Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: March 2025 [Citations: 144 - 221]

Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145

Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 146

Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

Ashok Harry Pothen Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/S. Indian Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

Manjusha K v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

N Prakash v R Ashakumari, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150

Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151

Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152

Ibrahim Sherif K V Malathi B P and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153

Lt. Gen Sukhdeep Sangwan and Others v Bijukumar S. and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 154

XXX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155

Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 156

Edwina Benny v Union of India and Others & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 157

Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158

Shuhaib v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 159

Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160

Abdul Wahid T. K. v Habeebullah PT & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 161

George Cyriac v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 162

The Joint Commissioner v Nishad K U, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

Sammil v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 164

B Ajai v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 165

Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166

Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167

V. Subramanian v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168

K R Harikrishnan v SI of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 170

Preetha Radhakrishnan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

P.M. Ismail v Abbas, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 172

Viswanathan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 173

St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 174

Rajitha P V v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 175

Ajith v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 176

PN Uma Shanker, Secretary, Kerala Elecrtrical Wiremen and Supervisors Association v The Deputy Director (In Charge) ESI Corporation and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 177

Sudhakaran K. V. v Central Pollution Control Board and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 178

Babilu Sankar v Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Connected Matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 179

Sibin S. V. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 180

XXX v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181

Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182

T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183

Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184

Dhanesh M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 185

Ummu Kulsoom and Others v Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 186

Ajaynath v N Shajitha Beevi, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 187

M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 188

Benny Mon v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 189

All Kerala Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Protection Council v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 190

XX v YY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191

Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 192

Sreeraj R v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 193

Jamsheer Ali v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 194

Thomas Antony v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195

Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax), 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 196

Sajeer A v. State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 197

Ramakrishnan Nair V P J Varghese, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 198

Gilbert Cheran v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 199

The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 200

Noushad v State of Kerala , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 201

Mary Joseph and Another v Thomas Joseph and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 202

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

XX vXX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221

Judgments/ Orders This Month

Prima Facie Opinion By Court At Stage Of Bail Application Not Binding On Investigation Or Trial: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 144

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a prima facie opinion at the bail application stage would not impact the investigation and trial. It further observed that the trial court cannot reject legal contentions of the accused merely on the ground that they amount to a prima facie finding, as such determination is only relevant at the bail application stage. 

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan clarified that a 'prima facie opinion' by the bail court cannot be relied upon by the trial court when deciding the main case. The Court also emphasized that such a prima facie finding by bail court would not hinder investigating agency from proceeding with the investigation.

What Is The Difference Between 'Non-Service Of Notice' & 'Lack Of Knowledge Of Service Of Notice'? Kerala High Court Explains

Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145

The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'. 

“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.

Selling Train Tickets Booked From IRCTC Platform For Commercial Gain Punishable Under S.143 Railways Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 146

The Kerala High Court has laid down that procuring and selling train tickets booked using IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.) website for commercial uses violates the terms and conditions specified on the IRCTC website. 

Here, a petitioner lady had approached the Court for quashing proceedings against her for allegedly booking and selling online tickets without authorization from the IRCTC. Crime was registered against her under Section 143 of the Railways Act which prohibits anyone other than a railway servant or an authorized agent from procuring and supplying railway tickets.

Justice S. Manu relied upon Apex Court decision in Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v Mathew K Cheriyan and another (2025) to state that Section 143 would also include sale of e-tickets booked through IRCTC website. Court further stated that the terms and conditions in the IRCTC website clearly mention that it can only be used for personal purposes and not for commercial purposes.

Civil Contempt Jurisdiction Intended To Ensure Compliance With Orders, Not To Modify Earlier Orders: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147

The Kerala High Court, while explaining the scope of civil contempt jurisdiction, stated that it is intended to ensure compliance with judicial orders and not to supplement or modify earlier judicial orders. The Court emphasised that contempt proceedings cannot be used for the adjudication of new issues and for the issuance of fresh directions that are not contained in the judgement. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining whether there is wilful disobedience of a clear and self-evident order.

Banks Can Initiate Proceedings Under SARFAESI Act To Recover Loan If It Wasn't Party To Resolution Plan: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ashok Harry Pothen Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/S. Indian Bank

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 148

The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Gopinath P. has held that a bank can initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover outstanding dues if it was not a party to the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that the bar against claims outside a resolution plan does not extend to third parties merely associated with the corporate debtor through agreements such as joint ventures.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Appeal By ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe Into His Death

Case Title: Manjusha K v CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 3) dismissed the writ appeal moved by Manjusha, wife of deceased ADM Naveen Babu, seeking CBI probe into his death.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian dismissed the writ appeal stating that there is no legitimate apprehension that the present investigation conducted by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) is partial or improper.

