Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 24 - 30, 2025

State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra Revi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203

South Indian Bank Ltd. v Jahfer M, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 204

P J Francis v C D Jose, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

Sunithkumar S. and Others v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

National Insurance Co.Ltd. v John Thomas & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 208

Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

Chaithanya v The New India General Ins.Co.Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

Naduvil Grama Panchayat V Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 211

Jomon v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 212

A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213

Shuhaib K. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 214

Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215

Umer Ali v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 216

Nitheesh K. v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217

M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 218

Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 219

Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220

Judgments/ Orders This Week

To Check If Special Rules Violate State & Subordinate Service Rules, It Needs To Be Seen If Both Can Co-Exist Without Colliding: Kerala HC

Case Title: State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra S. & State of Kerala and Anr v Dr. Chitra Revi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 203

The Kerala High Court observed that to see whether special rules of a service are repugnant to the general provisions of the Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), it has to be checked whether both provisions can co-exist in a given situation without going into a collision course.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar in its order said:

“When there is an inconsistency between two statutory provisions which occupy the same field of operation and both cannot co-exist together, it is said that they are repugnant to each other. In order to consider whether a provision in the Special Rules applicable to a particular service is repugnant to the general provisions contained in Ks & SSR, it is beneficial to apply a simple test viz., whether both provisions can co-exist without going into a collision course while applying them in a given situation.”

Although Magistrate's Jurisdiction U/S 14 Of SARFAESI Act Does Not Involve Adjudication, Order Cannot Be Passed Without Application Of Mind: Kerala HC

Case Title: South Indian Bank Ltd. v Jahfer M

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 204

The Kerala High Court reiterated that while a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act does not adjudicate on creditor's application for taking possession of the secured assets, they are required to clearly apply mind since it can have drastic consequences. The Court stated that this is the reason why the Parliament has empowered high officials like Chief Judicial Magistrate or District Magistrates under Section 14 to assist the secured creditor in taking possession of secured assets.

Justice Gopinath P. observed that an order under Section 14 cannot be issued in printed format by merely filling in necessary details without application of mind.

Tenant Ordered To Pay Enhanced Rent Can't Be Burdened With Substantial Arrears Due To Delay In Proceedings: Kerala HC Calls For Reasonable Installments

Case Title: P J Francis v C D Jose

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 205

The Kerala High Court observed that a tenant who is ordered to pay enhanced fair rent to the landlord cannot be burdened with the payment of a substantial amount in arrears due to delay in the completion of judicial proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that burdening a tenant with a lump sum liability undermines the very purpose of Rent Control Act, which is to safeguard the tenants from exploitation.

Kerala High Court Refuses To Appoint Special Public Prosecutor In Evidence Tampering Case Against MLA Antony Raju

Case Title: Anil K Emmanuel v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 206

The Kerala High Court has dismissed the petition seeking to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor in the trial of MLA Antony Raju in the evidence tampering case. Justice Kauser Edappagath took into account the fact that the trial has already commenced and there is a direction from the Supreme Court to finish the trial within a year.

Officer Relinquishing Right To Be Appointed To A Post Based On Seniority, Can't Later Claim To Be Senior To Those Superseding Him: Kerala HC

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

The Kerala High Court has said that if a person who is eligible to be placed to any other grade/post/cadre or service based on "seniority or such other criteria" relinquishes such a "right" in writing, he cannot change his stance later to say that he should be considered senior to those who have been placed on such a position that he had relinquished. 

A division bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar noted that as per Rule 38 of Kerala State & Subordinate Service Rules (KS & SSR), once a right or privilege is relinquished in writing, those right/privilege need not be recognised.

Integration Of Armed Reserve, Police Battalion Into Common Civil Police Cadre Doesn't Override Statutory Effect Of Special Rules: Kerala HC

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 207

The Kerala High Court has held that an executive order integrating Armed Reserve and the Armed Police Battalion into a common cadre called Kerala Civil Police, shall not override the statutory effect of the Kerala Police Subordinate Service Rules (Special Rules) and its subsequent 2017 amendment.

