Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414 - 436]Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414Badusha v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414 - 436]
Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
Badusha v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr. v. T. Beena and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
Shanif v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v. Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
Suo Motu v P K Suresh Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
Beylin Das v The Bar Council of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
Jayasree and Anr. v. Sindhu Ajayan, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
Sivanandan & Ors v Ani and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Kochi Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Nancy Xavier and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
Shifana P.K. v. Director General of Police and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
Beatrice v Babu Louis, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Jijin R. v. State of Kerala & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 414
The Kerala High Court has set aside an order rejecting a man's appointment under the compassionate employment scheme due to his past involvement in criminal cases, holding that there exists no relevant connection between the alleged offence and the nature of the post in question.
A Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Johnson John was hearing a petition filed by Jijin R., whose mother was a part-time sweeper in the Police Department and died in service in 2017. Jijin, belonging to the Ezhava community, was offered a post as Police Constable (Driver) under the compassionate scheme.
Case Title: Badusha v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 415
The Kerala High Court has held that the term "immediate official superior" in section 42 (2) of the NDPS Act must be interpreted contextually rather than rigidly through bureaucratic hierarchy.
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the ruling while dismissing a bail application filed by the petitioner, who had been booked under Sections 22(c) and 29(1) of the NDPS Act for alleged possession of 108.938 grams of MDMA. The search and seizure was conducted by the District Anti-Narcotic Special Action Force (DANSAF), which operates under the jurisdiction of the City Police Commissioner.
Kerala High Court Upholds Order Quashing Governor's Appointment of Temporary VCs In Two Universities
Case Title: The Chancellor, Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 416
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 14) upheld the orders declaring appointments of Dr. K. Sivaprasad and Dr. Ciza Thomas as temporary Vice Chancellors of APJ Abdul Kalam Technological University (KTU) and Kerala University of Digital Sciences Innovation and Technology respectively, by the former Governor were not sustainable in law.
A Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice P.V. Balakrishnan thus upheld a May 19 decision of the Single Judge and found no reason to interfere with the judgments.
Case Title: The Changanaserry Rubber Marketing Co-Operative Society Ltd v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 417
The Kerala High Court has held that while filing an appeal under Section 82 of the Co-operative Societies Act, the time taken for obtaining a copy of the award must be excluded for computing the period of limitation.
Justice K. Babu observed that the defendant's presence at the time of passing the award was not an exception to the general rule that the time to obtain a copy of the award has to be excluded while calculating the limitation period for the appeal.
Case Title: Suhyb P J v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 418
The Kerala High Court noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) has introduced a material change from the Code of Criminal Procedure by prescribing through Section 223(2) that cognizance of a complaint against a public servant can be taken only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the accused and after calling for a report from the superior officer.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that the CrPC did not have a similar provision.
Case Title: M.S. Muraleedharan v. Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 419
Dismissing a plea by the President of Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha (Kerala) against an order refusing to discharge him in a CBI case alleging illegal appointments in return for bribes, the Kerala High Court said that an office-bearer of a government-aided institute would qualify as a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Justice A. Badharudeen upheld the trial court's order framing charges against M.S. Muraleedharan under various provisions of the IPC and the PC Act.
Case Title: Perinthalmanna Municipality v. Abdul Kareem
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 420
The Kerala High Court stated that property tax can't be levied without following statutory assessment procedure under Section 233 of Kerala Municipality Act, 1994.
Section 233 of the Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, deals with the levy of property tax by the Municipality on buildings and lands within its area. This section outlines the process of assessment and collection of property tax, specifying that it should be levied in accordance with the Act and prescribed rules.
Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and P.M. Manoj stated that without complying with the procedural formalities required to bring the rate of tax and the measure of tax to the knowledge of the prospective assessees, the levy of property tax cannot be seen as having come into existence vis-a-vis those assessees.
Case Title: Vysali Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Anr. v. T. Beena and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 421
The Kerala High Court has recently held that High Courts can use their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside an ad interim injunction granted by a civil court in a suit barred by the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).
Justice K. Natarajan observed that the existence of an alternative remedy to vacate an order provided under Order 43 or Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not preclude the high courts from setting aside an illegal order granted by a civil court.
Case Title: Shanif v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 422
The Kerala High Court recently held that a delay of six months in initiating proceedings under Section 15 of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007, can sever the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of externment when the only explanation for the delay was that time was required to collect the crime records.
Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed that, “The said explanation cannot withstand scrutiny as the entire police records have been digitised in the State, and any information with regard to the pending crimes can be obtained with the click of a mouse.”
Case Title: M/s Cosmos Entertainments v. The Regional Officer, CBFC and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 423
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 16) closed the writ petition filed by producers of the Suresh Gopi starrer 'JSK - Janaki v State of Kerala', observing that a U/A Certificate was granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) on July 11.
The Court orally observed that it is also giving a protective observation to prevent the audience from approaching the consumer court against the production, claiming it had promised to show 'Janaki v. State of Kerala' but it came out now with 'Janaki V v. State of Kerala'.
Justice N. Nagaresh observed, "The counsel for the petitioner submitted that releasing of the teaser of the movie and advertisement material with the earlier name of the movie can give rise to certain legal complications. It is made clear that in view of the peculiar circumstances in which the revised version of the movie is now being granted censor certificate, it is declared the using of the materials/teaser with the old name by the petitioner shall not in any manner legally, adversely affect the petitioner and no claim in that regard will be maintainable against the petitioner."
Case Title: All Kerala Motor Driving School Instructors and Workers Association and Ors v. Transport Commissioner and Ors and Connected cases
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 424
The State Government, through its rule-making powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, cannot restrict the use of automatic or electric vehicles for driving test, ruled the Kerala High Court.
Justice N. Nagaresh partially quashed Circular No. 4/2024 issued by the State Transport Commissionerate, asserting the primacy of the Central Government's authority in regulating motor driving training under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. P K Suresh Kumar
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 425
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday sentenced P.K. Suresh Kumar to three days' simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000 for making a series of Facebook posts containing "contemptuous and intemperate remarks" against sitting judges of the High Court.
The proceedings, initiated suo motu by the Court, were presided over by Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice Jobin Sebastian. This is the second time Kumar faced contempt proceedings. In the first instance, he had been discharged after tendering an unconditional apology for similar remarks. However, in March 2024, he resumed publishing inflammatory content on Facebook, openly admitting in one post that his earlier apology was a tactical ploy to avoid punishment.
Judge Bound To Hear Cases As Per Roster; Litigants Can't Engage In Forum Shopping: Kerala HC
Case Title: Asif Azad v. Jaimon Baby and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 426
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that judges are bound to hear the cases as per the roster prepared by the Chief Justice and that litigants cannot pick and choose the judges that have to hear their cases.
The observation was made Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan while hearing a party-in-person whose writ petition was noted with defects for not taking steps to issue notice to the respondents.
Kerala Bar Council Lifts Ban On Advocate Facing Assault Allegation, High Court Told
Case Title: Beylin Das v. The Bar Council of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 427
The Kerala High Court today disposed the plea filed by Advocate Beylin Das, whose practice was barred by the Kerala Bar Council for allegedly assaulting a woman advocate
Justice N. Nagaresh, disposed of the petition after it was submitted that the Bar Council has reconsidered the petitioner's representation.
Case Title: XXX. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 428
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment refusing to quash the disciplinary proceedings taken against a teacher after he was acquitted of an offence of sexual assaulting his student, as the witnesses turned hostile.
Justice D.K. Singh refused to intervene in the proceedings stating that the writ petition was preferred at a premature stage as only the show cause notice proposing punishment was issued to the petitioner.
Case Title: Jayasree and Anr. v. Sindhu Ajayan
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 429
The Kerala High Court recently held that preferring a legal heir over another cannot be considered unnatural and does not make the execution of the Will suspicious. It also held that the first appellate court cannot, on its own, raise an issue of genuineness of a Will when there was no such pleading or issue raised before the trial court in the suit.
Justice Easwaran S. was considering a challenge to the decision of the first appellate court that framed certain points suo motu and held a Will to be vitiated due to suspicious circumstances due to exclusion of a legal heir.
Case Title: Sivanandan & Ors v. Ani and Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 430
Kerala High Court reaffirmed the statutory sanctity of a mortgagor's right to redemption under a usufructuary mortgage, and provided clarification on several crucial provisions of property and civil law.
Justice Easwaran S. delivered the judgment in a civil dispute between family members over property rights, mortgage redemption and partition. The Court examined the redemption of usufructuary mortgage, Co Mortgagor's redemption and subrogation under section 92 of the Property Act, whether the registrar can be considered as an attesting witness under section 123 of the Property Act, and the applicability of section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Case Title: Kochi Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Nancy Xavier and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 431
The Kerala High Court recently dismissed a writ appeal challenging a single judge's interim order directing construction of a temporary waiting shed at the Roll-on Roll-of (Ro-Ro) Jetty at Fort Kochi.
