Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658 - 680]Anu C.R. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658 - 680]
Anu C.R. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 663
CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
Rameshan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
X X v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
Selvan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679
Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 658
The Kerala High Court has held that a defence lawyer may confront a prosecution witness with relevant documents such as photographs or site plans during cross-examination if those materials are connected to the facts in issue
Justice G. Girish delivered the judgment in a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, who refused to allow the defence lawyer in a case of rape under the false promise of marriage and cheating to confront a prosecution witness with two documents, which included a photograph of the alleged scene of the offence and a site plan prepared by the Village Officer. The trial court stated that these documents did not originate from the witness and thus were outside the scope of Section 145 of the Evidence Act.
Special Court Can Order Further Investigation After Submission Of Final Report: Kerala High Court
Case Title: Abdul Rasheed @ Dr A R Babu v Central Bureau of Investigation
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 659
The Kerala High Court has recently upheld the power of a Special Court to direct further investigation even after a final report has been filed by the investigating agency concluding that no offence was made out against certain public servants.
Justice A. Badharudeen, delivered the judgment in a petition challenging the order of the Special Court directing further investigation in a case involving alleged loan fraud against the State Bank of India.
Case Title: Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 660
The Kerala High Court held that the non-production of Form 3CL is not material suppression and is not a valid ground to reopen the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
Justices A. Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V. Menon stated that it was for the assessing authority to be satisfied with the deduction for the expenditure claimed by the assessee company. Form 3CL, before the amendment, only allowed the assessee to claim expenditure subject to verification of such expenditure by the assessing authority. It is only after the amendment in the year 2016 that the law mandates that the prescribed authority has to certify allowable expenditure for deduction.
Kerala High Court Refuses To Entertain PIL Alleging Large-Scale Corruption By State Cashew Board
Case Title: Adv. Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v. Director, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 661
The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a plea alleging large-scale corruption in the import of Raw Cashew Nuts (RCN) by the Kerala Cashew Board Ltd. (KCB)
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V M, said that the petition was devoid of merits.
Case Title: M/s. M.D. Esthappan Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. RBI and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 662
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that changing the form or rephrasing of a relief prayed for cannot defeat the principles of res judicata and constructive res judicata.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. was considering a writ petition filed by a registered MSME (Micro, Small and Media Enterprise) that had sought protection under the Central Government notification, which mandates banks and financial institutions to refer stressed MSME accounts for corrective measures.
Case Title: Binu Vincent v. The Federal Bank Ltd.
Citation: 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 663
The Kerala High Court held that the limitation under Rule 68B of the second schedule to the Income Tax Act does not apply to RDDB Act (Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993) proceedings.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. stated that Rule 68B of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1961, has no mandatory application to recovery proceedings under the RDDB Act. It is also relevant that under Sections 19(22) and 25 of the RDDB Act, the Recovery Officer derives jurisdiction to initiate recovery measures only after the recovery certificate attains finality. Hence, the time frame in Rule 68B, which is linked to the 'order giving rise to demand' under the Income Tax Act, cannot logically apply to proceedings initiated upon a recovery certificate under the RDDB Act.
Ex-CISF Personnel Entitled To Purchase Liquor From CAPF Canteens : Kerala High Court
Case Title: CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors.; Syam Mohan S.A & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 664
The Kerala High Court has held that retired personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) are entitled to purchase liquor from canteens operated by other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) such as CRPF and BSF, through the Central Liquor Management System (CLMS).
The bench of Justice N. Nagaresh observed that the denial of this benefit to retired CISF personnel, when the same facility is extended to retirees of other CAPFs, constitutes hostile discrimination and violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law.
Case Title: Mini K.U. v. Jacob Mathew
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 665
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the appropriate remedy for non-payment of maintenance ordered as per criminal revision petition before the High Court is to execute the order before the Magistrate court. It also observed that contempt proceedings before the High Court would not be maintainable in such circumstances.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar dismissed a contempt case initiated by a wife against the husband for failing to comply with the order of the High Court in a criminal revision preferred against the Sessions Court's order enhancing maintenance ordered by the Magistrate.
Case Title: Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Sebastian P. George
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 666
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court has observed that the Co-Operative Arbitration Court conducting a trial in an election petition has the power to invoke provision under Order XI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure to order any party to produce documents in his possession as it deems necessary.
