Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538 - 616]Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor and Anr and Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 538C.P. Muhammed v. The Geologist and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 539Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 540X v Abraham Mathai and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541Abdul Jabbar...
Nominal Index: [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 538 - 616]
Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor and Anr and Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
C.P. Muhammed v. The Geologist and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
X v Abraham Mathai and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
Aparna Nair v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v. The Superintendent and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
Harrisons Malayalam Limited v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Askaf v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
XX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
M.C. Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
Union of India and Ors. v. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 549
P.S. Vijayakumaran v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
Pamba Boat Race Club Reg No. 98/90 and Anr. v. Pamba Boat Race Club and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
M/s Classic Agencies and Ors. v. The Regional Office, India Overseas Bank and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
Anto Paul Prakash v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Anr v M/S L & T Tech Park Ltd and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
Shawn Anthony and Anr v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
Santosh Karwade v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
Meghna Devi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
Suo Motu v. P.C. Jose and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
Shaji @ Shaiju v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
Dr. A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
Rajappan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
Saravanabhava v. The District Collector and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
Shone George v Union of India and connected matters, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
Jayasree Rajkumar v Inspector of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
V.J. Kurian v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
Vishnu v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
Manoj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
Farhana Latheef v Revenue Divisional Officer and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
Marthoma Syrian Church v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
Rajan V K v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
Kumar K.P. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
Anirudh P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
Jubairiya v Saidalavi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
Muhammed Anwarsha v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
The District Collector and Others v Thangal Kunju and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
Anoop Paul v. M.P. Cherian and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
Santhosh Kumar v. Syamala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 593
Sivan and Anr. v. Raju P.V. and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
Shiny S Raj v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
Sivan and Others v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
National Highways Authority of India v. Lawrence and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co, (P) Ltd v The District Superintendent of Police and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
R. Thilakan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
P.N. Suresh Kumar and Others v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 602
K.C. Dileep Kumar v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
State of Kerala v. Enforcement Directorate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
Muhammed Shammas P. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
Abdullakutty Haji v H Musthafa, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
Kulathoor Jaisingh v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
Jaice John and Ors. v. The Director of Mining and Geology and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
Abdul Khader v. Arumugan and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
Shareefa v. The Sub Collector, Tirur and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
Athul Dini and Anr. v. The District Registrar and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
X v. Y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
In the matter of M/s.Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 614
Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 616
Judgments/ Orders This Month
KTU Syndicate Meeting Can't Be Continued After Vice-Chancellor Calls It Off, Will Create 'Ridiculous Situations': Kerala High Court
Case Title: Dr Vinodkumar Jacob v The Vice Chancellor and Anr and Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 538
The Kerala High Court has held that members of the Syndicate of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) cannot continue a meeting once it has been called off by the Vice-Chancellor.
Justice T.R. Ravi passed the order in two writ petitions filed by two Syndicate members challenging the annulment of decisions by the Vice Chancellor which were taken at the 63rd Syndicate meeting of KTU after the VC had declared the meeting as closed.
Kerala HC Partly Quashes Centre's 2022 Memo Extending Validity Of Clearance For Mining Projects As Violative Of Environment Protection Act
Case Title: C.P. Muhammed v. The Geologist and Ors. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 539
The Kerala High Court has struck down portions of a 2022 notification and subsequent clarification (Office Memorandum (O.M.)) issued by the Union Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to the extent it gives extension of validity period of Environment Clearance to mining projects.
Justice C Jayachandran, in his order observed:
“The impugned Ext.P8 notification dated 12.04.2022 –insofar as it is applicable to mines and mining operations as provided in clause 9(iv) - is declared ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules, and also, the EIA notification, 2006 and hence struck down as unconstitutional. Ext.P9 Office Memorandum is also declared illegal and ultra vires the Environment (Protection) Act, the Environment (Protection) Rules and the EIA notification, 2006, insofar as it pertains to mines and mining operations. Consequently, the 6th respondent will stand directed, by a writ of mandamus, to take action in accord with law regarding the quarrying operations of the 9th respondent, treating Ext.P20 E.C. to have expired.”
Petroleum Outlet Can Be Opened Near College, Siting Criteria Only Bars Vicinity With Schools & Hospitals: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 540
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that colleges do not fall within the ambit of sensitive locations for the purpose of siting criteria for petroleum outlets.
Justice S. Manu was considering a challenge to an order passed by the Deputy Chief Controller of Explosives (2nd respondent) rejecting the approval sought by the petitioner to give her property for starting a retail outlet of petroleum products.
'Written Complaint Essential For Adjudicating PoSH Cases, Labour Disputes Not Covered Under Act': Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act) cannot be initiated without a written complaint and that disputes of a purely labour nature do not fall under the Act's framework.
A division bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K V Jayakumar dismissed a writ appeal, affirming a single bench decision that quashed the finding of the Local Level Committee constituted under the POSH Act, and a subsequent communication from District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram.
Creating 'Hostile Environment' For Employee At Work Does Not Fall Under Scope of PoSH Act: Kerala High Court
Case Title: X v Abraham Mathai and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 541
The Kerala High Court has ruled that allegations of creating a hostile work environment, without any element of sexual conduct or advances, do not amount to “sexual harassment” under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (PoSH Act).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K.V. Jayakumar made the observation while dismissing a writ appeal challenging a single judge's decision that had quashed the report of a Local Level Committee constituted under PoSH Act and a compliance directive from the Thiruvananthapuram District Collector.