For context, the single judge had in its June 2 interim order directed the Kochi Municipal Corporation erect a temporary waiting shed at the Fort Kochi Ro-Ro Jetty, to accommodate at least 50 commuters at a given time, at their expenses, within one week from the date of the order.
Rejecting the arguments put forth by the Corporation, a division bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M., observed that commuters are entitled to wait for the ferry service in reasonable comfort and without being exposed to the harsh weather and that the Corporation is duty-bound to provide such elementary services to paying commuters.
Kerala High Court Quashes Defamation Case Against Dancers RLV Ramakrishnan, Ullas
Case Title: Ramakrishnan and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 432
The Kerala High Court recently quashed the criminal proceedings taken against Mohiniyattom dancers RLV Ramakrishnan and Ullas U. (accused persons/petitioner). The proceedings were initiated on the basis of a private complaint filed by Kalamandalam Sathyabhama before the Magistrate in 2018 alleging defamation.
Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that the complaint did not reproduce or extract the alleged defamatory statement nor did it contain the alleged date of publication of the statement.
Case Title: Shifana P.K. v. Director General of Police and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 433
The Kerala High Court has recently allowed a plea to deploy police protection for the peaceful conduct of elections to the Calicut University Union, scheduled to be held on July 22. The writ petition was preferred by Shifana P.K., a Chairperson candidate of the election.
Taking note of Exhibit P6 FIR and the fact that police protection was previously ordered by the High Court during 2023 elections, Justice N. Nagaresh directed the Director General of Police and Superintendent of Police (Respondents 1 and 2) to grant adequate police protection during elections.
Subsequent Matrimonial Petition Not Barred, If Based On Fresh Cause Of Action: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Beatrice v. Babu Louis
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 434
The Kerala High Court has recently held that subsequent petitions in a matrimonial proceeding are not barred if there is a fresh cause of action.
The bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar addressed the questions of trust law and limitation in matrimonial litigation, affirming the rights of a wife to recover misappropriated gold and monetary assets from her estranged husband.
Case Title: Saran Kumar S. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 435
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the Director General of Police (DGP) to issue necessary directions to the police officers of the State to mandate conduct of Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at 'zero' before subjecting a person to the breathalyser test.
Justice V.G. Arun observed, "it is essential to note that the purpose of conducting an Air Blank Test is to check for any residual alcohol before taking breath sample from a person using a breath alcohol testing device. Thus, the primary goal of a blank test is to verify that the breathalyzer is functioning correctly and is not influenced by any residual alcohol from previous tests. Therefore, it is mandatory to conduct an Air Blank Test and ensure that the calibration is at 'zero' before taking breath sample using a breath alcohol testing device."
Case Title: Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 436
The Kerala High Court on Thursday ordered the Central government and the Consul General, India-UAE Embassy to take actions facilitating repatriation of Vipanchika Maniyan's mortal remains to India.
The Court today impleaded Vipanchika's husband as an additional respondent, who informed that following a mediation at the Embassy in Sharjah it was decided that her mortal remains can be brought back to India and rituals can be completed by her maternal aunt. However, the daughter's remains will be buried by him in Sharjah.
Justice N. Nagaresh recorded these submissions and noting that the issues are almost sought consensually, said no further orders are required in the case. As such, the plea has been closed.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP(C) 33093/ 2022
The Kerala government today reiterated before the High Court its commitment to regulate harmful practices carried out under the guise of supernatural and magical acts, even after deferring a proposed legislation on the issue.
The submissions was made before the bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, considering a PIL filed by Kerala Yukthi Vadhi Sangham seeking enactment and implementation of 'The Kerala Prevention of Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill, 2019'.
Case No: Crl.MC 6174/ 2025 and connected cases
Case Name: M/S Divya Pharmacy v. The Drugs Inspector and connected cases
The Kerala High Court has on Monday, (July 14) stayed the criminal proceedings taken against Divya Pharmacy and, its President Acharya Balkrishna and General Secretary Swami Ramdev (petitioners) in seven alleged cases of violation of Section 3(d) of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Justice V.G. Arun noted that cognizance was taken by the jurisdictional courts, Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kattappana, as summary trial cases on the basis of a complaint preferred by the Drugs Inspector, Kattapana. Similarly, in the other connected matters also, cases were registered as summary trial cases before the jurisdictional courts on the complaints of the respective Drugs Inspectors.
