Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: January 27 - February 02, 2025

Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 57

Ismail Kunju M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

Bhoopathi v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 60

Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61

Abdul Azeez K P v The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

XX v The State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

M/S. P S Enterprises Represented By Syed Najmuddin v The Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

Union of India and Others v S. Sathikumari Amma, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

Dr. K. B. Bindu v The Kannur University and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

Arunkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

Vipin P G v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

Judgments/Orders This Week

Kerala High Court Closes Plea Filed By Gopan Swami's Family Against Exhumation Of His Body From Samadhi Site

Case Title: Sulochana T and Others v District Collector, Thiruvananthapuram and Others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 55

The Kerala High Court today closed the writ petition filed by late Gopan Swami's family (wife and children) after exhumation of his body from the Samadhi site.

His family had approached the High Court against the order of the District Administration, permitting the exhumation of the body.

Today, when the matter was taken up, Justice C.S.Dias noted that the body has been exhumed as per the District Collector's order.

False Implication In NDPS Cases Has Severe Consequences, Ruins Life: Kerala HC Urges Union To Address Inadequacy Of Sentence For False Accusations

Case Title: M M Narayana Das v State of Kerala

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 56

The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to consider the inadequacy of sentence imposed on a person under Section 58 of the NDPS Act who falsely implicate innocent persons in NDPS cases. The Court stated that false implication in NDPS cases has severe consequences and can ruin someone's life.

The petitioner has approached the High Court seeking bail for providing false information to the detecting officer, which led to a woman being wrongly implicated in an NDPS case under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. This section provides imprisonment for 10 years, extendable to 20 years.

Crime was registered against the petitioner under Section 58 (2) which imposes penalty of two years imprisonment for wilfully and maliciously giving information to cause vexatious entry, search, seizure or arrest under the NDPS Act. Justice

P.V.Kunhikrishnan thus directed the Registry to send the copy of this order to the Union Government. “False accusations are the most malignant and venomous of all calumnies. Hence, sentences to be imposed by a court of law in such cases should be fair, proportionate and just. The punishment should fit the crime and the sentence should reflect the severity of the offence. If there is any inadequacy in the sentence in these type of cases, the Parliament should think seriously about the same. Registry will forward a copy of this order to the Union of India to do the needful in accordance with law.”

Two Weeks Prior Notice To Be Given Before Taking Coercive Steps Against Rahul Easwar If Case Is Registered On Compliant Filed By Actress: Kerala HC

Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 57

The Kerala High Court stated that a two-week prior notice must be given before taking any coercive steps against Rahul Easwar if any case alleging non-bailable offences is registered against him by the Malayalam film actress.

Rahul Easwar had allegedly made adverse comments about the actress's dressing style while discussing the Boby Chemmanur case in news channel debates. Boby Chemmanur is currently on bail in the case of sexual harassment filed by the actress.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan passed the above order in the bail petition moved by Rahul Easwar on finding that at present no case is registered against him.

Organ Transplantation Plea Cannot Be Rejected Due To Perception Of Existence Of Large-Scale Commercial Transactions: Kerala HC

Case Title: Ismail Kunju M v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 58

The Kerala High Court held that a person's request for kidney transplantation cannot be rejected in a routine and pedantic manner since it directly affects their right to life and health. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that the Authorisation Committee while rejecting application for kidney transplantation must consider each application on its merits and give reasons in writing before rejecting application, rather than generalising that all organ transplantations are part of large-scale commercial transactions.

https://www-livelaw-in.demo.remotlog.com/high-court/kerala-high-court/kerala-high-court-authorisation-committee-organ-transplantation-commercial-transactions-reasons-writing-282248

Money In Bank Account Is 'Property', Liable For Provisional Attachment U/S 281B Of Income Tax Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Mohammed Salih

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 59

The Kerala High Court held that cash in bank account is a 'property' liable for provisional attachment under section 281B of the Income Tax Act.

The Division Bench of Justices Sathish Ninan and Shoba Annamma Eapen observed that “mere fact that Bank account is not explicitly provided under Section 281B of the Income Tax Act, unlike the GST Act, 2017 which specifically mentions the same, cannot lead to the conclusion that Bank account is not liable to be attached under Section 281 B of the Act.”

Kerala High Court Expedites Trial In SFI Worker Abhimanyu's Murder Case, Directs Completion Of Trial Within Nine Months

Case Title: Bhoopathi v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 60

The Kerala High Court has directed the Sessions Court to complete trial into the murder of Abhimanyu, a SFI leader who was stabbed to death in 2018 during a campus political rivalry at Maharajas College in Ernakulam. The direction comes in the plea moved by deceased's mother, stating that the case was pending for six years and there was no progress.