Chain Snatching | Recovery Of Stolen Items Not Sufficient For Conviction Without Identification Of Person Who Committed Theft: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abdul Jabbar v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 542
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a person cannot be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of stolen items when the same is not corroborated with evidence to show that it was, in fact, he who stole them.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, wherein it was held that disclosure statements cannot be the sole basis for conviction when unaccompanied by supporting evidence.
Sending Money To Complainant's Relative Not Proof Of Crime: Kerala High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Woman Accused Of Trafficking
Case Title: Aparna Nair v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 543
While granting anticipatory bail to a woman accused of trafficking the children of the complainant to UAE, the Kerala High Court observed the mere fact that she had sent money to the complainant's relative does not prove her involvement in the alleged crime.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation in a case where the prosecution alleged that the petitioner (second accused) along with accused 1 and 3, had promised to provide an employment to the two children of de-facto complainant and had trafficked them to 'UAE' on a visiting visa.
Kerala High Court Grants 10-Day Leave To Life Convict Pursuing LLB Course To Attend Internship
Case Title: Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v. The Superintendent and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 544
The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 8) granted 10-day leave to a man, convicted and sentenced to life for murder and presently pursuing 3-year LL.B. course, to attend internship scheduled from September 10-16.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied on the judgment in Pattakka Suresh Babu v. State of Kerala and observed:
"The Division Bench of this Court in Pattakka Suresh Babu's case (supra) observed that, a prisoner who intends to pursue his studies should be allowed to pursue his studies through online, and for other internal examinations, the prisoner should be granted leave. I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be given leave in the light of the observation of the Division Bench in Pattakka Suresh Babu's case (supra)."
Case Title: Harrisons Malayalam Limited v State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 545
Kerala High Court has recently closed a writ appeal filed single judge's order allowing the State government to acquire Nedumbala estate owned by Harrisons Malayalam Limited for rehabilitation of 2024 Wayanad Landslide victims under Disaster Management Act.
The division bench comprising Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was informed that the state government, by an order dated 28.02.2025, had excluded Nedumbala Estate from being acquired for the time being. The government submitted that it will come up with a fresh notice to take over the estate in future, if required.
Case Title: Askaf v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 546
The Kerala High Court recently acquitted a person after finding that the trial court accepted chief affidavits of witnesses as evidence against him in violation of Section 276 Cr.P.C.
Justice Johnson John observed:
"Therefore, if the trial court permits the prosecution to file chief affidavit of a material witness as evidence in a criminal case against the accused, the same will cause serious prejudice to the accused, in as much as the entire contents of the chief affidavit can only be treated as an outcome of the leading questions put to the witness."
Case Title: XX v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 547
The Kerala High Court has held that a person availing the services of a sex worker in a brothel cannot be termed a “customer,” stressing that sex workers are not commodities and should not be reduced to the status of products in commercial transactions.
Justice V.G. Arun, in his order, clarified that the very concept of “customer” involves the purchase of goods or services. In contrast, sex workers — many of whom are victims of trafficking or coercion — cannot be equated with products or ordinary service providers, adding that a person availing a sex workers' services in a brothel is actually inducing that sex worker to carry on prostitution by paying money.
Case Title: M.C. Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 548
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) granted regular bail to former MLA M.C. Kamarudheen and his business associate T.K. Pookoya Thangal in a PMLA case where they are accused of siphoning over Rs. 20 Crores of investor's money allegedly siphoned to four companies.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas noted that there are no reasons to assume that the petitioners are guilty of the offence under Section 420 IPC and consequently, for the offence under the PMLA Act. It also reiterated that unless there was fraudulent intention from the very beginning, mere breach of the contractual term would amount to cheating.
Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. Fareeda Sukha Rafiq and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 549
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the post office can forfeit the interest that has accrued on the public provident fund (PPF) contribution made by a guardian in their minor's account in excess of the limits permissible under the Public Provident Fund Scheme, 1968.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. looked into Rule 3 of Scheme 1968 and Sections 3 and 4 of the PPF Act as well as the tabulation of the interest accrued and excess deposits made in the accounts. It noted that the total interest accrued in the minors' accounts till their respective dates of attainment of majority is the only amount that was forfeited.
Case Title: P.S. Vijayakumaran v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 550
The Kerala High Court has permitted the enrollment of a retired government employee, who completed LLB degree by attending evening classes.
Justice N. Nagaresh disposed of the writ petition which was filed challenging the denial of enrollment to a retired employee who has completed his LL.B in 1994 by attending evening classes.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 551
The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against an 18-year-old man in an alleged case of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, after recording that neither the victim nor her parents had any complaints against him.
Justice G. Girish recorded that in the affidavit filed before the Court, the victim, who is now 18 years old, even expressed her intention to continue her romantic relationship with the petitioner.
Case Title: Pamba Boat Race Club Reg No. 98/90 and Anr. v. Pamba Boat Race Club and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 552
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) observed that there is no constitutional or statutory right available to any club to conduct boat race in Pamba river. It also said that the schedule for conducting boat race is to be decided by the competent authorities, including the District Collector.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal challenging the interim order passed by a Single Judge modifying the schedule set by the District Collector.
Case Title: M/s Classic Agencies and Ors. v. The Regional Office, India Overseas Bank and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 553
The Kerala High Court has held that a party cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to seek a direction to a bank not to cancel the OTS (One Time Settlement) facility granted to it.
The Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. relied on the settled positions of law laid down by the Supreme Court in South Indian Bank Ltd. v. Naveen Mathew, Phoenix ARC (P) Ltd. v. Vishwa Bharati Vidya Mandir, Varimadugu Obi Reddy v. B. Sreenivasulu, State Bank of India v. Arvindra Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Bijnor Urban Cooperative Bank Limited v. Meenal Agarwal.
Case Title: Anto Paul Prakash v. Directorate of Enforcement
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 554
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (September 9) granted regular bail to Anto Paul Prakash, the third accused in the alleged Chinese Loan App scam booked for offences under Prevention of Money Laundering Act.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the grounds of arrest were not communicated to the near relative of the arrestee and therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court today refused to interfere with the suspension of Kerala University Registrar Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar, in connection with the Bharat Mata portrait row.
Justice T.R. Ravi instead directed the Vice Chancellor to convene a meeting of the varsity Syndicate, which will decide the issue.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 555
The Kerala High Court has observed that Universities are meant to safeguard the higher education system and thus, they should be guided only by academic considerations and should not allow their functioning to be disrupted by political or other extraneous considerations.
Justice T.R. Ravi, while dismissing a writ petition filed by Kerala University Registrar Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar against his suspension, observed that the ongoing tussle between the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar reflect an “unsavoury” state of affairs in the University's administration..
Case Title: The Regional Director, ESI Corporation and Anr v. M/S L & T Tech Park Ltd and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 556
The Kerala High Court held that workers engaged in pre-operative/preliminary interior fit-out works are not covered under the definition of employee under Section 2(9)(ii) of the Employees' State Insurance Act and hence no benefits can be extended to them under the Act.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal by the ESI Corporation and upheld the order of the Employees' Insurance Court directing refund of contributions exceeding ₹26 lakh to L&T Tech Park Ltd.
Case Title: Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 557
The Kerala High Court recently held that Akshaya Centres are intended for connecting the general public with government services and cannot be considered to be business centres with profit motive.
Justice N. Nagaresh was considering petitions filed by the Forum of Akshaya Centre Entrepreneurs and the All Kerala Akshaya Entrepreneurs Confederation challenging the government order that fixed the fees that can be levied by Akshaya Centres for K-smart services.
Case Title: Prasanth Andrews v. Ayyappan Pillai
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 558
The Kerala High Court recently directed a Magistrate Court to defer the pronouncement of judgment in a case since it was posted for judgment the very next day after dismissing the accused's plea for re-opening evidence but without issuing him a copy of the dismissal order.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan passed the judgment directing the Magistrate to defer its judgment by 2 weeks and to issue a certified copy of the dismissal order within 3 days, if applied for.
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 11) denied anticipatory bail to Venu Gopalakrishnan, owner of an IT firm in Info Park (Kakkanad) in an alleged case of sexual assault and harassment against his female employee.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that there were serious allegations made out in the complaint preferred by the de facto complainant and also noted some anomalies in the manner in which the investigation is being carried out. The Court also expressed that it is not convinced that the allegations raised against Venu are wholly false.
Case Title: Venu Gopalakrishnan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 559
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that anticipatory bail applications can be entertained by the High Courts and there is no need for parties to first approach the Sessions Court in light of the precedents in the case.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas made the observation while considering an anticipatory bail plea preferred by an IT-firm owner in an alleged case of rape and sexual harassment of his female employee.
Case Title: Shawn Anthony and Anr v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 560
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Shawn Antony and Soubin Shahir, the producers of “Manjummel Boys” film, seeking relaxation of anticipatory bail conditions which prevent them from leaving India without permission of the Court.
The producers, accused in a cheating case, sought to attend an award show in Dubai. Justice V.G. Arun however dismissed their plea.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 561
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 12) issued a set of directions to the four Devaswom Boards in the State, namely, Travancore, Cochin, Guruvayoor and Malabar Devaswom Boards, in order to facilitate temple darshan for persons with disabilities (PWDs).
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition, which was registered on the basis of a complaint preferred by T. Suganthi. In the complaint, she had outlined the difficulties faced by her during her visit to Sree Vadakkumnathan Temple at Thrissur last year as she was not permitted to carry her wheelchair inside.
Case Title: Santosh Karwade v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 562
The Kerala High Court recently held that an investigating officer is not a 'suitable person' as per Regulation 163 of the Navy (Discipline and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations, 1965, to prosecute a trial before the Court-Martial.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath considered the constitutional validity of Regulation 178(3) of the Navy Regulations, which permits the prosecutor to be a competent witness. He also interpreted whether the term 'suitable person' in Regulation 163(1) to conduct a trial includes the investigating officer.
Income Of Parent Who Abandoned Family Need Not Be Considered For EWS Reservation: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Meghna Devi and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 563
The Kerala High Court has recently passed a judgment holding that if any of the parents abandons the family, the income of such parent need not be taken into account for granting EWS (Economically Weaker Section) certificate to the child.
Justice N. Nagaresh was considering a plea preferred by a NIFT - National Institute of Fashion Technology aspirant (1st petitioner), who approached the High Court after being aggrieved by an order rejecting EWS certificate to her.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. P.C. Jose and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 564
The Kerala High Court recently closed the suo-motu criminal contempt proceedings against Managing Director and Director of Malayalam web-news channel Karma News for publishing scandalous remarks against judges, after the duo tendered an unconditional apology.
