Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: April 2025 [Citations: 222 - 257]

Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222

Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223

Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224

P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225

Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226

M.I. Mohammed Versus M/S. Hll Life Care Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 227

Balu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228

P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 229

Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananda v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 230

Amal Nisham v The State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 231

K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232

State of Kerala v Rishikesh and Others & Varsha Deepak v Rishikesh and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 233

Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234

Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 235

Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236

Thevan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 237

C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 238

Asha Lawrence and Another v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 239

M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 240

St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241

Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 242

Anoop Varkey v G. S. Sajiprasad and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 243

The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 244

P. Sudhakaran v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 245

Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited Versus Airports Authority Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 246

Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 247

XX v YY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 248

Baburajan v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 249

XX v YY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 250

Soorya Kiran And Another v State of Kerala And Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 251

Dr. E. Sreedharan v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 252

V. S. Gourishankar v Bar Council of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 253

Arjun Madou Dugi v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 254

Prasanna v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 255

Shyna P. A. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 256

x v y, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 257

Judgments/ Orders This Month

Husband's Disinterest In Family Life Indicates Failure To Fulfill Marital Duties, Compelling Wife To Adopt Spiritual Lifestyle Is Cruelty: Kerala HC

Case Title: XX vXX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221

The Kerala High Court affirmed the decision of a Family Court granting divorce to a wife who alleged that her husband was not interested in having physical relations or children with her due to some superstitious beliefs.

The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha remarked that the husband's disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfil his marital duties.

Kerala High Court Directs State To Implement Its Monthly Scholarship Scheme For Disabled Children; Highlights Indifference Of Officers

Case Title: Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222

The Kerala High Court has asked the State government to scrupulously implement its 2015 policy for persons with disabilities under which it had announced a Scheme for distribution of monthly scholarships to eligible students.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also flagged the 'reluctance and apathy' of ground-level officers in implementing the Scheme and directed the State to take deterrent and punitive action against those found in default, including the Secretaries of the Local Self Government Institutions.

Advocate Cannot Be Summoned As Witness And Be Compelled To Disclose Confidential Information Against Client : Kerala HC

Case Title: Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223

The Kerala High Court observed that police's power provided under Section 179(1) of BNSS cannot be stretched to call for an advocate–who is appearing for the accused in the crime–so as to divulge information shared between him and the client.

In doing so Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that summoning an advocate representing his client potentially infringes the "client's right to representation and also violates the constitutional rights of the legal practitioners" besides impinging upon the stature of an advocate.

Co-Opted Members Of Bar Council Cannot Be Considered As A Separate Class From Elected Members: Kerala HC

Case Title: Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224

The Kerala High Court recently held that co-opted members of the Bar Council cannot be considered as a separate class from elected members.

Justice C. S. Dias made this observation in a petition filed by 2 co-opted members of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) who challenged the decision of the Council to keep them away from its meeting after the Bar Council of India (BCI) extended the term of the BCK under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015.

Investigating Agency Cannot Include Cognizable Offence In FIR To Bypass Sanction U/S 155(2) Of CrPC: Kerala HC

Case Title: P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225

The Kerala High Court observed that an investigating agency cannot incorporate a cognizable offence in the FIR without any materials before it to bypass Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.

“The requirement of obtaining sanction under Section 155(2) CrPC for the investigation of a non-cognizable offence, cannot be bypassed by such shortcut methods of incorporating a cognizable offence in the FIR, even though there are apparently no materials before the investigating agency to register a case in connection with such an offence” observed Justice G. Girish

UAPA | Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 10 PFI Members Allegedly Involved In RSS Leader Sreenivasan's Murder

Case Title: Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (2^nd April) granted bail to 10 PFI members allegedly involved in the murder of RSS leader in Palakkad, S. K. Sreenivasan.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan granted bail to 8 of them namely Nassar, Jamsheer H., Abdul Basith, Muhammed Shefeek K., Ashraf K., Jishad B., Ashraf aka Ashraf Moulavi, Sirajudheen after taking into account the long period of incarceration already undergone by them and the lack of direct evidence against them.

After Commencement Of Arbitration, Parties Must Wait Until Award Is Pronounced To File Challenge Unless Appeal Is Available At Earlier Stage: Kerala HC

Case Title: M.I. Mohammed Versus M/S. Hll Life Care Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 227

The Kerela High Court Bench of Justice Basant Balaji has held that once the arbitration has commenced, parties have to wait until the award is pronounced unless a right of appeal is available to them under Section 37 of the Act, even at an earlier stage.