Advocate General's Order Declining Sanction To Initiate Criminal Contempt Not Subject To Challenge In Court: Kerala High Court

Case Title: N Prakash v R Ashakumari

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150

The Kerala High Court held that refusal of sanction by the Advocate General for initiating criminal contempt proceedings under Section 15(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act of 1971 is not justiciable.

Justice C.S. Dias passed the above order by relying upon the Apex Court decision in Joseph Kuzhijalil v Joseph Pulikunnel (1995).

[Juvenile Justice Act] Offence Of Wilful Neglect Must Be Committed Intentionally, Not By Accident Or Inadvertence: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151

The Kerala High Court recently held that to constitute the offence of wilful neglect as given under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, the act should be done deliberately or intentionally and not by accident or inadvertence.

In the instant case, the prosecution alleged that a 6-year-old child who was residing in the Home For Mentally Deficient Children was assaulted and killed by 4 other inmates for urinating while sleeping. It was found out that one of the inmates who attacked the child was a major. Apart from him, 3 other inmates who had attained majority were staying in the institution. It is alleged that the Multi Task Providers of the institution and the petitioner, who was superintendent of the said home, violated specific instructions by allowing major inmates to stay with minors.

Justice C. Jayachandran observed that even if the petitioner had actual charge and control over the deceased, it could not be said that there was 'willful neglect' as given under the provision.

Merely Protesting Or Shouting Slogans Doesn't Violate Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19; Liberty Cannot Be Curtailed Casually: Kerala HC

Case Title: Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152

The Kerala High Court recently quashed an order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directing a lady to show cause why she should not ordered to execute a bond for rupees fifty thousand with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year under Section 130 of the BNSS.

Justice V G Arun stated that the liberty of a person cannot be curtailed casually by referring to crimes registered for holding public demonstrations.

The Court stated that Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees every citizen freedom of speech and expression, the right to assemble peaceably without arms and to form associations or unions, subject to reasonable restrictions. The Court stated that threat apprehension to breach of peace and public tranquillity must be imminent.

Clear Evaluation Criterion Known In Advance By Aspirants Crucial To Maintaining Integrity Of Exams: Kerala HC Pulls Up PSC For Last-Minute Change

Case Title: Ibrahim Sherif K V Malathi B P and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153

The Kerala High Court held that Public Service Commission (PSC) cannot arbitrarily prescribe minimum mark criteria for each compartment of a single examination, after the written examination is over without informing the candidates in advance.

The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed that setting clear evaluation criteria in advance is essential since written exam plays a crucial role in assessing a candidate's eligibility.

Appeals U/S 19 Of Contempt Of Court Act Can Only Be Against Order Imposing Punishment, Framing Of Charges Not Appealable: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Lt. Gen Sukhdeep Sangwan and Others v Bijukumar S. and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 154

The Kerala High Court observed that an appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Act will lie only in cases when the order is connected and incidental to the order of punishment for contempt. The Division Bench, comprising of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. held that there should be an order of punishment preceding the order which is being appealed. The court said that proceedings to frame charges for contempt is not appealable under the Act.

Complaint By Men Against Women Not Gospel Truth: Kerala HC Grants Bail To Mother Accused Of Sexually Abusing Breast-Feeding Daughter

Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155

The Kerala High Court recently allowed the bail application of a woman who was accused by her husband of committing aggravated sexual assault on their one-and-half-year old daughter.

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan relied upon another recent decision in Noushad K v State of Kerala and Another (2025) which held that the mere fact that the complainant is a lady does not create a presumption that her version is the gospel truth.

Kerala High Court Entrusts KeLSA With Creating Awareness Against Child Marriages In Tribal Communities Of Wayanad

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 156

The Kerala High Court has entrusted Kerala State Legal Service Authority (KeLSA) with creating awareness about the ills of child marriage in the tribal communities in Wayanad.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was dealing with a suo motu petition on the practice of child marriage prevalent in some tribal communities in Wayanad. Some tribal communities in Wayand as a customary practice marry at an early age and as a result of which many members of the community face trial for the offences under the POCSO Act.

Kerala High Court Closes Plea By Legal Aid Counsel Seeking Maternity Benefit After Being Told Benefits Had Already Been Extended To Them

Case Title: Edwina Benny v Union of India and Others & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 157

The Kerala High Court closed the petition filed by 2 Assistant Legal Aid Defense Counsel under the LADCS seeking maternity benefits after taking into account that the maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act has been extended by National Legal Service Authority (NALSA) to the personnel appointed under the Legal Aid Defense Counsel System (LADCS).