Accepting the unconditional apology made by the directors, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed:
“Under Rule 14(a) of the Contempt of Courts (High Court of Kerala) Rules, 1988, if the respondents tender an unconditional apology after admitting that they have committed the contempt, the Court may proceed to pass such orders as it deems fit… After hearing the respondents as well as the learned counsel, we are satisfied that the apology tendered by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 is bona fide and in consonance with the requirements of Rule 14(a)…”
Kerala High Court Says Alappuzha School Flooding Likely Aggravated By 'Man-Made Factors', Orders Study To Devise Long-Term Measures
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 565
The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government to take action to address the issue of recurrent flooding in Kuttanad area of Alappuzha district. It directed that the action be taken based on the preliminary and detailed reports, which are to be submitted by the Chief Engineer after conducting a detailed study of the area.
The direction was made by the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji in a suo motu public interest litigation instituted after receipt of a letter from the teachers and students of the SNDP Higher Secondary School, Kuttamangalam in Kainakary Grama Panchayat regarding flooding of classroom and consequent interruption of classes.
S.528 BNSS | High Courts Can Exercise Inherent Jurisdiction To Permit Withdrawal Of Criminal Appeals Preferred By Convicts: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Shaji @ Shaiju v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 566
The Kerala High Court recently permitted the withdrawal of two criminal appeals filed by convicts by exercising the inherent power available to it under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure).
Justice Gopinath P. clarified that such power to permit withdrawal of appeals is available only to the High Courts and not to subordinate courts entertaining appeals.
Kerala High Court Acquits Former Minister Neelalohithadasan Nadar In 1999 Sexual Harassment Case
Case Title: Dr. A Neelalohithadasan Nadar v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 567
The Kerala High Court has acquitted Dr. A. Neelalohithadasan Nadar, former Forest Minister of Kerala accused of outraging the modesty of a woman Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath delivered the judgment on Monday, allowing the criminal revision petition filed by Dr. Nadar against his earlier conviction by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kozhikode, in 2004, which was subsequently upheld by the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, in 2005.
IO Who Conducted Part Of Investigation Can Be Examined By Prosecution Despite Omission Of His Name In Final Report: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sunilkumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 568
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the trial court to summon and examine as prosecution witness one of the investigating officers whose name was not included in the final report filed in a criminal trial.
Justice G. Girish was considering an original petition filed by the accused on being aggrieved by the trial court's order denying his prayer to examine a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who had conducted part of the investigation.
S.198B CrPC | Cognizance Of Rape U/S 376B IPC Can Be Taken Only Upon Complaint By Separated Wife, Not On Police Report: Kerala High Court
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 569
The Kerala High Court has recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man accused of raping his separated wife after noting that cognizance of offence under Section 376B IPC was not taken in accordance with Section 198B of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The court said that as per Section 198B CrPC, cognizance of offence under Section 376B IPC (Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation) can be taken only upon complaint by wife and it bars cognizance in any other manner.
Justice G Girish delivered the judgment.
Kerala High Court Closes Suo Motu Case On Unauthorized Fundraising For Sabarimala Panchaloha Idol, Orders Police To Complete Probe
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 570
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday closed the suo motu proceedings initiated over the unauthorized collection of funds for installing a Panchaloha idol of Lord Ayyappa at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha Temple by a private individual.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar held that no further orders were necessary after the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) withdrew its earlier permission and the accused expressed willingness to defer the project.
S.53A Abkari Act | Violation Of Procedure For Drawing Samples Of Contraband Vitiates Prosecution: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rajappan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 571
The Kerala High Court has acquitted a man sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for four years over alleged possession and manufacture of arrack, citing the failure of the prosecution to establish possession or ownership of the property where the contraband was seized, along with non-compliance of Section 53A (Disposal of seized liquor, intoxicating drugs or articles) of the Abkari Act.
Justice Johnson John, set aside the conviction of the appellant who had been sentenced to four years' imprisonment by the IV Additional Sessions Court, Thodupuzha. The trial court had held him guilty under Sections 55(g) (use or keeps, or has in possession any materials for the purpose of manufacturing liquor or toddy) and 8(1) read with 8(2) (Prohibition of manufacture, import, export, transport, transit, possession, storage, sales, etc., of arrack) of the Abkari Act.
National Highways Act | Only Disputes Which Cannot Be Decided By Competent Authority May Be Referred To Civil Court U/S 3H(4): Kerala HC
Case Title: Saravanabhava v. The District Collector and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 572
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified the meaning of the word 'dispute' falling under Section 3H(4) of the National Highways Act, 1956. The court was considering the nature of disputes that must be referred to a civil court by the Competent Authority under the NH Act.
As per Section 3H(4), two types of disputes have to be referred to the civil court: disputes as to the apportionment of amount and, disputes as to the person to whom compensation is payable.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon observed that disputes that are to be referred to the civil court are only those which the competent authority cannot itself decide without adjudication.
Hindu Marriage Act | Second Marriage During Appeal Period Valid If Divorce Decree Remains Unchallenged By Ex-Spouse: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rakhi v. Krishnakumar and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 573
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a marriage contracted within the time frame provided for appealing a decree of divorce dissolving previous marriage would not be considered to be illegal if the decree is unchallenged by the former spouse.
The decision was passed by the Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha while considering an original petition by a wife (petitioner) challenging the Family Court's order.