Blanket Denial Of Premature Release To Person Who Murdered Woman Or Child Affects Their Human Rights, Not Conducive To Welfare State: Kerala HC

Case Tile: Balu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 228

The Kerala High Court held that the State Government Order blanketly prohibiting premature release of persons convicted of murdering a woman is not conducive to a welfare state.

“A blanket stance that a person who have murdered a woman or a child shall not be prematurely released de hors any other circumstances is not conducive to a welfare State” observed Justice Kauser Edappagath.

The Court observed that the factors that have a bearing on the concept of reformation cannot be ignored merely because the accused murdered a woman. The petitioner was 18 years old when the murder was committed and now, he is 45. The probation report mentioned that the convict could lead a normal life after release by doing agricultural labour in his own village. The police authorities, the probation officer, the Superintendent of Prisons and the Jail Advisory Committee have recommended the premature release of the petitioner.

Actress Assault Case: Kerala High Court Rejects Dileep's Plea For CBI Investigation, Says Trial Heading Towards Conclusion

Case Title: P. Gopalakrishnan @ Dileep v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 229

The Kerala High Court on Monday (7^th April) disallowed Dileep's appeal seeking CBI investigation into the Malayalam actress sexual assault case. Dileep is the 8^th accused in the case and is accused of hatching the conspiracy of the crime.

The Bench of Justice A. M. Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar today proceeded to dismiss the appeal, noting that trial before the Principal District and Sessions Court in Ernakulam is heading to completion.

Kerala High Court Quashes Hate Speech Case Against Swami Bhadrananda, Cites Delay By Police In Filing Final Report

Case Title: Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananda v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 230

The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against Himaval Maheshwara Bhadrananada popularly known as Swami Bhadrananda for allegedly promoting enmity on grounds of religion by posting derogatory comments on his Facebook page.

Justice V. G. Arun quashed the proceedings on the grounds that there was a long delay in filing the police report. The FIR against Bhadrananda was filed in 2016, while the final police report was filed only in the year 2023.

Kerala High Court Grants 15 Days Parole To Mohammed Nisham Who Was Convicted For Running Over A Security Guard

Case Title: Amal Nisham v The State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 231

The Kerala High Court has granted 15 days parole to Mohammed Nisham who was convicted in a 2015 case of killing a security guard by running over him. 

The Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan granted the leave in an appeal filed by Nisham's wife taking into account the favourable report given by the probationer officer. The Court held that the convict was entitled to parole under Kerala Prison and Correctional Services (Management) Rule, 2014.

CSR Funds Scam: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To Founder Of National NGO's Confederation Anand Kumar

Case Title: K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (9^th April) denied bail to KN Anand Kumar, the founder and Managing Trustee of National NGO's Confederation who is presently in judicial custody in the CSR Scam case.

"Dismissed", ordered Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan.

Can't Let People Involved In Serious Offences Escape Prison By Pretending To Be Sick: Kerala High Court Explains Scope Of S.480 BNSS

Case Title: K. N. Anand Kumar v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 232

Remarking that Indian jails are well equipped to deal with any casualties to prisoners, the Kerala High Court has observed that a person arrested in serious offences cannot be released on bail merely by claiming to be 'sick' and relying on the first proviso to Section 480(1) of BNSS. 

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan stated that the first proviso to Section 480(1) BNSS is applicable only in cases where a prison Medical Officer submits a report that the prisoner cannot be given medical treatment within the prison facility. It also noted that bail may be given in cases where the prisoner is nearing the end of his life.

Kerala High Court Reverses Acquittal Of Five RSS Workers In JDU Leader's Murder; Hands Down Life Imprisonment

Case Title: State of Kerala v Rishikesh and Others & Varsha Deepak v Rishikesh and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 233

The Kerala High Court has reversed a Sessions Court order acquitting five RSS workers from charge of murdering Deepak, a Janata Dal (United) party Office Bearer. 

A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the appeal preferred by the State and Deepak's wife, and sentenced the quintet to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 IPC.

EPS Pension | EPFO Cannot Deny Higher Pension On The Ground That Contributions Were Paid In Bulk: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Gopinathan Pillai M. & Others v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 234

The Kerala High Court held that the Employee Provident Fund Organisation, after having received a contribution to the Employees Pension Scheme (EPS) based on the actual salary, cannot deny the employees a higher pension saying that the contributions were not made in the corresponding month.

Justice Murali Purushothaman ordered so in a petition filed by employees who retired from Milma.