Justice Kauser Edappagath ordered thus, “Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and considering the report, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Sessions Judge, to dispose of S.C.No. 1068 of 2018 within a period of nine months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

Wife Holding Temporary Job Not Ground To Deny Maintenance, Entitled To Same Standard Of Living As During Marriage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Jayaprakash E P v Sheney P & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 61

The Kerala High Court has held that even if the wife holds a temporary job and earns some income, it does not disentitle her from claiming maintenance from her husband, provided she claims that her income is insufficient for her maintenance.

Considering the facts of the case, Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that the wife who has a temporary job and is living in a rented house with a dependent daughter, is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband.

Person Guilty Of Offence Involving Moral Turpitude Can't Be Denied Passport If He Was Convicted More Than 5 Yrs Ago: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Abdul Azeez K P v The Regional Passport Officer, Kozhikode

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 62

The Kerala High Court has held that as per Section 6 (2)(e) of the Passports Act of 1967, passport authority cannot refuse passport to a person held guilty of offence involving moral turpitude, if he has not been convicted within five years preceding the date of filing the passport application.

In the facts of the case, the petitioner was convicted on December 31, 2015 for three years imprisonment, and passport application was filed on December 07, 2024.

Justice Gopinath P. allowed the writ petition and ordered that passport authority shall consider his application for passport without being influenced by his prior conviction.

Children's Court Must Verify If Child Can Be Tried As Adult Even If Juvenile Board Has Already Said So: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XX v The State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 63

The Kerala High Court held that the Children's Court has to conduct an inquiry as to whether a child can be tried as an adult even if the Juvenile Justice Board (Board) has already passed an order saying that the child can be tried so.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha said that it is clear from the decision in Child in Conflict with law through his mother v State of Karnataka (2024) that it is mandatory that the Children's Court should conduct an inquiry to decide if the child deserves to be treated as an adult.

[Section 223 BNSS] Notice Of Hearing Can Be Issued To Prospective Accused Only After Examining Complainant And Witnesses: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Suby Antony v R1 (Deleted)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 64

The Kerala High Court has clarified that before issuing notice to an accused named in the complaint, the Magistrate must first examine the complainant and witnesses on oath as per Section 223 (1) of the BNSS.

It further clarified that as per first proviso to Section 223 (1), if the Magistrate decides to take cognizance of the offence, the accused should be given an opportunity of hearing.

Justice V.G. Arun observed that the first proviso of Section 223(1) of the BNSS introduced a "radical change," as the corresponding provision in the CrPC, Section 200, did not require the accused to be heard before taking cognizance. The first proviso to Section 223 (1) now mandates that the Magistrate must give the accused an opportunity to be heard before taking cognizance of an offence. The Court also stated that it is in agreement with the Karnataka High Court decision in Basanagouda R Patil (Yatnal) and Shivananda S Patil (2025).

Blacklisting Not Necessary Consequence Of Every Termination, Notice & Hearing Must Before Blacklisting From Future Contracts: Kerala HC

Case Title: M/S. P S Enterprises Represented By Syed Najmuddin v The Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 65

The Kerala High Court has held that notice and opportunity of hearing must be provided to persons before debarring or blacklisting them from future contracts.

Justice C.S. Dias further stated that debarring or blacklisting is a matter of serious concern and should not automatically follow every termination.

The bench added that termination of contract of a person is different from debarring or backlisting him since it disqualifies him from future contracts.

If Elected Representatives Want To Change Political Affiliation, They Must Resign & Face People's Mandate Again : Kerala High Court

Case Title: K R Jayakumar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 66

If elected representatives want to change political affiliation, then they must resign and face the mandate of the people again, observed the Kerala High Court. "If the elected representative wants to change his policy or political affiliation, he has to resign and face the mandate of the people again. That is the moral side of democracy. Otherwise, it will be a unilateral withdrawal from the bond executed with the people by the elected representative. It will be an insult to the will of the people. But the people can show their will to such a representative in the next election either by supporting him or by defeating him. That is the beauty of democracy."

The Court made this observation while granting bail to five persons accused of assaulting a lady councillor of Koothattukulam Nagara Sabha.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that both the LDF and UDF are trying to take the law into their own hands, instead of approaching the people in a democratic manner.

Notice To Appoint Another Arbitrator To Continue Arbitration Proceedings Satisfies Mandate Of S.21Of A&C Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Unnimoidu v. Muhammad Iqbal

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 67

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Syam Kumar V.M., while hearing a Section 11 petition, has held that a notice to revive a stalled arbitration proceedings by appointing another arbitrator satisfies the mandate of Section 21 of the A&C Act.