Referring to Section 70(3) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, Justice K. Babu clarified that the Arbitration Court is bound to follow the procedure for trials provided under the CPC and must adjudicate dispute based on the pleadings before it. For doing that, it must allow parties in the dispute to lead relevant evidence.
Case Title: Nisham v Chavakkad Municipality and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 667
The Kerala High Court has clarified that the power granted under Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 overrides the powers under Kerala Municipality Act, 1994, even when the street vendor is operating without a license.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. held that any municipal action against a street vendor, even one operating without a license, must conform to the procedural safeguards under the Kerala Street Vendors Scheme, 2019, framed under Section 38 of the 2014 Act.
Case Title: Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 668
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (October 22) dismissed a writ petition filed by Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam (AKTS) challenging the accreditation and recognition granted to certain institutions described as 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' by the Travancore Devaswom Board (TDB) and the Kerala Devaswom Recruitment Board (KDRB).
The petitioners also challenged the notifications issued by KDRB prescribing a certificate from the Tantra Vidya Peetoms recognised by it as one of the qualifications to be appointed as part-time shantis(priests) in various temples.
While dismissing the petitions, the Court held that there was no essential religious practice that a temple priest must be from a particular caste or lineage.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar refused to accept the petitioners' argument that appointment of shanthis(temple priests) ought to be in accordance with traditional practice and cannot be diluted by subordinate legislation.
Case Title: Abhuthahir v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 669
In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a school teacher for beating his students with a cane.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar referred to various precedents, which discussed the extent of corporal punishment that can be inflicted on a child by a teacher.
Case Title: Rameshan v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 670
The Kerala High Court has held that an accused person exempted from personal appearance may answer questions under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). either through a written statement or via video linkage.
Justice C.S. Dias delivered the judgment and set aside a trial court order that had rejected the accused's plea to allow his counsel to respond on his behalf during the Section 351 examination.
Kerala High Court Quashes Ownership Certificates Issued To Actor Mohanlal For Possessing Ivory
Case Title: James Mathew v. State of Kerala and connected case
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 671
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) held that the ownership certificates issued by the Kerala Government to Malayalam actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory are illegal and unenforceable in law.
A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian struck down the Government Orders and ownership certificates dated January 16, 2016, and April 6, 2016, issued by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and Wildlife in favour of the actor. The Court held the Government orders to be "void" and the certificates to be "illegal and unenforceable."
Executive Magistrates Cannot Invoke S.130 BNSS In Purely Private Disputes: Kerala High Court
Case Title: M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 672
The Kerala High Court has held that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) in matters arising from purely private disputes, such as allegations of cheating or breach of trust, unless there is a demonstrable threat to public peace or tranquillity.
Justice V.G. Arun delivered the judgment in a petition filed challenging the order and summons issued by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha under Sections 126 (Security for keeping peace in other cases), 130 (Order to be made), and 132 (Summons or warrant in case of person not so present) of the BNSS.
Case Title: X X v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 673
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 23) closed a petition filed by de-facto complainant challenging a notice directing to appear before Ernakulam Central Police for recording her statement in a case filed against Rapper Vedan.
Justice C. Pradeep Kumar, closed the petition, when it was informed by the public prosecutor that the Station house Officer (SHO) withdrew the impugned notice.
Case Title: Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 674
The Kerala High Court recently held that the period during which an accused is released on interim bail cannot be included while calculating period of detention for the purpose of granting statutory bail.
Justice K. Babu observed that only the actual period of detention undergone can be considered, adding together continuous or broken periods of custody.
Case Title: Selvan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 675
The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that the information leading to discovery that was received from one accused person cannot be used to connect all the accused persons to the alleged offence.
In the present case, the prosecution had placed reliance on Exhibit P7(a) confession but the Court felt that it cannot be relied on since the exact information given by each of the accused persons is not separately recorded or proved.
Justice P.V. Balakrishnan remarked that it is impossible to believe that all accused persons spoke simultaneously and in one voice in such a case.
Case Title: Suo Motu JJP Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 676
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment ordering the constitution of a committee to vet the standard checklist prepared by the Registry compiling the requirements at the time of filing different categories of cases.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a suo motu Judicial Practice and Procedure (JPP) initiated at the instance of the High Court Registry.