Kerala High Court Strikes Down GST Act Provision Which Levied Tax On Supplies By Clubs/Associations To Members

Case : Indian Medical Association Kerala Branch vs Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 235

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court has struck down the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017, which allowed the levy of GST on supply by clubs and associations to its members.

A bench comprising Justice Dr Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice S Easwaran has declared these provisions to be unconstitutional. The bench reasoned that the provision went against the definition of "supply" given under Article 246A of the Constitution.

Kerala High Court Cautions Media Houses Against Publishing Unverified, One-Sided Stories To Boost TRP

Case Title: Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236

The Kerala High Court has flagged the rising trend among media houses publishing 'mere allegations' leveled by a party against the other, without proper verification, only to increase their TRP (Television Rating Point).

Stating that it is both their journalistic and moral responsibility to not publish one-sided story and to verify the news before telecast, Justice A. Badharudeen urged,

"it is high time for the channels and medias to be more vigilant while giving news items in channels and medias in any form to have an enquiry with regard to the truth of the matter or to include the version of the other side (the person against whom the allegations are levelled) after hearing him, or somebody on his behalf capable of explaining the stand of the other side, then, the medias may report both versions to the viewers and readers to decide what actually is the truth behind the news."

Kerala High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Asianet News' Journalists, Staff Booked For Disclosing Survivor's Identity To Get High TRP

Case Title: Sindhu S. and Others v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 236

The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 11) quashed a POCSO case registered against Asianet News journalists and staff for allegedly conspiring and disclosing the identity of a minor rape survivor, in order to get high TRP.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that the alleged offences are not made out from the facts of the case. It however cautioned channels against airing allegations without hearing the other side or enquiring into the truth of the allegations. 

'Love Deepens As We Grow Older': Kerala HC Grants Bail To 91-Yr-Old Man Accused Of Stabbing 88-Yr-Old Wife For Allegedly Suspecting He Had Illicit Affairs

Case Title: Thevan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 237

The Kerala High Court granted bail to a 91-year-old man who was accused of attacking his 88-year-old wife with a knife, whereby she sustained serious injuries.

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that the 91-year-old should be allowed to live with his wife in his old age.

Once Tax Has Been Assessed, Entire Amount Has To Be Paid, Unless There Are Amnesty Schemes: Kerala High Court

Case Title: C.Y Cherian v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 238

The  Kerala High Court stated that once tax has been assessed, entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes.

“The assessee had even acquiesced into the order by paying the first instalment and thereafter he has turned around and now requests for acceptance of a portion of the amount in satisfaction of the entire tax assessed. Such a procedure is unheard in law. Once tax has been assessed, the entire amount has to be paid, unless there are amnesty schemes,” stated the bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

'Not Maintainable': Kerala High Court Dismisses Daughters' Review Petition Against Donation Of CPI(M) Leader MM Lawrence's Body

Case Title: Asha Lawrence and Another v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 239

The Kerala High Court on Friday (April 11) dismissed the review petition filed against the Single Bench decision that dismissed Asha Lawrence's challenge against the donation of the body of her father–CPI(M) leader MM Lawrence–to a medical college.

While disposing off the case, Justice V. G. Arun observed that since the single Bench decision has been appealed, the review petition is not maintainable before the Single Bench. The Court said that the petitioners will have the right to seek appropriate remedies.

College Supplying Food Through Canteen Managed By Educational Trust Is Liable For Registration Under KVAT Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Anoor Dental College v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 240

The  Kerala High Court held that college supplying food through canteen, though managed by educational trust, is liable for registration under KVAT Act.

The bench disagreed with the assessee that even if it is assumed that the sales in the canteen are found to be assessable under the provisions of the VAT, it falls within the threshold limit and therefore, the assessee cannot be compelled to take registration.

It may be true that the sales across the counter in the canteen may be within the threshold limit, but however that by itself will not enable the assessee to contend that it is not bound to take registration under the provisions of the KVAT Act, opined the Division Bench comprising of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.

GST Appellate Authority Must Pass Order On Merits Even If There's No Appearance; Can't Dismiss For Default: Kerala High Court

Case : St. Antony Trading and Transport Pvt Ltd vs Joint Commissioner (Appeals)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 241

The Kerala High Court has held that an appellate authority under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act (CGST Act 2017) must consider the merits of an appeal even if there is no appearance on behalf of the appellant.

The Court stated that the order must be passed on merits and that the dismissal cannot be merely for default. 

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was considering a writ petition filed by an assessee challenging an order passed by the Joint Commissioner (Appeals) dismissing an appeal without any determination solely on the ground of non-appearance despite three adjournments.