[Motor Accident Claims] Compensation For Deceased Working Abroad Should Be Calculated At Exchange Rate Prevailing On Date Of Filing Petition: Kerala HC

Case Title: National Insurance Co.Ltd. v John Thomas & Connected Matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 208

The Kerala High Court ruled that while calculating compensation for a deceased individual who was working abroad, the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal should determine the compensation based on the exchange rate prevailing at the date of filing the petition, rather than the exchange rate on the date of the accident.

Justice Johnson John relying upon the Apex Court decision in Shyam Prasad Nagalla v Andhra Pradesh State Board Transport Corporation (2025) in which it was held that compensation should be calculated based on the exchange rate which was prevalent on the date of the filing of the claim petition.

Effective Laws Needed To Combat Cyber Bullying In Age Of Social Media But Even Newly Enacted BNS Failed To Address It: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Fakrudeen K. V. @ Fakrudheen Panthavoor v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 209

The Kerala High Court has expressed concerns over the absence of legal provisions to effectively combat cyberbullying and online harassment and remarked that cyberbullying in the form of abusive remarks or derogatory content towards others is inadequately being addressed through the current legal framework. 

Noting that even the recently enacted Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 has no direct provisions on cyberbullying, Justice C. S. Sudha observed that online harassment which does not have sexual overtones also needs to be addressed.

[Motor Accident Claims] Dependency Does Not Always Mean Financial Dependency: Kerala HC Upholds Compensation For Father & Siblings Of Deceased

Case Title: Chaithanya v The New India General Ins.Co.Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 210

The Kerala High Court observed that the father and the younger siblings of the deceased are also entitled to compensation under the head of loss of dependency over the death of the deceased, who was only 26 years old at time of the motor vehicle accident.

While upholding the finding of the Tribunal in awarding compensation to the father and siblings of the deceased, Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that dependency does not necessarily mean financial dependency only.

Kerala High Court Condemns Panchayat For Continuing Third Round Of Litigation Over ₹50K, Points Litigation Cost Being Paid From Public Fund

Case Title: Naduvil Grama Panchayat V Ombudsman For Local Self Government Institutions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 211

The Kerala High Court criticised a Grama Panchayat for engaging in third round of litigation over an amount of rupees fifty thousand.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that public funds were utilized for pursuing litigations and emphasized the need to know when to put an end to it.

NDPS Act | Court Need Not Look At Breach Of Mandatory Provisions Of Statute While Deciding Bail Plea: Kerala HC

Case Title: Jomon v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 212

The Kerala High Court observed that while considering the bail plea of an accused booked under NDPS Act, the concerned court need not look into violation of mandatory provisions of the Act. 

In doing so Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan underscored that at the stage of considering bail, only FIR, seizure memo and witness statements recorded by police are before the court based on which a prima facie finding cannot be given.

PMLA | For Acts Done Prior To Enactment Penalty Follows Only If Proceeds Of Crime Are Utilized, Article 20(1) Is Not Violated: Kerala HC

Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213

The Kerala High Court has held that Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002 does not penalize a person for his past actions, but penal consequences only follow when the accused utilizes the proceeds of the crime from past actions for money laundering after the enactment of PMLA and the amendment to its schedule in 2009.

The Court thus held that Section 3 of the PMLA criminalizes the act of money laundering and does not violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

The appellant/petitioners had assailed the act of the Enforcement Directorate on the ground that penalising a person for any act done in the past on the basis of subsequent legislation is prohibited by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. 

A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus ruled that there is no retrospective application of penal laws and hence there is no violation of Article 20 (1).

BNSS & BSA Grant Discretion To Summon, Examine Witnesses Allowing Trial Courts To Determine How To Proceed In PMLA Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: A.K Samsuddin & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 213

The Kerala High Court has held that Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam (BSA) grant discretion in the manner for summoning and examining witnesses, allowing the Trial Court to determine whether to proceed with the PMLA trial or to keep it in abeyance until the predicate offence trial is concluded.

A division bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that delaying the PMLA trial until the conclusion of the trial in the predicate offence could result in the Enforcement Directorate (ED) losing key witnesses. However, the Court also pointed out that if the accused is acquitted of the predicate offence, the PMLA trial would ultimately be rendered futile.

