N P and Anr v The State Level Organ Transplantation Authorisation Committee and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 481
Kerala High Court has set aside the orders of the State and District Level Authorisation Committees rejecting a kidney transplant application involving two family friends.
Justice N. Nagaresh directed the District Level Committee to reconsider the application within six weeks, granting the petitioners an opportunity to submit fresh evidence. He held that the rejection was based on “untenable grounds”.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings taken against a law student for allegedly defiling a Mahatma Gandhi statue on his campus by putting cooling glasses and Christmas wreath on it.
Justice V.G. Arun quashed the criminal proceedings alleging commission of offences under Sections 153 [Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot] and 426 [Punishment for mischief] of IPC noting that the ingredients of the offences were not made out.
Case Title: Suo Motu v R. Rajesh
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 483
The Kerala High Court closed the contempt proceedings initiated against former MLA R Rajesh by allowing a discharge application, citing significant procedural violations in the initiation and conduct of the proceedings.
The division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar allowed the discharge application.
Case Title: J. Vijayakumar v. Assistant Commissioner
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 484
The Kerala High Court has held that transactions involving the display of advertisements on hoardings are not taxable under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act (KVAT), where the right to use has not been transferred.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. agreed with the assessee that the charges collected by the assessee for displaying the advertisement included the charges for erection, printing and maintenance, etc. Thus, the responsibility to maintain the hoarding was with respect to the assessee, and the assessee had collected separate charges for the same as well.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 485
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 6) expressed its strong disapproval against the action of M.R. Ajith Kumar IPS, Additional Director General of Police (Armed Forces Battalion) for using a tractor belonging to the Kerala Police Department on the Sabarimala Swami Ayyappan Road on July 12 and 13.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considered a suo motu proceeding, which was initiated following the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala regarding the alleged incident.
Cochin International Airport Ltd A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act : Kerala High Court
Case Title: M/s Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. State Information Commission and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 486
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the Cochin International Airport (CIAL) is a public authority coming within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Dismissing the writ appeals preferred by CIAL challenging the decision of the Single Bench, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on CIAL for filing the writ appeals without proper authority.
Case Title: Ratheesh K G v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 487
Kerala High Court has quashed an FIR against a police officer accused of illegal search and bribery, holding that procedural irregularity in the matter of seizure of contraband alone, would not constitute an offence, even though it may attract disciplinary proceedings.
Justice A Badharudeen, delivered the judgment and ruled that the FIR registered against the petitioner was unwarranted and legally unsustainable.
Convict Not Entitled To Emergency Leave For Giving Care To Pregnant Wife: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Bindhu K.P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 488
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment denying emergency leave to a life convict to give pregnancy care to his wife, who was two months pregnant. It opined that extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be exercised granting parole to those convicted of serious offences, forgetting about the interests of the victims.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan delivered the judgment.
Case Title: Jose v The Sub Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 489
The Kerala High Court has issued detailed procedural guidance on how trial courts must handle the resumption of criminal proceedings against an accused previously found unfit to stand trial due to mental illness.
Justice G Girish observed, “The mere assessment as to whether the accused is having mental illness or not, by referring the matter to the Mental Health Review Board, would not serve any purpose, unless the opinion sought to be obtained is whether the unsoundness of mind of the accused is of such an extent which would render him incapable of making his defence,”
Case Title: S Sheeja v Maintenance Appellate Tribunal and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 490
The Kerala High Court has ruled that a person cannot be compelled to maintain a childless senior citizen under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, unless they are a legal heir of the senior citizen as defined under personal law.
The division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the judgment while allowing a writ appeal where the orders from the Maintenance Tribunal and the Appellate Tribunal directing the petitioner to support her husband's aunt was challenged.
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 491
The Kerala High Court recently imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on a convict (2nd respondent), who had filed two criminal appeals before the Sessions Court, one of which resulted in confirmation of sentence and the other in acquittal.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that it is the duty of all stakeholders to work together and ensure that the criminal justice delivery system is protected.
Kerala High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Litigant Appearing In Person For Threatening Judge
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Shafna C. and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 492
The Kerala High Court recently imposed Rs. 50,000 cost on a litigant, who was appearing as party-in-person, for threatening the single judge hearing his case by stating that he has filed a complaint against the judge before the President of India and other authorities.