Income Tax | Amount Received As Compensation For Compulsory Acquisition Of Landed Property Is Income Under 'Capital Gains': Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anvar Ali Poolakkodan v. The Income Tax Officer

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 242

In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court stated that the amounts received by an assessee as compensation or enhanced compensation for compulsory acquisition of his landed property would be treated as income under the head of 'Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act.

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “Interest amounts received by an assessee in respect of delayed payment of compensation under the LAA will be treated as accruals to the principal compensation amount and be classified as “Capital Gains' for the purposes of the I.T. Act. Consequently, the interest amounts will also get the benefit of Section 10 (37) of the I.T. Act if the land compulsorily acquired is agricultural land. Further, since the interest amounts so received are not in the nature of interest as defined under Section 2 (28A), the provisions of Section 56 of the I.T. Act will not be attracted in such cases.”

Person Against Whom Vigilance Proceedings Are Initiated Cannot Be Included In List For Promotion: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anoop Varkey v G. S. Sajiprasad and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 243

The Kerala High Court held that a person against whom vigilance has filed an FIR after conducting a preliminary enquiry along with the approval granted by the appropriate authority cannot be included in the select list for promotion.

The Bench of the Court comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar following the judgments in State of Kerala and Others v Babu Prasad (2019) held that the condition under Note(i) of Rule 28(b)(i)(7) of Part II of KS&SSR is fulfilled if a vigilance case is initiated after conducting a preliminary enquiry to prima facie establish the charge. The Court clarified that this includes the Vigilance filing an FIR after conducting a preliminary enquiry against an officer.

Kerala Municipality Act | Building Owners Liable To Pay Revised Property Tax For Past Three Years After Adjusting Previously Paid Amount: HC

Case Title: The Gateway Hotels v. Kochi Municipal Corporation

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 244

The  Kerala High Court stated that building owners liable to pay revised property tax for past three years, after adjusting previously paid amounts.

The Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was addressing the issue of whether, despite the creation of charge on the property enabling the Municipality to recover the arrears of tax as arrears of public revenue, the limitation period would stand extended beyond three years.

“Temple Festivals Are Expressions Of A Community's Joy”: Kerala High Court Remarks In Plea Over Alleged Disruptions During 2024 Thrissur Pooram

Case Title: P. Sudhakaran v State of Kerala and Others & Connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 245

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Viju Abraham has remarked that while worship of deities may be an individual's religious or spiritual need, temple festivals are the expression of a community's joy.

The Court was hearing the state's submissions regarding its investigation into the alleged disruptions caused during last year's Thrissur Pooram.

Writ Petition Can Be Entertained When Order U/S 9 Of Arbitration Act Neither Grants Nor Refuses Relief: Kerala HC

Case Title: Flemingo (DFS) Private Limited Versus Airports Authority Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 246

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Harisankar V. Menon has held that a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India can be entertained against an order passed by the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Arbitration Act) when such an order neither grants nor refuses to grant relief, thereby not making it appealable under Section 37 of the Arbitration Act.

Kerala High Court Issues Guidelines For Appointment Of Public Prosecutors, Calls For Primacy To Be Given To District Judge's Opinion

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 247

The Kerala High Court has directed the State to give primacy to the opinion of the District Judge while appointing Public Prosecutors and formulate guidelines to that effect. The Court further directed the State to fill any vacancy of Prosecutors remaining unfilled in various courts without much delay.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A., relying on the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. and Another v Johri Mal (2023) held that primacy has to be given to the opinion of the District Judge while appointment. Further, taking into account the delay caused in filling up some vacancies of Public Prosecutor in certain courts, the Court issued guidelines:

Children In Custody Battle Should Be Called To Court Only In Unavoidable Situations, Must Be Treated With Highest Dignity, Privacy: Kerala HC

Case Title: XX v YY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 248

'Taken aback' by the trauma that Court appearances caused to a child involved in custody battle, the Kerala High Court has directed Family Courts to ensure that children are called to Courts only in extraordinary situation and with great caution.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha ordered that children should be called to the Court premises only sparingly even if it is for the purpose of counselling or other statutory proceedings. The Court added that in cases where they are asked to be produced, they should be treated with dignity and privacy. The Court said that the children should not be made to wait infinitely till the court proceedings are over but should be given preference subject to the workload of the Court.

Violates Fundamental Rights: Kerala HC Says 'High Time' For Setting Up Legal Framework To Compensate Victims Of Wrongful Prosecution

Case Title: Baburajan v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 249

The Kerala High Court has remarked that it is high time for a legal framework to be set up to compensate victims of wrongful prosecution, noting that as of now, a wrongly convicted person only has a remedy under private law by instituting a suit against the State before civil court for damages. 