The order was passed by Justice D. K. Singh. The communication issued by the NALSA says that the benefit would be applicable even if the maternity benefits exceed the duration of the personnel's contract period.

Step-Parent Not Permitted To Adopt Child Without Consent Of Biological Parent: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158

The Kerala High Court has ruled that adoption by step-parent cannot be permitted unless the biological parent of the child gives consent for adoption. 

The Court further clarified that CARA (Central Adoption Resource Agency) cannot relax the requirement of obtaining biological parent's consent for adoption under the Adoption Regulations due to the legal implications of an adoption.

Justice C.S. Dias thus observed that the substantive and statutory right of the biological parent over the custody of his child cannot be waived or relaxed by CARA, but such rights could only be determined by a competent Civil Court.

Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To MS Solutions Founder Shuhaib Booked For Leaking Class 10 Question Paper On YouTube

Case Title: Shuhaib v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 159

The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 6) dismissed the anticipatory bail petition of Shuhaib, the founder and CEO of MS Solution and accused of leaking State Board Class 10 Question Papers through his YouTube channel.

Shuhaib had argued that he had only predicted probable questions, based on the previous question papers. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan pronounced the order today, thereby obliterating the interim relief against arrest granted on February 20.

Drug Mafia's 'Poisonous Fangs' Have Reached School Kids: Kerala HC Affirms Bail Cancellation Of NDPS Accused Who Indulged In Another Case

Case Title: Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160

The Kerala High Court refused to interfere with the order of Special Court cancelling the bail of an accused under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) who got involved in another NDPS case while on bail.

Justice V. G. Arun remarked that the drugs have reached to the school going children. The Court observed that if a person accused of offences under NDPS Act who allegedly misused his liberty by committing the same offence is allowed to roam free, it will be a threat to the society.

Power Of Attorney Holder Cannot Represent A Party In Court Without Obtaining Its Permission: Kerala High Court Reaffirms

Case Title: Abdul Wahid T. K. v Habeebullah PT & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 161

The Kerala High Court has held that a private person cannot appear on behalf of another on the basis of a power of attorney, without prior permission of the Court. 

The Court observed that only enrolled advocates can appear on behalf of another party without permission. For a private person to do so, he has to get the permission of the Court under Section 32 of the Advocates Act, even if he is the power of attorney holder of the party.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas referred to the Supreme Court decision in T. C. Mathai and Another v District and Sessions Judge Thiruvananthapuram (1999) where it was observed that "that permission must be obtained by the parties from the court and there is no independent right for a power of attorney holder to appear for parties before any court"

Accused Has No Absolute Right To Seek Further Investigation But Courts Can Intervene If Probe Is Incomplete, Shabby Or Malafide: Kerala HC

Case Title: George Cyriac v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 162

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that an accused has no absolute right to seek further investigation or to dictate the terms of investigation or to state that the investigation must go in a particular manner.

Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an order of the Trial Court which dismissed an application seeking further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the CrPC.

Principles Of Natural Justice Cannot Be Disregarded During Adjudication Under Provisions Of CGST Act: Kerala HC

Case Title: The Joint Commissioner v Nishad K U

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

The Kerala High Court recently held that the finding that principles of natural justice need not be followed during an adjudication under the provisions of the CGST Act is untenable.

The Court was considering whether failure to provide opportunity to cross-examine witnesses whose statements were relied upon by the proper officer in adjudication proceedings against the assessee under Section 74 (9) of the CGST Act would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

The Division Bench of Justice A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. observed that in appropriate cases, opportunity of cross examination has to be provided to the assessee. It also clarified that right to cross-examine does not extend in respect of all witnesses.

Mental Condition Of Youngsters Disturbing, Parents Should Closely Monitor: Kerala HC Grants Bail To 25 Yr-Old Who Attacked Mother For NYE Money

Case Title: Sammil v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 164

The Kerala High Court stated that the mental condition of the young generation in this country is astonishing and disturbing.

The Court made the above observation while allowing the bail application of a 25-year-old son who inflicted serious injuries on his mother for refusing to give money for New Year's eve celebrations. 

Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan  expressed concern over the behaviour of the young generation in this country.

No Room To Order Concurrent Running Of Sentences Where Two Offences Have No Connection, Transactions Are Completely Different: Kerala HC

Case Title: B Ajai v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 165

The Kerala High Court has held that Section 427 of CrPC, which empowers Courts to order concurrent running of subsequent sentences, has no application when a person is convicted for different offences in two different crimes committed in completely different transactions.