The court observed that the questions relating to the validity of the partnership agreement cannot be looked into by a referral court. The Supreme Court in SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning (2024) has limited the scope of the referral court to ascertain whether a Section 11 application has been filed within three years. The court cannot go into the arbitrability of the dispute, and such questions are for the tribunal to adjudicate.

Family Pension Not Subject Matter Of Testamentary Disposition, Husband Can't Exclude Wife And Children From It By Filing Application: Kerala HC

Case Title: Union of India and Others v S. Sathikumari Amma

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 68

The Kerala High Court held that an employee cannot make a representation that his legally wedded wife or other dependents are not entitled to claim the family pension.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K. V. Jayakumar observed that family pension is not an estate or property of the employee and cannot be disposed of as per the will of the employee. “Family pension unlike the other pensionary benefits like provident fund, gratuity etc could not be a subject matter of testamentary disposition by the employee during his lifetime. In other words, an employee cannot bequeath his family pension in favour of another nor he can nominate some other person for receiving family pension other than the one who is entitled to it.”

Undue Leniency In Disciplinary Proceedings Compromises Discipline In Public Service: Kerala HC Upholds Dismissal Of Employee For Misappropriation

Case Title: P N Saji v Kerala Public Service Commission

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 69

The Kerala High Court stated that showing undue leniency towards a government employee in disciplinary proceedings could undermine the essential discipline required in public service. Considering the facts of the case, the Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar stated that the punishment of dismissal from service was proportionate to the offences committed by the petitioner for misappropriation of money by manipulating sales records in the Kerala State Beverages Corporation (KSBC).

Writ Petition Maintainable If Arbitrator Refuses To Entertain Application U/S 3G(5) Of National Highways Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.V. George v. National Highway Authority of India And Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 70

The Kerala High Court bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and S. Manu JJ. while hearing a writ petition has held that when an arbitrator appointed by the Central Government refuses to entertain an application u/s 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956, the Courts can entertain a petition under Article 226 to the limited extent of referring the dispute to arbitration. Section 3G(5) places a statutory obligation upon the District Collector, who acts as an arbitrator, to receive applications for adjudication of disputes relating to the determination of compensation.

'Reconstitution Of Committee In The Middle Of Interview Arbitrary': Kerala High Court Cancels Appointment Of Asst Professors In Kannur University

Case Title: Dr. K. B. Bindu v The Kannur University and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 71

The Kerala High Court cancelled the selection of Assistant Professors in Kannur University made by the Selection Committee partly chaired by the former Vice Chancellor Gopinath Ravindran. In-midst of the selection process, on November 30, 2023 the Supreme Court had set aside the appointment of Dr. Gopinath Ravindran as the VC of the University.

Justice N. Nagaresh said that the VC could not have substituted himself in the Selection process in the midway. The Court held that if the Chairman could not preside over the Selection Committee due to some reason, the appropriate step would have been to cancel the interview process already held and subject all the candidates to a fresh interview process by a reconstituted Committee.

Benefit Of First Proviso To Section 479 BNSS Cannot Be Applied Retrospectively To Convicted Prisoners: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Arunkumar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 72

The Kerala High Court recently held that the benefit of Section 479 of BNSS, particularly the first proviso thereof, cannot be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners.

For context, Section 479 BNSS deals with the maximum period of time for which a undertrial prisoner can be detained. The first proviso stipulates that a first-time offender shall be released on bond if he has undergone detention for the period extending up to one-third of the maximum period of imprisonment specified for the offence alleged.

Justice C. S. Sudha noted that the Supreme Court by an order in the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons has made Section 479 retrospectively applicable to undertrials in cases registered before July 1, 2024. The High Court said that the Apex Court has not given the benefit of the Section to convicted prisoners. Thus at this stage, Court said it cannot extend the benefit to convicts.

Marriage Between Indian & Foreigner Solemnised Outside India Cannot Be Registered Under Special Marriage Act : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Vipin P G v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

The Kerala High Court stated that marriages conducted outside India, where only one of the party is an Indian citizen, can be registered under the Foreign Marriage Act. It further clarified that a marriage between two individuals can be solemnised and/or registered in India under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act (SMA). Justice C S Dias observed that the petitioners, an Indian citizen and an Indonesian citizen, who have solemnised their marriage under the civil laws of Indonesia, can register their marriage formally under the Foreign Marriage Act and not under the provisions of the SMA.

Other Developments This Week

Kerala High Court Calls For State's Explanation On Circular Allegedly Exempting Public Buses From Following Road Safety Standards

Case Title: Suo Motu v Union Of India Represented By The Secretary (Road, Transport And Highways) & Connected Cases

Case Number: WP(C) 25158/ 2024 & Connected Cases

The Kerala High Court has sought instructions from the state government regarding a circular dated December 28, 2024, which allegedly exempts KSRTC buses from adhering to road safety standards.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. orally said, “We need the circumstances under which the government order was issued.”