'Stranger' Not Entitled To Certified Copies Of Criminal Records, Court Should Call For Objections From Affected Persons: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Shone George v Union of India and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 574
The Kerala High Court has ruled that third parties cannot claim an automatic right to certified copies of documents filed in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases investigated by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO).
Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment while deciding three connected criminal miscellaneous cases concerning the SFIO probe into Cochin Minerals and Rutile Ltd. (CMRL) and Kerala State Industrial Development Corporation Limited.
Petrol Pump Toilets On National Highways To Be Open During Working Hours, Not 24X7: Kerala High Court Modifies Single Judge Order
Case Title: Petroleum Traders Welfare and Legal Service Society v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 575
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) modified a Single judge's interim order mandating all petroleum retail outlets located along National Highways in the state to keep their washrooms open to the public 24/7.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan modified the first two directions passed by the Single Judge to the extent that it mandated all retails outlets to provide round-the-clock use of toilet facilities by the public.
Kerala High Court Upholds Conviction Of Public Servant In Corruption Case, Cites Her 'Voluntary' Confession
Case Title: Jayasree Rajkumar v Inspector of Police and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 576
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with a trial court order, which found a public servant guilty of misappropriating over ₹2 Lakh, observing that the sanction order under the Prevention of Corruption Act was issued by the authority after due application of mind and that the accused had voluntarily given handwritten confessional statements.
The court also said that the accused had not challenged the statements before superiors on the ground that it was given under threat. Thus, while upholding the conviction, the court modified her sentence.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order For 'Quick Verification' Of Graft Complaint Against Ex-MD Of CIAL Over Alleged Illegal Transfer Of Shares
Case Title: V.J. Kurian v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) upheld the order of Enquiry Commissioner and Special Judge (Vigilance) directing quick verification in a complaint made against V.J. Kurian, former Managing Director of Cochin International Airport Ltd. (CIAL).
Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order while considering a plea by Kurian challenging the quick verification order passed by the Special Judge. The judge observed:
“On scrutiny of the materials, along with the statement filed by the Investigating Officer to get prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, 2018, there is no necessity to interfere with the order impugned and the further steps as per the order can be proceeded on getting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act, 2018, sought for.”
Previous Sanction Under Section 17A Not Required To Prosecute Public Servants for Benami Deals: Kerala High Court
Case Title: V.J. Kurian v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 577
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a public servant purchasing shares as “benami” and the purchasing of public property under a “benami” does not come within the purview of Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018.
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering a plea challenging the quick verification order passed by a Special Judge (Vigilance) to look into a complaint against an alleged incident of transfer of around 1,20,000 ESOP shares of CIAL (Cochin International Airport Ltd.) to a non-employee by its former Managing Director in 2004.
Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Man Accused U/S 69 BNS, Cites Consensual Relationship With Victim
Case Title: Vishnu v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 578
The Kerala High Court granted bail to a man booked for engaging in sexual relations with a divorced woman on the pretext of marriage, observing that prima facie there seemed to be a consensual relationship between the two.
The case arose from allegations against the petitioner, accused under Sections 69(Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means, etc), 74(Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), and 115(2) (Voluntarily causing hurt) of the BNS.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the judgment.
S.124 & 125 BSA | Kerala High Court Issues Additional Directions For Recording Evidence Of Vulnerable Witnesses
Case Title: Manoj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 579
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment outlining certain additional directions for recording the evidence of vulnerable witnesses. These directions are in addition to the guidelines issued through Notification No. D1-7/17562/2022 dated 21.12.2024, the Court clarified.
Justice Gopinath P. was considering an appeal preferred by a convict challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the Sessions Court for the alleged commission of an offence under Section 376(2)(l) IPC.
Kerala Conservation Of Paddy Land & Wetland Act | Order Passed On Plea For Changing Nature Of Unnotified Land Appealable U/S 27B: High Court
Case Title: Farhana Latheef v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 580
The Kerala High Court held that the orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) on an application for change of nature of unnotified land are appealable under Section 27B of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008.
The Court held that the application for change of nature of unnotified land submitted in Form 6, Form 7, or Form 9 under Rule 12 of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008—are traceable to Section 27A(2) of the Wetland Act and are hence appealable under Section 27 B [Appeal] of the Act.
Justice Viju Abraham delivered the judgment in a writ petition challenging the RDO's rejection of Form 9 application seeking to change the nature of her property.
Buildings Providing Free Housing To Aged, Disabled Persons Who Served Religious/Charitable Institutions Exempt From Building Tax: Kerala HC
Case Title: Marthoma Syrian Church v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 581
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a building used to provide free housing to aged and disabled persons, and their dependents, would be exempt from tax if these persons had rendered their services in the charitable/religious institutions managed by the building owner. The building owner would be granted the benefit of Section 3(1)(b) of the Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975.
Section 3(1)(b) provides for exemption from payment of building tax if the building is primarily used for religious, charitable or educational purposes or as factories and workshops.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. delivered the judgment.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Discharge Bus Driver In Fatal Accident Case Despite FIR Based On Non-Eyewitness Statement
Case Title: Rajan V K v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 582
The Kerala High Court has dismissed a revision petition filed by a bus driver accused in a 2016 road accident that claimed the life of a motorcyclist, despite arguments that the prosecution's case rested on a First Information Report (FIR) registered on the basis of a statement from a non-eyewitness relative of the deceased.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath, dismissed the revision petition.