Justice C. Jayachandran observed that the Petitioner-convict's contention that the sentencing court passing the subsequent sentence should have suo moto invoked Section 427 of CrPC, was far-fetched and not liable to be recognized in law.

[S.377 IPC Attempt] Crimes Against Women & Children On The Rise, Releasing Convict On Probation Will Send Wrong Message: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166

The Kerala High Court has refused to invoke the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act (PO Act) in the benefit of a man convicted by the Trial Court under Section 377 and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) of IPC.

While doing so, the Court observed that invoking provisions under the PO Act would send a wrong message to the society amid increasing sexual offences against children and women.

Justice C.S. Sudha however took a lenient view considering that the appellant, now 25 years old was only aged 19 years at the time of commission of the offence. It also noted that there was only an attempt to commit offence against the minor and no commission of offence attracting Section 377 of IPC. Consequently, the Court reduced his four years imprisonment to one day, till the rising of the Court.

Income Tax | Whether There Was Proper Notice Or Not Is Disputed Question Of Fact, Can't Be Challenged Under Article 226: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional Commissioner

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167

The Kerala High Court stated that the issue as to whether there was a proper notice or not is a disputed question of fact and cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 

“…….As rightly observed by the learned Single Judge, the question as to whether there was a proper notice or not is certainly a disputed question of fact, which cannot be gone into in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.

[Prevention Of Corruption Act] CBI Can File Final Report Even If No Offence Is Revealed During Probe: Kerala High Court

Case Title: V. Subramanian v Union of India and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168

The Kerala High Court refused to accept the argument that the CBI is divested of investigative powers when it is revealed during investigation that no offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) were made out.

Justice K. Babu observed that while the FIR should allege offences under the PC Act for the CBI to start an investigation under Section 17 of the Act, it does not stop them from filing a final report alleging only non-PC Act offences.

If Alleged Acts Constitute An Offence, Denying Criminal Action Solely Due To Pursuit Of Civil Remedy Would Be 'Travesty Of Justice': Kerala HC

Case Title: K R Harikrishnan v SI of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169

The Kerala High Court has held that it would be travesty of justice to deny parties from approaching criminal courts to initiate proceedings against offenders solely because they had pursued a civil remedy by filing a suit, particularly when the alleged acts also constitute specific criminal offences. 

The single bench of Justice G. Girish observed that care must be taken to prevent unwanted criminal prosecutions where the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature. But the Court emphasized that the existence of a civil dispute does not preclude the possibility that objectionable acts committed during such a dispute may also constitute a criminal offence.

Income Tax Act | Principal Commissioner Has Authority To Cancel Registration Of Assessee Without Waiting For Decision From Assessing Authority: Kerala HC

Case Title: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 170

The Kerala High Court stated that principal commissioner has authority to cancel registration of assessee without waiting for decision from assessing authority. 

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “the provisions of Section 12AA independently empower the Principal Commissioner to consider whether or not the circumstances mentioned in Section 12AA(3) and 12AA(4) of the Income Tax Act exist as a pre-condition for directing a cancellation of the registration that was granted to the Trust under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act.”

Magistrate Can Cancel Bail Granted By High Court For Violating Conditions When Specifically Authorised To Do So: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Preetha Radhakrishnan v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 171

The Kerala High Court has held that a Magistrate can cancel bail given by High Court for violating bail conditions, when the former is specifically authorized to do so.

In the instant case, the petitioners were given bail by the High Court which was subsequently cancelled by the Magistrate Court for violating the bail conditions. The petitioners challenged the order of the Magistrate on the ground that the Magistrate did not have the power to cancel the bail.

Justice A. Badharudeen noted that it was specifically provided in the bail order that in case of violation of bail conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the jurisdictional court for cancellation of bail. Further, the Court observed that even though the application was moved under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, the power exercised by the Magistrate in view of the specific delegation of the High Court is to considered as one under Section 437(5) read along with Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. On these grounds, the Court refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate.

Only Such Subsequent Events That Completely Negate Landlord's Needs Are Decisive For Overturning Eviction Order: Kerala High Court

Case Title: P.M. Ismail v Abbas

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 172

The Kerala High Court has made it clear that only those subsequent events that completely negate the landlord's needs could be considered as decisive for overturning an already passed eviction order. The Court stated that generally rights and obligations of the parties are assessed based on the circumstances at the time the legal proceedings began but, there are exceptions to this general rule. 

The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque And Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus stated that for an eviction order to be overturned, it must be shown that these subsequent events have completely eclipsed landlord's need for the premises.