'Indefinite Incarceration Not Necessary': Kerala HC Grants Bail To MS Solutions Founder Shuhaib Booked For Leaking Class 10 Question Paper

Case Title: Shuhaib K. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 214

The Kerala High Court has granted regular bail to K. Shuhaib, Founder and CEO of M. S. Solutions, booked for leaking State Board Class 10 Question Papers through his YouTube channel

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan said Shuhaib has already been investigated by the IO, after getting his custody. The Court said that 'indefinite incarceration; is not necessary in this case.

'Unnecessary Corruption Probe May Blemish Public Servant's Reputation': Kerala HC While Rejecting Plea Against CM Vijayan In CMRL Scam

Case Title: Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 215

While dismissing the petition filed by Congress MLA Mathew Kuzhalnadan against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan in the alleged CMRL scam, the Kerala High Court observed that unnecessary corruption investigation into a public servant may cause a blemish on is career or reputation.

In his 59-page judgment, Justice K. Babu observed that Kuzhalnadan could not place any 'facts' constituting the offence and had leveled the allegations based on mere suspicions.

Certificate U/S 65B Evidence Act Mandatory To Admit Electronic Evidence, Expert's Report U/S 293 CrPC Not Its Substitute: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Umer Ali v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 216

The Kerala High Court has held that the report of a government expert obtained under Section 293 of the CrPC cannot be considered as a formal substitute for a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act which is used to prove the validity of electronic evidence.

At this juncture, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan outlined the difference between certificate produced under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and a government expert's report under Section 293 of the CrPC.

Three-Day Absence During COVID Lockdown Not Justification For Compulsory Retirement; Kerala HC Reinstates Railway Employee With Full Benefits

Case Title: Nitheesh K. v. Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 217

A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar set aside the compulsory retirement of a Railway employee. As the only misconduct was unauthorized absence for three days during the pandemic, the court found the punishment to be grossly disproportionate. The court directed his immediate reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and ruled that his absence should be treated as casual leave in accordance with government COVID-related office memorandums.

Customs Department Can't Invoke Expired Bank Guarantees: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M/s Itma Hotels India Pvt. Ltd. v. The Additional Commissioner of Customs

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 218

The  Kerala High Court stated that invocation of the expired bank guarantees by Customs Department is not permissible under law.

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. was addressing the issue of whether customs department can invoke expired bank guarantees.

Income Tax Act | Order Passed By Commissioner U/S 263 Can't Be Construed As Closed Remand, No Need To Challenge Order Separately: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Malabar Institute of Medical Sciences Ltd. v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 219

The  Kerala High Court stated that the order passed by the Commissioner of Appeals under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act cannot be under any circumstances construed as a closed remand and there is no requirement to challenge the order under Section 263 separately.

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “In as much as the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had decided the appeal preferred by the assessee against the revised assessment order on merits, it was incumbent upon the tribunal to have decided the appeal on merits rather than finding that the assessee ought to have questioned the order under Section 263 in a separate proceeding. Therefore, the tribunal erred egregiously in dismissing the appeal preferred by the assessee as 'not maintainable''.

Appellate Authority Must Consider Prior Judicial Observations When Reconsidering Disciplinary Action: Kerala HC

Case Title: Kerala Tourism Development Corporation Limited v. Benny Mathew

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 220

A Division Bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and Muralee Krishna S. dismissed writ appeals challenging an order that remanded a disciplinary case back to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration. The court held that an Appellate Authority must properly consider prior judicial observations when reconsidering disciplinary action and cannot simply adopt a judicial review approach. The court held that an appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings; it requires the Appellate Authority to address the case on merits rather than limiting itself to procedural review.

Other Important Developments This Week

CSI Medical College Corruption Case: Kerala HC Declines To Quash ED Chargesheet Against Ex-Church Of South India Bishop

Case Title: A Dharmaraj Rasalam V Assistant Director, Directorate Of Enforcement

Case No: Crl.MC 1932/2025

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 24) has refused to quash the charge sheet filed by Enforcement Directorate against Former Church of South India (CSI) Bishop A Dharmaraj Rasalam in the alleged Karakonam CSI Medical College corruption case.