Referring to former CJI JS Khehar's opinion in the 2015 National Judicial Commission judgment Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association and Another v. Union of India , Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan in his order observed:
"I am confident that I am upholding the oath I have taken, and I am discharging my duty in accordance with the Constitution of India. When I have faith in it, I am not bothered about such threats. The petitioner is threatening this Court by stating that he approached the President of India and other authorities against me. I am least bothered about the complaint submitted by the petitioner before the authorities because I am exercising my judicial powers in accordance with the law and the Constitution of India".
Case Title: Jollyamma Joseph @ Jolly v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 493
The 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.
Case Title: Elvin John Mathew v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 494
The Kerala High Court has held that the expression “without unnecessary delay” used in Section 21(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 in context of surrendering an arm after expiry of its license is too vague and thus, cannot form the basis for criminal prosecution unless.
Justice V.G. Arun held thus while quashing the proceedings against the petitioner, who was charged for depositing his licensed gun three months after the expiry of his licence.
Case Title: M.N. Narayana Das v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 495
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 12) granted regular bail to M.N. Narayana Das, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that he has been in custody for around 104 days and that his arrest is vitiated since the grounds were not mentioned to him.
Case Title: Gowri Sankari V.S. and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 496
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings against two persons for allegedly posting negative comments in a whatsapp group regarding the collection of money to the CMDRF (Kerala Chief Minister's Distress Relief Fund) account for Wayanad landslide victims.
Justice V.G. Arun observed:
"The comments, when read as a whole, makes it apparent that they were posted during the course of a discussion regarding utilization of the contributions made to the CMDRF. There are comments about mis-utilisation of the money donated and also against the political party in power. Even if so, to assume that such comments are capable of causing riot among the public and nuisance to others, is to say the least, preposterous. That the comments are not palatable to a group of people or even to the Government, is no reason to initiate criminal prosecution against the petitioners, since the comments, though critical of the Government, are well within the bounds of law."
Case Title: Mariamma Joseph and Others v Director of Local Fund Audit and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 497
The Kerala High Court has held that parties aggrieved by District Court decisions in surcharge proceedings initiated under the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act must file an appeal under Section 215(13) of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act rather than directly invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan delivered the judgment in an appeal against a 2013 District Court order which had quashed a surcharge order under Section 16 of the Kerala Local Fund Audit Act, 1994.
Case Title: Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
The Kerala High Court appointed two law students as amici curiae to assist in resolving a question on arrest and detention timelines in an NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted the “commitment with which two law interns were watching the proceedings” and, with their consent, appointed Ms. Nikhina Thomas and Ms. Neha Babu, both second-year students at Ramaiah College, Bengaluru, as amici curiae.
Case Title: Biswajith Mandal v Inspector, Narcotic Control Bureau
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 498
Kerala High Court has held that the 24-hour deadline for producing an accused before a magistrate under Article 22(2) of the Constitution begins from the moment a person's liberty is effectively curtailed, rather than from the time police formally records the arrest.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed:
“The period of twenty-four hours to produce an accused before the Magistrate commences not when the actual time of arrest is recorded by the police, but runs from the time when the accused was effectively detained or his liberty was curtailed.”
Case Title: Abdulla P. v. Manappuram General Finance and Leasing Ltd. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 499
The Kerala High Court has held that the presumption in favour of a cheque holder under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act exists even if the non-banking financial company (NBFC) to which the cheque was issued charged interest higher than that permissible under the Kerala Money-Lenders Act.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed:
“The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the entire life of a NBFC from the womb to the tomb is regulated and monitored by the Reserve Bank of India. The non banking financial companies regulated by the Reserve Bank of India in terms of the provisions of Chapter IIIB of the RBI Act, 1934 cannot be regulated by the Kerala Money-Lenders Act, 1958. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the accused that the interest claimed by the complainant was excessive and in violation of Kerala Money-Lenders Act 1958 and therefore it was an illegal transaction and for that reason, Ext.P4 cheque cannot be treated as a cheque issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt etc. are untenable. The presumption under Section 139 N.I Act entails an obligation on the court to presume that the cheque in question was issued by the drawer or accused in discharge of a debt or liability...”