Can A Person Be Held Liable For Acts Committed On A Body Which He Believed To Be Lifeless? Kerala High Court Answers

Case Title: Viswanathan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 173

The Kerala High Court held that a person cannot be held liable for an act committed on a body, when he believes that it to be lifeless at the commission of the act.

In this criminal appeal, the Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian examined whether the act of the husband of pushing the body of his wife, which he believed to be lifeless, in septic tank would amount to an offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC.

'Visual Pollution A Shame' : Kerala High Court Issues Detailed Directions On Removal Of Unauthorised Boards,Banners, Hoardings, Flags Etc

Case Title: St. Stephen's Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 174

The Kerala High Court today issued directions declaring installation of unauthorized boards, banners, hoardings, flags, festoons as illegal and liable to fine and penal action. The Court stated that the non-removal of such unauthorized boards, banners, hoardings, flags, festoons shall become the personal responsibility of the Secretaries of the local self-government institutions.

Justice Devan Ramachandran explained the concepts of 'Visual Pollution' and 'Destination Aesthetics' to ensure that authorities and policy makers realize the significance of removal of illegal boards/hoardings from public places. The Court observed that these concepts have not drawn the attention of authorities in our State.

“Visual Pollution” - which, in its most simplistic connotation, means the impairment of one's ability to enjoy a vista or a view - and its impact on safety, health and environment, leading to effective legislations against it, our civil officials, Authorities and politicians remain totally occluded to it often contributing to it unmindfully," the Court explained.

'Motherhood Is A Fundamental Aspect Of Life': Kerala HC Says Intending Women Would Be Eligible To Opt For Surrogacy Till They Turn 51 Yrs Old

Case Title: Rajitha P V v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 175

The Kerala High Court has ruled that an intending woman is eligible for surrogacy throughout the age of 50 years, and her eligibility ceases only when the intending woman turns 51. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu thus overturned the decision of single bench in Rajitha P V v Union of India (2025), which held that an intending woman would be eligible for surrogacy when she attains the age of 23 and ceases to be eligible on the preceding day of her 50th birthday.

Notion That Indian Women Won't Make False Sexual Assault Allegations Outdated; In Recent Years, False Rape Cases Being Filed : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ajith v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 176

The Kerala High Court observed that the old concept that women in Indian society would not make false sexual assault allegations may not be always correct in view of the increase in false rape cases being filed in the recent years to settle personal scores and to exert pressure to fulfil illegal demands.

In the facts of the case, the Petitioner is accused of subjecting the de facto complainant to rape punishable under Section 376 of IPC by giving promise of marriage between 2014 to 2019.

Justice A. Badharudeen quashed all the proceedings against the Petitioner on finding that the FIR was filed only in the year 2019 when the allegation of rape was made for a single day's occurrence in 2014. The Court also noted that the Petitioner and de facto complainant were not in contact for a lengthy period of three years.

Mere Registration Under Shops & Establishments Act Won't Entitle An Entity To ESI Registration : Kerala High Court

Case : PN Uma Shanker, Secretary, Kerala Elecrtrical Wiremen and Supervisors Association v The Deputy Director (In Charge) ESI Corporation and others 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 177

The Kerala High Court has held that an entity will not be entitled to coverage under the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) solely on the basis of its registration under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act.

The High Court further held that the members of an association of employees, who are self-employed, would not be covered under the ESI Act, unless it is established that those members are employed by the association.

Kerala High Court Issues Directions To Enforce Ban On Certain Single-Use Plastics, Orders Strict Compliance

Case Title: Sudhakaran K. V. v Central Pollution Control Board and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 178

The Kerala High Court has issued a series of guidelines to ensure that the ban on certain single-use plastics (SUP) is properly enforced and to make sure that manufacturers, importers and persons recycling or processing plastic waste have got the necessary registration under Rule 13 of Plastic Waste Management Rules, 2016. 

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was considering a PIL that pointed out that many manufacturers of plastic were conducting business without getting the necessary registration. On the Court's direction, the Kerala State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) submitted before it an affidavit detailing the steps it was proposing to take to tackle the issue. Pursuant to that, the Additional Chief Secretary of the Local Self Government Department issued an order with the following instructions for strict compliance.

Writ Court Shall Not Reappreciate Evidence In Disciplinary Proceedings Unless Inquiry Officer's Finding Of Guilt Is Perverse: Kerala HC

Case Title: Babilu Sankar v Sree Padmanabhaswamy Temple & Connected Matter

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 179

The Kerala High Court stated that Writ Court shall not reappreciate evidence in disciplinary proceedings while exercising powers under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Court further stated that the Writ Court shall only interfere in the Inquiry Officer's findings of guilt only if they are perverse.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering an appeal challenging disciplinary proceedings.