Kerala High Court Closes Plea Against DDE Order In Hijab Row Case After Student Withdraws Admission
Case Title: Manager, St Rita's Public School v. State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 677
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) closed a plea by St Rita's School challenging a notice by Deputy Director of Education (DDE) Ernakulam to permit a girl student to attend classes wearing a headscarf, after the court was informed that her parents had decided to withdraw her admission.
After hearing the submission made by the student's counsel the State said that it does not want to precipitate the issue.
Justice V.G. Arun thus closed the matter noting that better sense had prevailed wherein "fraternity"–the foundational principles on which the edifice of the Constitution is built, "remains strong".
Case Title: Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 678
The Kerala High Court has held that “debt due” under the proviso to Section 18(1) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) includes not only the amount claimed in the demand notice issued under Section 13(2), but also interest accruing thereafter up to the date of filing the appeal.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. delivered the judgment in a petition challenging orders of Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal rejecting his application for waiver of pre-deposit and consequently dismissing the statutory appeal.
Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal Challenging Levy Of Parking Fees At Lulu Mall Kochi
Case Title: Bosco Louis v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 679
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (October 25) dismissed a plea, which had challenged the collection of parking fees from vehicles parked in the parking area of Lulu Shopping Mall at Edappally in Kochi.
Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was considering a writ appeal preferred against the Single Bench's judgment. The Single Judge had held that the building owner can determine whether or not to charge customers for parking their vehicles while using the shopping facility and services offered in the building.
Case Title: Anirudh Karthikeyan v. State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 680
The Kerala High Court held that the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) concessionaires holding valid work orders issued prior to March 21, 2024, do not need to obtain separate Environmental Clearance (EC) for extraction, sourcing, or borrowing of ordinary earth for linear projects such as roads and pipelines.
The division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, passed the order while answering an intra-court reference.
Other Important Developments This Week
Kerala High Court Conducts In-Camera Proceedings In Sabarimala Gold Loss Case
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case No: SSCR No. 23/2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 21) conducted in-camera hearing of the Sabarimala gold loss case. A notification in this regard was issued by the High Court's Registry on Monday (October 20).
Accordingly, today, a Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar took up the matter in-camera.
Haal Movie: Kerala High Court To Watch Film To Decide Plea Challenging CBFC Cuts, A-Certification
Case Title: Juby Thomas and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 37251/2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 21) decided that it would watch the Malayalam movie 'Haal' starring Shane Nigam on Saturday (October 25) at 7 p.m.
Justice V.G. Arun was considering the plea preferred by director and producer of the movie against CBFC's grant of A certification to the film as well as various cuts suggested, including scenes of eating beef biriyani, heroine dance sequence wearing burqa, etc.
Case Title: Hashim v. State Police Chief and Ors. Case No: WP (Crl.) No. 1261 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 21) gave an interim direction to the Station House Officer, Negumangad (5th respondent) to conduct a thorough investigation in a case where an advocate (6th respondent) has been accused of misappropriating around Rs. 40 lakh rupees from her client.
After noting that the offence was attracted, prima facie, Dr. Justice Kauser Edappagath asked the SHO to effect the arrest of the lawyer, and her husband, who are accused in the case.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 7844/2023
The Kerala High Court has orally suggested the State government to dedicate a portion of Rs. 22 crores fine collected to start an awareness campaign, through use of social media, to reach all generations regarding responsible waste disposal.
The Special Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas and Justice Gopinath P. orally observed:
“You have collected Rs. 22 crores as fines in the last 9 months, you can devote at least Rs. 1 crore out of it for making a campaign and spread it through Instagram. It reaches billions in seconds… We should be innovative enough to reach all types of generations. It is essential now. Only an awareness can bring in a change in approach...I'll suggest something. Something more that you can do is, Instagram and other social media platforms, you can create advertisements without much cost. It is only the cost of making that ad. Thereafter you can spread it, it runs like wildfire. Small reels. Popular actors who might be willing to do it free of cost.”
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case No.: SSCR No. 23/2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (October 21) observed that investigation into the alleged misappropriation of gold from the Dwarapalaka idols and side frames of the Sabarimala temple needs to be carried out under its direct and continuous supervision in order to ensure a fair, transparent and expeditious process.
Today, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar had interacted with the officers heading the Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by it and directed that a thorough investigation be carried out into the larger conspiracy behind the misappropriation and to identify the Devaswom Board officials involved.