Case Title: Zubair C.A. and Anr. v. Project Director, NHAI and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 500
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 13) dismissed three writ petitions challenging the setting up of a temporary toll plaza in Arikady in Kasargod district in the Thalappady-Cherkkala stretch of NH-66.
The petitioners challenged the proposed temporary toll as violative of Rule 8(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 for being less than 60km from another toll plaza on the same national highway.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed:
“Though Rule 8 mandates that a second Fee Plaza on the same Section of National Highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of 60 Km., the first proviso to Rule 8(2) states that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another Fee Plaza within a distance of 60 Km…The NHAI has given clear reasons in this regard in Ext.R3(b) office notes evidencing sanction given by the appropriate authority.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 501
The Kerala High Court has held that allegations of sexual intercourse based on a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained when the complainant is already in a subsisting marriage.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas, while granting regular bail to the petitioner accused of sexually assaulting a woman on the pretext of marriage, observed.
“Though the allegations are serious, since the victim is already in a subsisting marriage, allegation of sexual intercourse on the basis of a false promise of marriage cannot legally exist, atleast prima facie.”
Case Title: P.C. Tomy v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 502
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 18) granted bail to two persons booked in the Angamaly Urban Cooperative Society scam case, who along with other accused are booked for misappropriating ₹115.8 Crores by allegedly granting fake loans.
Justice A. Badharudeen granted the bail to the 5th accused PC Tomy and 12th accused Elsy Varghese, who were both board members of the society, in the 2024 criminal case registered by Crime Branch Ernakulam, noting that they did not have any past criminal records and the investigation has progressed well.
Case Title: Adv. Richard Rajesh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 503
The Kerala High Court has recently passed detailed directions to revive the defunct Kochi Metropolitan Transport Authority (KMTA), a body envisaged under the Kerala Metropolitan Transport Authority Act, 2019. The body was notified by the government of Kerala by an official Gazette on 30 October 2020.
While considering a writ petition seeking a direction to revive the KMTA, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji directed that the authority, which has remained on paper for the past five years, must be made functional by the Kerala Day, 1 November 2025.
Case Title: Appachan v. SI of Police and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 504
The Kerala High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against film distributor Appachan, prominently known as Swargachitra Appachan booked for allegedly tampering with Malayalam film 'Vellinakshtram'.
A crime was registered, alleging insertion of a scene in the film after it was certified by the Censor Board.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that since there was absolutely no material to show that the scene in question was inserted after the film was certified by the Censor Board, the offence would not stand.
Case Title: Luckose Joseph v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 505
The Kerala High Court has observed that while a valid sanction is prerequisite for prosecuting public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere error or irregularities in the sanction order will not alter/reverse any finding, sentence or order of a court unless it causes failure of justice.
Partly allowing an appeal, Justice A Badharudeen passed the order while confirming the conviction of the appellant, a former Village Officer for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹250 in 2001 for issuing possession certificates in respect of a property, but reduced his sentence to the statutory minimum.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. AAA
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 506
The Kerala High Court on Monday (August 18) closed the suo motu criminal contempt proceedings initiated against Ettumanoor-based lawyer after he filed an affidavit furnishing his unconditional apology.
A Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar closed the contempt proceedings, which were initiated after the advocate allegedly disrupted the proceedings of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Ettumanoor on 02.02.2023.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 4 PFI Members Booked For Murder Of RSS Leader Srinivasan
Case Title: Muhammed Bilal and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr., and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 507
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 19) granted bail to four persons, who are members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), accused of the alleged murder of BJP activist K.S. Srinivasan at Melamuri Junction in Palakkad Town in Kerala on April 16, 2022.
A Division Bench of Justices Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and K.V. Jayakumar granted bail to Muhammed Bilal, Riyasudheen, Ansar K.P., and Saheer K.V. in the appeals filed by them under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
Case Title: Dr. Sivaprasad v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 508
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by Dr. Sivaprasad, Vice-Chancellor of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU), challenging the interim order dated August 19, by which a single judge had declined to grant interim relief in his writ petition to resolve the 'administrative stalemate' in the University..
The division bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishnan S dismissed the appeal and held that the interim relief sought in the writ petition and the main relief were essentially the same.
Case Title: M.K. Aravindakshan and Anr. v. M.R. Pradeep and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 509
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment taking away the police protection granted to a couple to close down the gate in their property after noting that there was no law-and-order situation made out.
The Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed:
“The police force operates with limited resources and has to attend to various duties, often emergent ones. Routinely ordering police protection under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, without the apprehension of serious law and order issues being established, would divert the time and energy of the police force from areas where genuine law and order issues exist. Thus, orders for police protection may have implications extending beyond the parties before the Court, and this is a factor which the writ court ought to keep in mind.”
Case Title: Suo Motu v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 510
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (August 21) directed the formation of a body called the 'Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee' for finding long-terms solutions to improve the judicial administration and infrastructure of the Union Territory (UT) of Lakshadweep.
The Special Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. observed:
"With the positive stand taken by the Union Territory Administration during the hearing of this petition and in the meetings, many issues were resolved by consensus of UT Administration and the High Court Administration. Pursuant to our directions over the last six months, joint meetings were held, the officers met, discussed the issues, found solutions, and evolved timelines...However, for long-term solutions, these informal initiatives need to be formalised in the form of a permanent committee - “Lakshadweep Judicial Administration and Infrastructure Committee”.
Case Title: Manilal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 511
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man for allegedly using filthy language, hitting plastic chairs on the floor and throwing files in the Tahsildar's office in Kollam.
Highlighting the need for empathy and humane touch in bureaucracy, Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed:
“A humane touch is necessary in every administrative act of bureaucrats. It is often said that every file has a face, and every decision has a consequence. Behind every decision, there is a person with hopes, fears and dreams. Every decision made in an office affects a life outside of it. Administrative decisions are not just papers; they are lives in progress. The success of democracy is not just about governance by elected representatives of the people alone, but it also relies on the way bureaucrats support such a government with a humane approach.”
Case Title: Sulaiman M S and Ors v State of Kerala and Ors. and Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 512
The Kerala High Court has ordered fair compensation for the acquisition proceedings initiated by the State to compensate a minority- run private school, terming the move to avoid payment for full compensation, a “dubious attempt” to circumvent constitutional safeguards.
The division bench comprising Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon, delivered the judgment, allowing a writ appeal and the connected matter, held that the State cannot bypass constitutional protections under Article 30(1A) through indirect arrangements.
Case Title: A. Chandran v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 513
The Kerala High Court recently held that the period of service before the commencement of the Advocates' Clerks Welfare Scheme Rules, 1985 can be considered to see if an advocate clerk is eligible to get the benefit of the Scheme.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon passed the judgment while considering a plea by an advocate clerk, who started his work in the year 1970.
No Violation Of Article 14 In Denying Property Tax Exemption To Unaided Schools: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rev. Fr. Dr. Abraham Thalothil v. State of Kerala
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 514
The Kerala High Court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 in denying property tax exemption to unaided schools.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that the fact that the Government owned, managed and aided schools are established by the Government at their funds in order to provide education to all classes of persons by collecting nil or meagre fees, is a crucial factor which distinguishes such establishments from an unaided school, where fees is collected from the students for rendering the services.
Case Title: T.M. Hariprasad v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 515
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment holding that the village panchayat does not have the powers to suo motu review or cancel a building permit which was validly given by the Panchayat Secretary.
Referring to Rules 9, 13 and 14 of the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and the state Panchayat Raj Act, Justice C.S. Dias observed,
“A co-joint reading of the above provisions makes it abundantly clear that the jurisdiction to decide an application for a building permit rests solely with the Secretary. It is only when the Secretary does not approve or disapprove an application within 15 days that the Village Panchayat gets jurisdiction to decide the application, provided the applicant submits a written request...The legislation statute bars the Panchayat, its President or members from interfering with the statutory powers entrusted exclusively to its officers, and there is a clear separation/bifurcation of powers between the Village Panchayat and its Secretary”.
Case Title: Liviya Jose v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 516
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (August 23) granted regular bail to Liviya Jose, who was accused of falsely implicating Chalakudy-based beauty parlour owner Sheela Sunny in a fake NDPS case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed, "The petitioner is a young lady of 21 years...Considering the period of custody already undergone, I am of the view that further detention is not necessary."
Case Title: Bhargavan Pillai and Ors. v District Geologist and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 517
The Kerala High Court held that contractors executing National Highway projects cannot claim automatic exemption from environmental clearance (EC) requirements merely because they hold a work order from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). They have to show that they are holding a work order executed before March 21, 2024, and that they are doing the work exclusively for the linear project.