“Let Teachers Carry A Cane”: Kerala High Court Mandates Preliminary Enquiry Before Registering Criminal Cases Against Teachers For Acts In Schools

Case Title: Sibin S. V. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 180

The Kerala High Court recently directed the police to conduct a preliminary enquiry before proceeding on a criminal complaint against a teacher for anything committed in an educational institution. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that teachers should be protected from criminal prosecution for giving minor punishments without any malice. The Court directed the State Police Chief to issue a circular/ order in this regard. 

The Court opined that the parents are giving a 'freehand' to the teachers to do the needful for better development of the mental health, physical health, discipline and educational needs once they admit their children in the school.

The Court further remarked that a teacher should not suffer because he gave minor punishments for indiscipline or for advising a student. The Court also observed that teachers should be allowed to carry a cane in their hand.

Gestation Period Not Relevant For Termination Of Pregnancy If Medical Board Opines That There Exists Substantial Foetal Abnormality: Kerala HC

Case Title: XXX v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181

The Kerala High Court recently held that length of pregnancy is not a relevant consideration for permitting termination of pregnancy when the Medical Board opines that there is a substantial foetal abnormality.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar thus permitted appellant-mother to carry medical termination of pregnancy, where the gestation period had progressed beyond 32 weeks, as per Section 3 (2)-B) of the Medical termination of Pregnancy Act on finding of substantial foetal abnormality.

[General Clauses Act] Irrespective Of Number Of Days, Expiry Period Of 1-Month Should Be Based On Corresponding Date In Following Month: Kerala HC

Case Title: Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182

The Kerala High Court held that irrespective of the number of days in a month or months, the expiration of one month should be determined by identifying the corresponding date in the following month.

The Court clarified that if period of a month starts on January 15, one month would expire on February 15 even if this results in a duration of 32 days. Similarly, Court stated if the period of a month begins from February 15, one month would expire on March 15 even if it is only 29 days. 

Justice A. Badharudeen relying upon the Apex Court decision in State of Himachal Pradesh v M/S Himachal Techno Engineers (2010) held thus.

Needless Deterrent Action Against Complainants Will Discourage Them From Bringing Grievances Against Public Authorities Before Lok Ayukta: Kerala HC

Case Title: T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183

The Kerala High Court observed that needlessly taking deterrent actions against complainants under Section 21 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act for filing complaints against public authorities could discourage individuals from bringing their grievances before the Lok Ayukta.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed thus: 

“The Act of 1999 is an Act that provides for conducting enquiries into any action, omission, or commission by the Authorities specified under the Act, to bring about transparency and accountability in the administration of such bodies. The Lok Ayukta, upon being informed of such illegalities, has the power to make recommendations to the State Government. This being an important remedy available to citizens to bring their grievances against the officers of the State and other public bodies, the Lok Ayukta, while exercising its power, has to ensure that this remedy is not rendered illusory. If needless deterrent actions are taken against complainants, it will discourage the parties from bringing their grievances against public authorities before the Lok Ayukta.”

Munambam Land Dispute| 'Issue Before Waqf Tribunal' : Kerala High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of Inquiry Commission

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184

The Kerala High Court on Monday(17th March) allowed the petition challenging the appointment of Inquiry Commission to find a permanent solution in the dispute between the Munambam residents and the Waqf Board. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas observed that the order of appointment has to be set aside as the matter was still pending before the Waqf Tribunal.

Original Printout From Breathalyzer Machine Mandatory, Type Written Report Not Admissible In Evidence To Prove Drunken Driving: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dhanesh M v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 185

The Kerala High Court recently ruled that original printout obtained from the equipment after a breathalyzer test under Section 203 of the Motor Vehicles Act is admissible as evidence to establish drunken driving under Section 185 of the Act.

It is to be noted that breath analyzer test is used to measure breath alcohol content. 

Justice V.G. Arun stated that typewritten copy prepared by the police after the breathalyzer test is conducted, is not admissible as evidence in Court.

Authorities Should Not Insist On Strict Evidence For Issuing Birth Certificate, Must Adopt Lenient Approach: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ummu Kulsoom and Others v Mayyanad Grama Panchayat and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 186

The Kerala High Court recently observed that authorities should take a lenient approach while issuing birth certificate and not insist on strict evidence.

Justice Ziyad Rahman A. A. in his order observed that the petitioner-parents had produced affidavits sworn by relatives, including the members of the house where the birth took place and these were "crucial documents which ought to have been taken into account" by the authorities.