Justice Kauser Edappagath in his order remarked that wrongful convictions violate the fundamental rights of a person.

Serious POCSO Offences Can Be Quashed On Settlement Between Parties If There Exist 'Extreme Mitigating Circumstances': Kerala High Court

Case Title: XX v YY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 250

While quashing two cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act where the accused and victims got married, the Kerala High Court observed that though generally POCSO offences cannot be quashed on the ground of settlement between parties, however, in "extreme mitigating circumstances", not quashing the proceedings may result in injustice.

Justice C. Jayachandran opined that there cannot be an absolute stand that no POCSO case can be quashed.

Shahabas Murder Case: Kerala High Court Denies Bail To 5 Juveniles Accused Of Attacking Class 10 Student Leading To His Death

Case Title: Soorya Kiran And Another v State of Kerala And Others & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 251

The Kerala High Court on Friday (25th April) denied bail to the 5 juveniles who are apprehended for being involved in the murder of 15-year-old Shahabas, a class 10 student who was allegedly attacked by his tuition fellows in Kozhikkode which lead to his death.

"Considering the above aspects, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners" Justice Jobin Sebastian ordered. 

Kerala HC Directs State To Consider Review Plea Of 'Metroman' E. Sreedharan Against Construction Of Thiruvanaya – Thavanur Bridge Within 2 Weeks

Case Title: Dr. E. Sreedharan v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 252

Kerala High Court on Friday (25^th April) directed the State Government to consider the review petition filed by E. Sreedharan, popularly known as 'Metro Man', opposing the construction of Thiruvanaya - Thavanur bridge across Bharathapuzha within 14 days.

The petition came before the bench of Justice G. Girish and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan on Friday and it was decided on the same day itself directing the State to consider the review petition immediately and at any rate within 14 days.

Candidate Studying Under National Institute Of Open Schools Is Eligible To Get Admission To Integrated LLB Course: Kerala HC

Case Title: V. S. Gourishankar v Bar Council of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 253

The Kerala High Court held that a student who did obtained his 10^th and 12^th certificate under National India Open Schools (NIOS) is eligible to get admission to integrated 5 year LL.B course as per BCI rules.

Justice N. Nagaresh noted that as per Rule 5(b) of Bar Council of India Rules of Legal Education, applicants who obtained a +2-pass certificate in distance or correspondence method shall also be considered as eligible for admission to the 5 year integrated LLB.

Offence For Furnishing False Information U/S12(1)(b) Of Passports Act Is Attracted Even If Offender Is A Foreigner: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Arjun Madou Dugi v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 254

The Kerala High Court held that the offence of furnishing false information for obtaining a passport under Section 12(1)(b) is attracted even if the person concerned is a foreign citizen. Justice V. G. Arun observed that when Section 3 of the Act which says that no person shall attempt to depart from India if he does not hold a valid passport or travel document includes under its ambit passport issued by other countries, any attempt for such departure without a valid passport or travel document will attract Section 12(1)(b) of the Act even if the passport concerned is issued by the foreign government.

Consider Premature Release Of Prisoners Completing 20 Yrs In Jail If They Have Favourable Report From Advisory Committee: Kerala HC Tells State

Case Title: Prasanna v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 255

The Kerala High Court has directed the State to consider the premature release of prisoners who are "deemed to have completed the term of imprisonment" as per Rule 377 of Kerala Prisons and Correctional Services (Management) Rules and if they have got a favourable report from the Advisory Committee for premature release.

A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian directed the State to complete this process within 2 months.

Set-Off Period Cannot Be Taken Into Account For Calculating Remission: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shyna P. A. v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 256

Justice Kauser Edappagath after considering the relevant rules held that the period of detention prior to conviction cannot be counted for remission. Justice Kauser Edappagath after considering the relevant rules held that the period of detention prior to conviction cannot be counted for remission.

Gold Given To Bride Her Exclusive Property; Strict Documentary Proof Can't Be Insisted In Wife's Claim To Return Stridhan : Kerala High Court

Case Title: x v y

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 257

The Kerala High Court recently held that in cases concerning the gold and cash given to a woman during her marriage, the courts have to apply the principle of preponderance of probabilities, as often documentary proof is not available for the transaction and misappropriation of the 'Stridhan'.

The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha emphasized that cash and gold given to a woman at the time of her marriage is her “Sreedhan” and it is her exclusive property.