Justice C Jayachandran delivered the judgment in a writ petition filed by residents of Kurampala Village in Pathanamthitta, opposing a large-scale excavation of ordinary earth from 'Erichurili Mala' by Respondent 7, Viswasamudra Engineering Pvt. Ltd., a contractor engaged in six laning of NH-66 from Kottukulangara-Kollam bypass.
Case Title: Sukumaran and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 518
The Kerala High Court recently held that even non-legal heirs of a complainant can continue prosecution of the complaint upon his death, even if his legal heirs are alive and have not come forward to prosecute.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that Section 302 of CrPC empowers a Magistrate to permit “any person” to prosecute the complaint. The bench observed that even a non-legal heir of a complainant in a complaint case can be permitted to continue the prosecution on the death of the complainant, although his legal heirs are alive and have not come forward to prosecute the case.
Case Title: A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 519
The 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].
Case Title: Kadakampally Manoj v State of Kerala and Ors and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 520
The 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.
Case Title: Navas A v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 521
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a PIL challenging the 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 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."
Case Title: Santhy Krishnan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 522
The 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.
Case Title: Renjith Krishnan R. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 523
The 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 threshold, to avoid misuse of the jurisdiction.
Case Title: V.D. Satheeshan MLA & Others v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 524
The Kerala High Court today dismissed a writ petition filed by two Congress leaders challenging the installation of AI cameras for 'Automated Traffic Enforcement' in the State and seeking a Court monitored enquiry into the Safe Kerala project.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed,
"Having thoroughly reviewed the claims in writ petition, the counter affidavit and the legal arguments from both counsels, we are compelled to conclude that the petitioners have failed to provide any evidence from which this Court could reasonably infer the existence of malafides, illegality, corruption or procedural impropriety in the contract for the AI camera installation under the Safe Kerala Project."
Case Title: Union of India v. Rasheeda Bano and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 525
The Kerala High Court has recently held that citizenship of India cannot be granted to a foreign national in the absence of a Renunciation Certificate, by mere surrender of passport issued by the country of origin, in this case Pakistan.
The Division Bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Syam Kumar V.M. was hearing the Central government's appeal against a single judge's order permitting two Pakistani minors (respondents 2 and 3) to be granted Indian citizenship without insisting on a Renunciation Certificate.
Kerala High Court Orders Strict Action Against Levy Of Excessive Locker Fees In Sabarimala
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 526
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (August 26) directed initiation of strict action against a tender holder in Sabarimala for charging locker fees, much higher than that permissible by the tender conditions.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu case, which was initiated based on an anonymous complaint by a Telangana resident addressed to the Chief Justice. The complaint pertained to the unauthorized collection of locker charges at Pamba, Sabarimala allegedly resulting in revenue loss to the Travancore Devaswom Board.
Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Rapper Vedan In Rape Case
Case Title: Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 527
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 27) granted anticipatory bail to Rapper Vedan, officially known as Hiran Das Murali, in a case alleging rape on the false promise to marry.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed the fact that a new crime was registered against the rapper by another woman or that another crime may also be registered, are not matters under consideration in the instant case.
Case Title: State of Kerala v. K. Surendran
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 528
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday allowed the State government to withdraw the revision petition filed by it against the discharge of BJP leader K. Surendran in the Manjeshwaram election bribery case.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed that as per the decision in Xavier Raj v. State of Kerala (2025 (4) KLT 257), revision petitions against discharge were not maintainable and the only remedy is an appeal under Section 14A the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
Case Title: Bobby Kuruvila v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 529
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday set aside the 2021 Government Order directing further investigation into a criminal case against retired DGP Tomin J. Thachankary for possessing illegal assets.
Reversing the judgment of the Single Judge dismissing the writ petition challenging the order, the Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed:
“…we are at a loss to understand how the State Government could have exercised such a power to direct further investigation more than four years after the laying of the final report, and that too at the instance of material brought to their notice by an accused person who had already approached the jurisdictional court with a discharge petition that was eventually dismissed… In our view the State government did not have the power to issue such an order and, even if it did, the power was not exercised in the manner contemplated under law. The Government order dated 28.01.2021 was therefore clearly vitiated by legal mala fides.”