[S.197 CrPC] Want Of Sanction For Prosecution Extended To Members Of Kerala Police Entrusted With 'Maintenance Of Public Order': Kerala HC

Case Title: Ajaynath v N Shajitha Beevi

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 187

The Kerala High Court has held that sanction is required to prosecute members of Kerala Police who are responsible for maintaining public order. The Court also relied upon Sarojini v Prasannan (1996) to clarify that maintenance of public order is a subset of law and order.

Justice Kauser Edappagath thus held that sanction was required to prosecute officers of the Kerala Police who were accused of assaulting a family over a parking dispute while they were discharging their official duties in Alappuzha beach during beach festival.

Burden Is On Assessee To Show Entitlement For Capital Gains Tax Exemption On Sale Of Agricultural Land: Kerala High Court

Case Title: M J George (Died) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 188

The  Kerala High Court stated that burden of proof is on assessee to prove that he is entitled to capital gains tax exemption on sale of agricultural land.

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that “it is significant in this regard to observe that the claim of the assessee, being for exemption from the levy of income tax as applicable to capital gains, the burden of proof was on the assessee to show that he was entitled to exemption by virtue of the land sold by him being in the nature of agricultural land.”

Quashing Of Drunken Driving Charge U/S 185 MV Act Doesn't Nullify Prosecution Initiated U/S 279 IPC For Rash Driving: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Benny Mon v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 189

The Kerala High Court has allowed continuation of prosecution against an alleged offender under Section 279 of the IPC for rash and negligent driving, even while quashing proceedings against him under 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act for drunken driving due to non-compliance of procedural requirements.

Justice G. Girish observed that Section 297 of IPC and Section 185 of the MV Act are totally distinct. The Court held that the reason for rash and negligent driving is irrelevant, rejecting the argument that prosecution under Section 279 IPC is unsustainable because drunken driving under Section 185 of MV is not established.

Kerala High Court Dismisses Plea For Further Probe Into Swami Saswathikananda's Death, Says Investigations Confirm Accidental Drowning

Case Title: All Kerala Anti-Corruption And Human Rights Protection Council v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 190

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a petition seeking further investigation under the supervision of an officer not below the rank of Inspector General into the death of Swami Saswathikananda.

Swami Saswathikananda was discovered dead at the bathing ghat on the banks of the Periyar river on the morning of July 01, 2002. 

Justice Kauser Edappagath noted that investigation into the death of Swami was conducted several times and it was found that death occurred due to accidental drowning.

'Consortium' Is A Fundamental Aspect Of Marriage: Kerala High Court Denies Maintenance To Wife Who Left Husband Without Sufficient Cause

Case Title: XX v YY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 191

The Kerala High Court stated that a wife who leaves her husband and chooses to live separately without any justifiable reason is disentitled to claim maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Justice Kauser Edappagath emphasized that right to each other's society, comfort and affection, commonly known as consortium is a fundamental aspect of marriage. It further stated that when either spouse withdraws from society of the other, it constitutes a withdrawal from the marital obligations.

Vehicles Registered As Goods Carriage Vehicles Can't Be Classified Under Different Head For Demanding One-Time Tax: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Managing Partner, Vee Tee Logistics v. Joint Regional Transport Officer 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 192

The  Kerala High Court stated that vehicles registered as goods carriage vehicles, could not be classified under a different head for the purposes of demanding one-time tax under the second proviso to Section 3(1) of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. stated that “the department cannot alter their stand and classify the vehicles separately for the purposes of levy of one- time tax to the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.”

'Thulasithara Sacred For Hindus' : Kerala High Court Directs Police To Take Action Against Man Who Put Pubic Hair In Tulsi

Case Title: Sreeraj R v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 193

The Kerala High Court stated that appropriate action must be taken against a person accused of plucking hair from his private parts and putting it in Thulasithara. The Court observed that Thulasithara is a sacred place for Hindu religion and that his actions would affect the sentiments of Hindus.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that no action was taken against the accused, Abdul Hakkim and that no case was also registered against him. 

[NDPS Act] Registration Of Second Crime Need Not Automatically Result In Cancellation Of Bail, Court Must Undertake Summary Enquiry: Kerala HC

Case Title: Jamsheer Ali v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 194

The Kerala High Court set aside the order of a Special Court cancelling the bail of an NDPS accused for involvement in a subsequent crime saying that the Special Court cancelled the bail mechanically and without considering the materials connected with the subsequent crime.

