Kerala High Court Weekly Roundup: April 28 – May 04, 2025

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

Shafeek Shajahan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 258

Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Bar Council of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 259

M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 260

Judgments/ Orders This Week

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.

JCB Excavator Is A Machine Not Vehicle, Can't Insist On Production Of Registration Certificate For Seeking Release: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shafeek Shajahan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 258

The Kerala High Court recently held that a JCB Excavator 81 Hitachi is a Machine and is not a vehicle and hence there cannot be an insistence on producing its registration certificate while seeking the release of the machine. 

Justice V. G. Arun relied on the High Court decision in Rajesh v State of Kerala (2020) where it was held that a Bob Cat excavator is not a vehicle and therefore is not liable to be registered under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Kerala High Court Allows State Bar Council To Continue Disciplinary Proceedings Against KHCAA President Yeshwanth Shenoy

Case Title: Yeshwanth Shenoy v The Bar Council of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 259

Kerala High Court has allowed the disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council to continue with the proceedings initiated against President of the High Court Advocates' Association and lawyer Yeshwanth Shenoy, accused of misbehaving in Court.

Suo motu contempt proceedings were initiated against the lawyer after former High Court Justice Mary Joseph filed a complaint alleging that he shouted and harassed her while he appeared before her court and even stated that he would see that the Judge is expelled from the seat. The Bar Council of Kerala had also initiated suo motu proceedings alleging violation of Standards of Professional Conduct and Etiquette, based on the Judge's letter.

Justice T. R. Ravi said that to initiate a suo motu disciplinary proceedings against an advocate, the only thing that needs to be considered is whether there was a “reason to believe” that he is guilty of professional or other misconduct, as prescribed under Section 35 of the Advocates Act.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Interfere With Income Tax Dept's Seizure Of Rs 1 Crore From CPI(M) During 2024 General Elections

Case Title: M. M. Varghese v Assistant Director of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 260

The Kerala High Court on Friday (2^ndMay) held that it need not interfere with the action of the Income Tax Department seizing Rs. 1 Crore Rupees from the bank account of CPI(M) Thrissur District Committee in the Bank of India branch in Thrissur.

“The pleadings and the materials placed for consideration do not indicate any malafides…..Hence, the satisfaction arrived at by the respondents to initiate the search and seizure under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act cannot be held to be perverse or legally untenable. Considering the scope of interference under 226 with a proceeding under 132 of the Act, this Court is of the view that the search and seizure proceedings initiated by the respondents do not warrant any interference at this juncture,” ordered Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas

Other Important Developments This Week

Kerala Bar Council Decides To Send Show Cause Notice To Adv Yeshwant Shenoy For Facebook Post Against Judge

The Kerala Bar Council in today's meeting decided to send a notice to Advocate Yeshwanth Shenoy to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for his Facebook post against Justice T. R. Ravi.