Case Title: State of Kerala v Jithakumar K and Anr and Connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 530
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday acquitted all the police officers earlier convicted for the custodial death of Udayakumar in Thiruvananthapuram.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar has overturned the convictions and held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused officers were responsible.
[S.292 IPC] Courts Must View Video In Obscenity Case To Verify Allegations: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Harikumar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 531
The Kerala High Court has overturned the conviction of a man accused of possessing and distributing obscene video cassettes, holding that the trial court failed in its duty to directly verify the material evidence before finding him guilty.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, allowing the criminal revision petition, set aside the orders of both the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kottayam, and the Sessions Court, Kottayam.
Case Title: Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd v. The District Collector and connecter Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 532
The Kerala High Court has quashed Revenue Divisional Officer's orders (RDO) reclassifying land owned by Lulu Hyper Market Pvt. Ltd. in Thrissur, observing that statutory procedure under Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act had not been properly followed.
It thus directed a fresh evaluation of the land.
Justice Viju Abraham issued the judgment while disposing of two connected writ petitions, one filed by Lulu Hypermarket and the other filed by T.N. Mukundan, a member of the District Level Authorised Committee constituted under the Act, who opposed the conversion.
Kerala High Court Directs Vigil On Kochi's Canals, Closes Six-Year-Old PIL
Case Title: Treasa K.J. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 533
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (August 27) issued comprehensive directions for the upkeep of the Kochi city's canal and drainage system, while affirming the role of a high-level committee constituted earlier to oversee the matter.
Justice Devan Ramachandran, delivering judgment, noted that the 2018 floods were a “turning point” that exposed the fragility of Kochi's drainage infrastructure. “It was an eye-opener, but also a lesson that proper maintenance and decongestion of canals could mitigate inundation,” the Court observed.
Case Title: Cochin Port Trust v State of Kerala and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 534
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (27, August) has set aside an order issued by the State Chief Secretary directing the Cochin Port Trust to urgently remove sedimentation obstructing the flow of the Periyar River near the Vallarpadam railway bridge, holding that such a far-reaching decision required consultation with all stakeholders. The court also directed the state to find a comprehensive solution to the issue within three months.
Justice Devan Ramachandran delivered the judgment while considering a batch of cases relating to the sedimentation in Periyar river.
Case Title: Kerala Taxi Drivers Organisation v State of Kerala and Anr and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 535
The Kerala High Court has upheld the State Transport Authority's (STA) decision mandating installation of surveillance cameras with fatigue-detection sensors, geo-fencing technology, and compulsory production of Police Clearance Certificates(PCCs) for transport personnel.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., delivered the judgment dismissing a batch of writ petitions filed by stage carriage operators, private bus operators, taxi drivers' associations, educational institutions, and travel operators.
S. 232 BNSS | No Prohibition On Committal Courts To Consider Bail Applications: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Vishnu v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 536
The Kerala High Court has held that there is no prohibition on a committal court to consider the bail application of an accused person as per the second proviso to Section 232 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
Justice V.G. Arun observed:
"The 2nd proviso casts a duty on the Magistrate to forward the applications filed by the accused or the victim to the Court of Session while committing the case. If the 2nd proviso is taken as a prohibition on the Magistrate's power to consider applications, including bail applications at the committal stage, that will deprive the accused of his right to seek bail till the case is committed to the Sessions Court...As per sub-clause (a) of Section 232, the Magistrate's power to remand the accused to custody until commitment, is subject to the provisions relating to bail. If the proviso is interpreted as making it obligatory for the Magistrate to forward the bail applications also to the Sessions Court, that would render the power conferred under sub-clause (a) of Section 232 nugatory."
Angamaly Co-op Scam: Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 7th Accused VD Tomy
Case Title: V.D. Tomy v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 537
The Kerala High Court recently granted regular bail to V.D. Tomy, who is the 7th accused in the alleged case of misappropriation of ₹115.8 Crores by granting fake loans in Angamaly Co-operative Urban Society. He was arrested on 11th July and has been custody since then.
Justice A. Badharudeen granted bail after noting that Tomy had no antecedents, and the investigation in the case had progressed much. Therefore, the Court felt that no useful purpose would be served if he continues to be in custody.