The Court has sought instructions from the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC and Special Government Pleader about the 'Munnar Royal View' double-decker bus by KSRTC launched for tourism purposes in Munnar which is fitted with multi-colour LED lights. The Court has also sought instructions regarding KSRTC bus operating on the Sabarimala road with headlights only on one side during the night hours.

Non-Bailable Warrant Can't Be Issued Against A Man In Maintenance Proceedings Under Section 125(3) CrPC: Amicus Tells Kerala HC

Case Title: S. Mumthas and Another v M. Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Another

Case No: OP (Crl.) 802/ 2024

In case concerning issuance of non-bailable warrant for non-payment of maintenance decreed under CrPC, Amicus Curiae Advocate Paravathi Menon A appointed in the matter told the Kerala High Court on Monday (January 27) that there is no provision for issuing non-bailable warrant for enforcement of a maintenance order under Section 125(3) of Cr.P.C.

The Amicus submitted before Justice Kauser Edappagath that if the distress warrant is unexecuted, only an execution warrant as per Form 18 in Schedule 2 of Cr.P.C can be issued. This form is not classified as bailable or non-bailable the amicus said.

The court was hearing a matter wherein issue was raised when a mother and daughter approached the High Court for enforcement of a non-bailable warrant issued against the husband/father for non-payment of maintenance amount. The husband had challenged the non-bailable warrant issued against him by saying that non-bailable warrant was issued against him without issuing a distress warrant.

MS Solutions Question Paper Leak Case: Kerala High Court Calls For YouTube Video, Allegedly Leaked Question Paper

Case Title: Shuhaib v State of Kerala

Case No: BA 619/ 2025

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (28th January) while considering the bail petition of Shuhaib, who is accused of leaking the Kerala State Exam Question paper of 10th standard through his YouTube channel M S Solutions asked the parties to produce the video in which he is allegedly leaking the question paper and the question paper.

Shuhaib had submitted in his petition that he predicted the probable questions based on previous question papers.

ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Moves Appeal Before Kerala High Court Seeking CBI Probe Into Husband's Death

Case Title: Manjusha K v CBI

Case No: WA 193/2025

Deceased ADM Naveen Babu's wife has moved a writ appeal before the Kerala High Court challenging the refusal for ordering a CBI probe into the death of her husband.

The writ appeal has been filed stating that the CBI probe was refused without considering the flaws and discrepancies in the present investigation by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) . It is stated that the investigation lacks credibility and alleged that the accused would influence witnesses and destroy evidence due to having ties with the ruling political party. It is also stated that the Court ought to have considered this as a rare and exceptional case for ordering CBI probe.

Inquiry Commission Appointed To Examine Munambam Land Dispute Doesn't Have Judicial Or Quasi Judicial Function: State Tells Kerala HC

Case Title: Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 2839/ 2025

In its a counter filed to a plea challenging the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry with respect to the Munambam land dispute, the State has told the Kerala High Court that Commission appointed by it has no judicial or quasi-judicial function.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas had during the previous hearing asked how the State can appoint an inquiry Commission in a matter which is already settled by judicial proceedings. The court in the previous hearing further asked the Government Pleader if such a Commission can arrive at a different conclusion than what is decided by the Court and “unsettle” the matter. The petitioner had submitted that the land has been already declared by civil court as waqf land.

EPF Pension | Kerala HC Restrains EPFO From Reducing Higher Pension Of Petitioners Who Contributed Based On Their Actual Salary

Case Title: Balakrishna Pillai N. & Others v Union of India & Others

Case No: WP(C) 2311/ 2025

The Kerala High Court by an interim order directed the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) to not reduce the higher pension drawn by certain persons who retired from Travancore Titanium. The order was passed by Justice Murali Purushothaman in a writ petition filed by 41 pensioners.

18 ECIRs Registered Against Co-Operative Societies/Banks, Large Scale Money Laundering Being Carried Out: ED Tells Kerala High Court

Case Title: K.S.Purushothaman v State of Kerala

Case No: WA 2045/2024

The Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate (ED), Kochi Zonal Office submitted before the Kerala High Court that they have registered Eighteen Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIR) against Co-operative Societies and Banks in Kerala.

The affidavit by the ED was submitted before the Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar. It was submitted that large scale money laundering have been carried out in Co-operative Societies and Banks in Kerala and that the ED is carrying investigation for taking action under the Prevention of Money-Laundering Act, 2002.