Kerala High Court Confirms Life Sentence Of Six Assailants In Munambam Abhilash Murder Case
Case Title: Kumar K.P. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 583
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 18) confirmed the finding of guilt and sentence of life imprisonment granted to the six assailants in the Munambam Abhilash murder case. Abhilash, a CPI(M) activist hailing from Munambam, was murdered on the night of May 19 2005 by the appellants, who were workers of BJP using swords, iron rods, etc.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that the prosecution succeeded in proving the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Refusal Of Sanction Without Considering Prosecution Material, Merely Praising Accused's Work Not Valid: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Anirudh P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 584
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a sanction order denying prosecution of public servant is not valid if the same was made without reference to the prosecution materials and merely depicts appraisal of the accused's contributions. Such an order cannot be termed to be one made with application of mind, it added.
Justice A. Badharudeen remarked that though sanction order is a safeguard against frivolous litigation, the same cannot be considered in a pedantic manner. He was considering a writ petition filed by a student of the Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit challenging the Syndicate's order denying sanction to prosecute a Head of the department of the University (8th respondent). He also sought a direction to the University to decide on grant of sanction in accordance with law.
University's Wisdom To Prescribe Minimum Standards Of Education Cannot Be Questioned In Writ Petition: Kerala High Court
Case Title: The Principal, Dr. Somervell Memorial CSI Medical College v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 585
The Kerala High Court recently held that a University's decision to prescribe minimum standards to increase the quality of education in the colleges cannot be questioned in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Justice N. Nagaresh was considering a writ petition preferred by a college under the Kerala University of Health Sciences. The college had intended to introduce various para-medical courses and though NOC was issued by the government, the University rejected the application.
A Beggar Cannot Be Directed to Pay Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC: Kerala High Court Rules
Case Title: Jubairiya v Saidalavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
The Kerala High Court has held that a person who subsists on begging cannot be directed to pay maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), even if his wife seeks sustenance from him.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, while disposing of a revision petition, upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed a claim by the petitioner, who sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survives on alms and occasional assistance from neighbours.
Islam Permits Polygamy Only When A Man Can Do Justice Between Wives : Kerala High Court
Case Title: Jubairiya v Saidalavi
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 586
Kerala High Court has observed that Islam permits polygamy only when a man has the ability to give equal justice to his wives.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan, made the observations while disposing of a revision petition, which upheld a Family Court order that had dismissed a claim by the petitioner wife , who sought ₹10,000 monthly maintenance from her husband, a blind man who survives on alms and occasional assistance from neighbours.
SC/ST Act | No Bar On Granting Pre-Arrest Bail If Substantive Offence Not Found To Be Committed: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Rahul M.R. v. State of Kerala and Anr. and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 587
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the bar against grant of anticipatory bail would not apply in cases where an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST is alleged if there is a prima facie conclusion that the substantive offence punishable by 10 years' imprisonment has not been committed.
Justice Gopinath P. observed: “In other words, in cases where the allegation is that an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act has been committed and when this Court prima facie concludes that the substantive offence punishable with a term of imprisonment for a period of 10 years or more has not been committed, the said prima facie conclusion is sufficient to hold that the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act against the grant of anticipatory bail will not apply.”
Case Title: Muhammed Anwarsha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 588
The Kerala High Court has granted bail to a man accused of offences under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and ST/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 despite his being involved in 21 other criminal offences.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas while allowing his regular bail plea noted that even though the petitioner is involved in 21 other crimes, considering his young age and since he has been in custody for 90 days, the bail can be granted.
Case Title: Babu K.M. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 589
A PIL was moved before the Kerala High Court alleging large-scale corruption and lack of transparency in the State Lotteries Department. The PIL was preferred by Babu K.M., a retired government official and mandalam president (Vytilla) of Indian National Congress.
The petitioner had, in 2024, sought various information for the financial year 2023-24 from Public Information Officer of Lotteries Department through RTI request. However, the PIO denied answers to some of the queries of the petitioner. Aggrieved, an appeal was filed but the same was rejected. A second appeal was filed, which was partially allowed, directing release of information relating to unclaimed prize money for January 2024 within 10 days. However, this information has not yet been released.
On hearing that the petitioner is challenging the order, Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji disposed of the petition and directed the petitioner to follow up with the appropriate remedy.
Case Title: The District Collector and Others v Thangal Kunju and Anr and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 590
The Kerala High Court held that corrections made in the Basic Tax Register (BTR) pursuant to re-surveys conducted prior to the enactment of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, are valid and do not require compliance with Section 27 A of the Act.
The division bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon dismissed the batch of writ appeals filed by the State challenging the reclassification of certain lands from nilam (paddy field) to purayidam (dry land) in the Basic Tax Register.
Case Title: Anoop Paul v. M.P. Cherian and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 591
The Kerala High Court has recently held that an insurance company is liable to pay compensation when the accident is caused by a commercial vehicle, irrespective of whether the accident occurred in a public or private place.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was considering a motor accident claims appeal preferred by an owner cum driver of a JCB challenging the order of the tribunal, which had directed him to pay compensation to a person injured (claimant).
Case Title: Santhosh Kumar v. Syamala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 592
The Kerala High Court recently held that a court cannot extend period of limitation for prosecution of cases merely by stating that it is necessary in the interests of justice. Instead, the court has to be satisfied that delay has been properly explained before allowing an application for extending limitation period under Section 473 of the CrPC.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed: “Before allowing an application filed under Section 473 of Cr.P.C, the court must be satisfied, on the facts and circumstances of the case, that the delay has been properly explained. The delay should not be condoned as a matter of routine without sufficient reasons. The court, while condoning delay, has to record the reasons for its satisfaction, and the same must reflect in the order. The extension of the period of limitation merely on the grounds that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice and not on the ground of explained delay is improper.”