Case Title: P.S. Gopakumar v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 26111 of 2025
The Kerala High Court today (July 16) orally told PS Gopakumar, a member of the State University Syndicate, to show an actual incident of obstruction faced by him while entering the varsity campus, in wake of the recent Bharat Mata portrait row.
Justice N. Nagaresh said the Court cannot entertain the member's plea for Police protection, merely based on fear and apprehensions.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case No: SSCR No. 17 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 16) criticized the 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 of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. was hearing a suo motu proceeding, which was initiated following the report of the Special Commissioner, Sabarimala regarding the alleged incident.
Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict On Advocates Association's PIL Against Court Fee Hike
Case Title: Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others
Case No: WP(PIL) 14/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 16) reserved its orders in the plea moved by the Kerala High Court Advocates' Association (KHCAA) challenging the increase in Court Fees.
A bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji heard detailed arguments by Advocate Yeshwant Shenoy appearing for the KHCAA and that of Advocate General K. Gopalakrishna Kururp for the State.
Case Title: Sheela S. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No.: WP(C) No. 26141 of 2025
Maternal aunt of Vipanchika Maniyan, who along with her daughter was found hanging in their residence in Sharjah, UAE, has approached the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the Central government to diplomatically engage with the competent authorities in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and ensure a comprehensive, fair and transparent investigation.
The petitioner has alleged that the deceased was subjected to constant mental harassment, emotional abuse and threats at the hands of her husband and his family members.
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 16) held a farewell reference to bid adieu to Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh, who now proceeds to assume office at the Karnataka High Court.
Reflecting on his professional journey during the ceremony, Justice Singh remarked,
“Every case and argument added not only to my understanding of law but also of human nature. The real efficacy and credibility of the judicial system are measured by the public faith it enjoys. I cannot say whether I have succeeded in achieving the same. But I can say with certainty that I have felt a great sense of satisfaction in serving the cause of justice to the best of my ability.”
Case Title: Pinarayi Vijayan v. State of Kerala and another
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 6284/2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 17) stayed criminal proceedings taken against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in alleged case of instigation of political violence during the Nava Kerala Sadas tour in 2023.
When the matter was taken up for consideration, Justice V.G. Arun stayed the proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ernakulam taken against Mr. Vijayan for alleged case of abetment under Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The stay is granted for a period of 3 months.
Case No: WP (C) 22750/2018
Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others
The Kerala High Court has come down heavily on political parties, trade unions and government authorities for the unchecked spread of illegal flex boards, banners, and flagpoles across the State.
“How political parties – who are affiliated to the ruling government of State and Centre – can choose to act in violation of the directions of the Court. How they get the strength and courage to do this is startling,” Justice Devan Ramachandran observed orally.
Case Title: Aswin R. v. Bar Council of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 26313 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Friday (July 18) issued notice on a plea preferred by a law student challenging the regulations of the Mahatma Gandhi University, which caps the number of internships under trial and appellate advocates to two.
Justice T.R. Ravi admitted the writ petition and granted time to the respondents to file counter-affidavits.
Kerala High Court has issued a policy outlining guiding principles for the responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in district judiciary in the State.
Recognising that while AI tools can be beneficial in many ways, there are also several negative consequences in AI use including privacy violations, data security risks and erosion of trust in judicial decisions, the Kerala High Court advised the district judiciary to exercise caution while judicial such tools.
Case Title - N.P. Rajani v. Radha Nambidi Parambath
Case Citation - 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 395
The Kerala High Court recently passed an interim order correcting its judgment on succession under Hindu law, wherein it was held that Sections 3 and 4 of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act 1975 are repugnant to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
Justice Easwaran S. observed: "The question of repugnancy was considered so far as it relates to parties governed by Mitakshara Law alone and as regards Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the Act 30 of 1976 read with the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Therefore, it is felt necessary to correct the Judgment dated 7.7.2025 in RSA No.436/2018 in order to obtain clarity. Hence, it is ordered that the Judgment dated 7.7.2025 in RSA No.436/2018 rendered by this Court shall be confined to cases coming under the Mitakshara Law alone. The word and figure “Section 4” occurring in the first line of conclusion (a) under paragraph No.61 at page 82 of the judgment is corrected and read as “Section 4(1)”.”