Case Title: Justine Pallivathukkal v Union of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) 133/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (21 October) has asked a PIL litigant, who is also an advocate, if he is willing to contribute in the State's legal aid programme.
The division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. were considering a public interest litigation seeking urgent judicial intervention to curb increasing levels of noise pollution.
Actress Lakshmi Menon Moves Kerala High Court For Quashing Abduction Case
Case Title: Midhun Mohan and Ors. v. State of Kerala
Case No: Crl.MC No. 8784/ 2025
Actress Lakshmi Menon has moved the Kerala High Court seeking to quash the criminal case initiated in alleged abduction and assault case.
When the matter came up for consideration before Justice C.S. Dias on Thursday (October 23), the public prosecutor pointed out that there were other injured in the case (other than the de facto complainant).
Case Title: Hirandas V.M. v. State of Kerala
Case No: Crl.M.C. No. 9448 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 23) sought the State's stand on a plea by Rapper Vedan seeking to modify two conditions imposed by the Sessions Court while granting him pre-arrest bail in a sexual harassment case.
Justice C. Pratheep Kumar granted time to the prosecutor to get instructions and posted the matter to next week.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala
Case No: DBP No. 52/2025
The Kerala High Court has asked the State government regarding the steps that can be taken by Suchitwa Mission, a technical arm of government which empowers local bodies with technical support for waste management, sanitation, and green initiatives, to provide assistance to Chottanikkara Temple.
The division bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar observed, “We are of the view that the Government must take note of the fact that Chottanikkara Temple is one of the most revered temples and centres of pilgrimage in the State. In that light, every possible effort must be made to ensure that the services and benefits of the Suchitwa Mission are extended to the temple without raising untenable excuses.”
Case Title: Baiju Paul Mathews v. State of Kerala and connected case
Case No: WP(C) 7858/ 2025 and connected case
The Kerala High Court recently (October 22) expressed displeasure over the State's delay in releasing funds sanctioned for projects aimed at mitigating human–wildlife conflicts, despite the measures being declared urgent under a disaster management framework.
The division bench comprising Dr. Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian were hearing petitions concerning the human- wildlife conflict in Wayanad and Aralam.
Case Title: Esai Clara v. State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 30999/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) passed an interim order directing the Bar Council of India to give approval for the State Government's request to provide two additional seats for transgender students in all law colleges in Kerala.
When the matter came up for consideration before Justice V.G. Arun, the petitioner's counsel submitted that during the last posting, there was a direction to the BCI to finalise a date to conduct a General Meeting to make a decision in the matter.
Case Title: The Project Director & Others v M N Jayachandran & Others.
Case No: RP 972/ 2025 in WP(C) 30391/ 2024
The Kerala High Court on Friday (October 24) came down heavily on the State Government for its inconsistent affidavits regarding the legal status of land along the Neriamangalam–Valara stretch of National Highway 85, and has directed the Chief Secretary to pass a reasoned order clarifying whether the area constitutes a reserved forest.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. issued the direction while considering a review petition filed by National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) seeking modification of an interim order which held that the land in question was prima facie part of a reserved forest.
Case Title: Venugopalan C. v. The Tahsildar and Ors.
Case No: W.A. No. 2448 of 2025
The Kerala High Court recently observed that in cases of reclamation of paddy land in contravention of the provisions of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, the law treats the vehicle owner more harshly than the land owners.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisanka V. Menon was considering an appeal preferred by the owner of a JCB excavator seeking to get interim custody over his vehicle, which was confiscated as per Section 20.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: SSCR 31/2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 23) directed the Travancore Devaswom Board to file an affidavit clarifying the details regarding appointment and accountability of persons who assist the melsanthis (head priests) at Sannidhanam, Sabarimala.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu case regarding selection of head priests at the Sabarimala Sree Dharma Sastha temple and Malikappuram Temples.
Kerala High Court Directs Formation Of SIT To Trace Missing Kuwait Resident
Case Title: Santon Lama v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP (Crl) No. 1421/2025
The Kerala High Court on Saturday (October 25) directed the Commissioner of Police to constitute a Special Investigation Team to trace out Suraj Lama, who has been missing since October 5 after he arrived in Kochi from Kuwait.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering a habeas corpus petition filed by his son.