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 593
The Kerala High Court recently directed the state government, the Director General of Police and the Station House Officers (SHO) to erase all police records and details before the Juvenile Justice Board in a case where a minor was the accused.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen was considering a plea by a man for erasure of all records relating to the case in which he was arrayed as the 5th accused when he was a minor and was subsequently acquitted.
Case Title: Sivan and Anr. v. Raju P.V. and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 594
The Kerala High Court recently held that Permanent Lok Adalats can settle or adjudicate the claims for compensation against employers upon the death of employees. It found that the bar under the Employees Compensation (EC) Act do not apply to the proceedings under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim was considering an appeal preferred by the parents of the deceased employee against the decision of the Employee's Compensation Commissioner.
Case Title: Praveen Raj v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 595
The Kerala High Court recently held that making absolute an order of interim bail granted to an accused on a finding that his arrest was illegal would make it impossible for the investigating agency to arrest him subsequently in a lawful manner. It found that such orders are wrong and have no legal effect.
Justice A. Badharudeen observed that a finding of illegal arrest would relegate an arrestee back to pre-arrest stage and at that stage, if an interim bail is made absolute, it would amount to setting the accused free.
Case Title: Shiny S Raj v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 596
The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with State Administrative Tribunal's order which upheld the transfer of a teacher, reiterating that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be exercised to correct all errors in the order of the Administrative Tribunal.
Referring to various decisions, a division bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S., in its judgment observed that powers under Article 227 can be exercised only when there is flagrant abuse of law, or if there is a manifest error, or gross failure of justice.
Case Title: Sivan and Others v State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 597
The Kerala High Court has set aside the conviction of three men for criminal trespass and mischief by fire, noting that the trial court while recording the deposition of prosecution witnesses did not record that the witnesses had identified the men in court nor did the prosecutor pose questions to the witnesses for identification.
Justice Johnson John, delivered the judgment in a criminal appeal against judgment Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc)- II Thodupuzha which convicted the accused for the offence under Section 448(Punishment for house-trespass) and 436 (Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house r/w 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC.
Case Title: Sainaba Hamza Koya v. The Income Tax Officer
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 598
The Kerala High Court stated that to claim the Section 54F deduction under the Income Tax Act, the assessee must satisfy the authorities that borrowed funds were used at their own risk with the intention to be repaid with capital gains.
Justice Ziyad Rahman A.A. stated that "...even in a case where, the residential building was purchased, or it was constructed utilising the borrowed funds or funds from other sources, there is an obligation on the part of the Assessee to satisfy the authorities that, the funds were spent by the assessee either through borrowing or arranging from other sources at his/her own risks and costs, in anticipation of or with an intention to appropriate the income to be subjected to capital gain tax, for such purchase or construction…"
Case Title: National Highways Authority of India v. Lawrence and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 599
The Kerala High Court recently held that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) need not submit the compensation awarded when the Arbitrator's award is challenged by either party, i.e., the claimant or the NHAI.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon was considering a writ appeal preferred by the NHAI challenging the Single Judge's direction to the NHAI to deposit the solatium and interest amount awarded to the claimants while an arbitration appeal was pending before the High Court.
School Cannot Claim Any Land As Its 'Playground' Without Title Deed: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Sree Gokulam Chit and Finance Co, (P) Ltd v The District Superintendent of Police and Others and Connected Matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 600
The Kerala High Court has held that a school cannot claim possession of a playground without the required documents, stating that parties claiming rights on the basis of documents are entitled to be in possession of the property.
Justice N. Nagaresh delivered the judgment while considering two writ petitions which related to a property which was claimed to be the only playground of CA Higher Secondary School, Ayyakad.
Case Title: R. Thilakan and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 601
The Kerala High Court dismissed the anticipatory bail pleas of four persons, who claimed to be members of trade unions, for allegedly assaulting a post master and threatening him to close down the post office, which was kept open on a protest day.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the offence alleged was a serious one and found it fit not to grant them pre-arrest bail..
Case Title: P.N. Suresh Kumar and Others v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 602
The Kerala High Court has held that repayment of the amount of misappropriation or value of misappropriation in Corruption cases would not efface the criminal prosecution.
Justice A. Badharudeen delivered the judgment while considering a criminal miscellaneous petition to quash proceedings against the petitioners, accused in misappropriation of stock of foreign liquor worth Rs 27,92,523 from Muvattupuzha Beverages outlet under Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC) while working in the outlet.
Case Title: K.C. Dileep Kumar v Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 603
The Kerala High Court has held that in absence of specific rules regarding reckoning of seniority after integration of cadres, length of service is the appropriate criterion for determining seniority.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. set aside an earlier judgment of a single judge.
Kerala High Court Upholds Stay On Judicial Commission Inquiry Into ED's Probe In Gold Smuggling Case
Case Title: State of Kerala v. Enforcement Directorate
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 604
The Kerala High Court on Friday (September 26) upheld a Single Judge's interim order staying the State-appointed Inquiry Commission to probe if the Enforcement Directorate and other central agencies are falsely implicating political leaders in the State, including its CM Pinarayi Vijayan, in the gold smuggling case.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. today upheld the stay.