The former Bishop was arrayed as the second accused by the ED and the matter is before the Special Court dealing with PMLA Cases. 

Justice V.G. Arun dismissed Rasalam's petition seeking quashing of today.

Walayar Rape-Death Case | Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Plea By Victim's Parents To Quash CBI Chargesheet Adding Them As Accused

Case Title: xxx And Another v The Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

Case No: Crl.MC 2890/ 2025

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 24) issued notice on a plea filed by the parents of two girls–who were allegedly raped and killed in Walayar in 2017–to quash the charge sheet filed by the CBI which arraigns them as accused. 

The matter came up before the bench of Justice C. Jayachandran, where Senior Prosecutor for CBI, Senior Advocate Dr. K. P. Satheesan took notice.

S.35(3) BNSS | 'What Power Do You Have?': Kerala HC Orally Reprimands Sub-Inspector For Summoning Accused's Lawyer For Questioning In Probe

Case Title: Ajikumar K K v State of Kerala

Case No: WP (Crl) 363/2025

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 25) orally reprimanded a Sub-Inspector of Police for issuing a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS to the lawyer of the accused, summoning him for investigation involving the latter's clients.

When the matter was taken up in the morning, Justice Kauser Edappagath questioned the authority of the Sub-Inspector for issuing a notice under Section 35(3) BNSS to the lawyer, which the court said is an officer of the Court. The Court clarified that a notice under Section 35 (3) can only be issued to a person when there is a reasonable suspicion that he has committed a cognizable offence.

No Loan Waiver For Wayanad Landslide Victims, Will Grant 1-Year Moratorium And Charge Interest: Says Centre; Kerala HC Expresses Dissatisfaction

Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala V State Of Kerala

Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases 

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (26^th March) expressed dissatisfaction with the Central government's stand to not waive loans taken by the victims of Wayanad landslide.

A division bench comprising Justice A. K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. orally observed that the Centre has on many occasions waived loans, and it cannot claim to be powerless when it comes to the affected population of Wayanad.

Ragging Menace: Kerala High Court Asks Working Group Constituted To Frame Prevention Rules To Meet And Devise Action Plan

Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v Government of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 8600/ 2025

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (27^th March) directed the Multidisciplinary Working Group, constituted by the State to fill the lacunae in the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act 1998 by suggesting amendments and framing Rules, to hold a preliminary meeting soon and devise its plan of action.

"According to us, this working group should now hold a preliminary meeting in which further plan of action can be decided", a Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran said.

Munambam Land Dispute: Kerala Govt Prefers Appeal Against High Court Order Cancelling Appointment Of Inquiry Commission; Hearing On April 3

Case Title: State of Kerala v T. K. I. Ahamed Sherief and Others

Case No: WA 603/ 2025

The Kerala government has preferred an appeal against High Court's March 17 order cancelling the appointment of an Inquiry Commission set up by the State to resolve the land dispute between residents of Munambam and the Waqf Board.

A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu has posted the matter for hearing on April 03.

CMRL Scam: Kerala High Court Rejects Pleas Seeking Probe Into Bribery Allegations Against CM Pinarayi Vijayan, Daughter Veena

Case Title: Gireesh Babu v State of Kerala and Another & Dr. Mathew A. Kuzhalnadan v Pinarayi Vijayan and Others

Case No: Crl. Rev. Pet. 890/ 2023 & Crl. Rev. Pet 588/ 2024

The Kerala High Court today (March 28) dismissed two revision petitions challenging the Vigilance Court orders refusing to order probes into corruption allegations against Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan, his daughter and other public functionaries of the State.

Justice K. Babu ordered, "Criminal revision petitions stand dismissed."

Kerala HC Orders Preservation Of CCTV Footage Of Police Station Over Allegations Of Fake NDPS Case Against Mentally Challenged Person

Case Title: Al Amin v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: Crl.MC 3015 of 2025

The Kerala High Court has ordered preservation of the CCTV footage in the Cheranelloor Police Station after a 22-year-old mentally challenged person filed a petition before the Court stating that a fake NDPS case was registered against him out of personal rivalry.

The matter came before the bench of Justice V. G. Arun. The Court has posted the case to 23^rd May.