Case Title: Muhammed Shammas P. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 605
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (September 25) directed the Additional Chief Secretary of the State to consider and pass orders for prior sanction to conduct vigilance inquiry into the alleged benami deals of former Kannur district panchayat president P.P. Divya.
Justice A. Badharudheen was considering a plea by Kerala Students Union (KSU) Vice-President, Muhammed Shammas P., seeking a direction for preliminary vigilance inquiry into the alleged benami dealings based on his representation (Exhibit P9) to the 3rd respondent (Director General, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau).
Case Title: Abdullakutty Haji v H Musthafa and connected matters
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 606
The Kerala High Court has held that the market value of the property must be the determining factor under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, and not the valuation adopted for the purpose of court fees under the Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959.
A Full Bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice C.S. Dias, and Justice C.S. Sudha delivered the judgement while answering a reference in ICR (CRP) No.11 of 2025, CRP No.133 of 2024, and OP(C) No.753 of 2024.
Case Title: Kulathoor Jaisingh v State of Kerala and Ors and connected matter
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 607
The Kerala High Court has issued directions to the State government on the issue of snakebite management and basic healthcare in schools, while disposing of a writ petition filed in connection with the 2019 snakebite incident involving a school student.
Delivering the judgment, the division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen directed the State to issue a circular within two weeks, notifying detailed guidelines formulated at a High Level meeting held on September 1, 2025.
Case Title: XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 608
The Kerala High Court recently undertook a unique act of judicial activism when it aided a litigant, who was appearing in person and suffering from schizophrenia, to take mental health support.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a writ petition filed by the petitioner on a suspicion that he would be detained in accordance with the preventive detention laws.
Case Title: Jaice John and Ors. v. The Director of Mining and Geology and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 609
The Kerala High Court has recently held that a project proponent seeking quarrying permit or lease as per the Kerala Minor Minerals Rules must obtain an explosive licence in their own name and they cannot use the licence belonging to another.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath also clarified that the practice of incorporating the details of another person's property into the licence granted by way of amendment is illegal.
Case Title: Abdul Khader v. Arumugan and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 610
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the registered owner of a vehicle involved in an accident can recover the compensation paid from the transferee of the offending vehicle, if the transfer, which occurred prior to the accident, was not in accordance with Section 50 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen reiterated the finding of the Apex Court in Naveen Kumar v. Vijay Kumar and others [2018 KHC 6083] stating that it is the registered owner who is liable to pay compensation for the purposes of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Case Title: Shareefa v. The Sub Collector, Tirur and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 611
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ petition instituted by a wife on behalf of her husband whose property was being managed by her. It found that the wife has no locus standi to prosecute the petition since she was not an owner or valid power of attorney holder even though the husband was abroad.
The case before Justice C.S. Dias was a writ petition challenging the order of the sub-collector rejecting an application to rectify the classification of land belonging to the petitioner's husband and other co-owners.
Case Title: Athul Dini and Anr. v. The District Registrar and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 612
The Kerala High Court recently directed the State to take steps to modify the PEARL software used to generate marriage registration certificates, so as to include the actual date of couples' marriage ceremony in the certificate.
Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen passed the order in a petition filed by a couple, who had solemnized their marriage in accordance with their customary law on 10.07.2022.
The petitioners approached the district registrar (1st respondent) and the marriage officer (2nd respondent) with representations to include the celebration date in the certificate. Their requests were not heeded to, necessitating them to approach the High Court invoking writ jurisdiction.
Case Title: X v. Y
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 613
The Kerala High Court has recently dismissed a matrimonial appeal against a family court order filed by a wife seeking to back out from a petition for mutual divorce jointly filed by her along with her husband.
The court dismissed the wife's claim who had refused to consent for divorce contending that she was deceived into a condition in the settlement agreement.
The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha found that the wife had withdrawn the amount deposited by the respondent husband, complying with his part of the conditions in the agreement.
Case Title: In the matter of M/s.Kalpetta Janakshema Maruthi Chits Pvt. Ltd. (In Liquidation)
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 614
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the leave of the National Company Law Tribunal is not needed to proceed with criminal complaints in cases where the companies have been ordered to be wound up by the High Courts in accordance with provisions of the Companies Act, 1956.
Justice Viju Abraham was considering a report filed by the official liquidator seeking permission to proceed with the complaints, which were pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, without obtaining leave from the NCLT. The CJM had directed the company under liquidation to obtain leave of the Tribunal to proceed with the case.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 615
The Kerala High Court on Monday (September 29) appointed former high court judge Justice T.R. Ramachandran Nair as 'Observer' to oversee the selection process of Head Priests/Melsanthies at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha temple and Malikappuram Temples.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar passed the order while considering a suo motu petition initiated on the basis of the report of the Sabarimala Special Commissioner. The report was regarding the steps to be taken to ensure fairness, transparency and adherence to the prescribed guidelines for the interview of candidates to be shortlisted for selection of Melsanthies.
Case Title: Deputy Commissioner v. Hakeem K.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 616
The Kerala High Court stated that the assessments under Section 17D Kerala General Sales Tax Act must be finalised within a reasonable period despite the absence of a limitation period.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that even when the statute does not provide for an outer time limit, the authority has to exercise jurisdiction within a reasonable time. The reasonable period of time for such assessment has to be fixed with reference to the other provisions of the statute.