One of the conditions imposed on the accused while granting bail was that he should not commit any crime while on bail. The Special Court cancelled the bail noting that the accused was involved in another crime and violated the bail condition. The accused challenged this order saying that the special court cancelled the bail mechanically.

Justice P. G. Ajithkumar accepted this argument and set aside the order noting that in the order there was not even a subjective satisfaction that the accused had prima facie committed the subsequent offence. The High Court observed that since this was a matter concerning the personal liberty of the person, the court should have undertaken a summary enquiry first.

[POSH Act] Kerala HC Directs State To Frame Guidelines To Ensure Anonymity Of Complainant From Public Domain During Enquiry: Kerala HC

Case Title: Thomas Antony v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 195

The Kerala High Court has directed the State Government to formulate guidelines for anonymising details of the complainant from public domain during the enquiry proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). The Court stated that at present there is no mechanism under the POSH Act to anonymise the details of the complainant during the enquiry proceedings.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, however, clarified that this must not prejudice the rights of the employee against whom allegations are being made.

Ayurvedic Treatment Is Only Incidental To Facilities Provided By Assessee In Resort, Liable To Be Taxed: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Keraleeyam Ayurvedic Resort v. The Commercial Tax Officer (Luxury Tax)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 196

The  Kerala High Court stated that ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to facilities provided by assessee in a resort, hence liable to be taxed.

“the main activities of the assessee as per the brochures produced before the assessing officer, are canoeing, motor boat cruises, houseboat stay, trekking, Alleppey beach visit, coir factory visit, elephant ride, Kathakali, temple dance, dramas, Mohiniyattam and Kalaripayattu. Therefore, the main activities of the assessee are not running the hospital but providing a resort and other facilities and the Ayurvedic treatment is only incidental to that of the facilities” observed the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.

Joint Commissioner Has Jurisdiction To Initiate Proceedings Against Assessment Order Passed Pursuant To Remand: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajeer A v. State of Kerala 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 197

The  Kerala High Court stated that Joint Commissioner has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 56 of the KVAT Act against assessment order passed pursuant to remand.

The Division Bench of Justices A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran  S. observed that “when the fresh assessment order was passed consequence to the remand, the original assessment order ceased to exist in law and thereafter the only assessment order that survived for the purposes of exercise of the power of revisions under Section 56 was the subsequent order passed by the Assessing Authority.”

Motor Vehicles Act | Claim U/S 163A Will Not Lie Against Anyone Other Than Owner Or Insurer: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Ramakrishnan Nair V P J Varghese

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 198

The Kerala High Court has held that liability to pay compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act will not lie against any person other than the owner and the insurer of the vehicle because the claimant need not plead or establish negligence.

Section 163A deals with special provisions as to payment of compensation on a structured formula basis.

Justice C. Pratheep Kumar relying upon the Division Bench decision in United India Insurance Co.Ltd., v. Madhavan M (2011) observed thus

Malankara Church Dispute | Kerala High Court Refuses To Stop State Delegation Trip To Jacobite Catholicos Consecration At Lebanon

Case Title: Gilbert Cheran v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 199

The Kerala High Court has refrained from interfering with the State's decision to officially send delegates to the Republic of Lebanon for the consecration ceremony of Joseph Mar Gregorius as the new Jacobite Catholicos on March 25. 

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu noted that sending an official delegation is a policy matter of the State and found no pre-existing judicial order or statutory provision for restraining the State from doing so.

Revenue Cannot Re-Assess Time Barred Assessment Under KVAT Act Based On CAG Report: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The State of Kerala v. M/s Chowdhary Rubber & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 200

The  Kerala High Court stated that revenue cannot re-assess time barred assessment under KVAT Act based on CAG report.

The Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S. observed that

“there cannot be an exercise of power under Section 25A of the KVAT Act beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 25(1) of the KVAT Act. In fact the provisions of Section 25A allude to this aspect when it refers to the satisfaction to be recorded by the Assessing Officer of the “lawfulness” of an audit objection.”

'Shame To The Profession': Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Booked For Minor's Rape

Case Title: Noushad v State of Kerala 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 201

The Kerala High Court has rejected the anticipatory bail application of a lawyer who allegedly committed rape on a minor girl. The Court observed that prima facie case was made out against the lawyer and that his bail application cannot be entertained due to bar under Section 482 (4) of the BNSS.

Section 482(4) BNSS bars grant of bail to a person booked under Section 65 and Section 70(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). Section 65 BNS relates to rape of women under age of 12 years. Section 70(2) BNS penalises gang rape of minor.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan on perusing case diary, report submitted by the Victim Rights Centre of KeLSA and counselling report observed thus: 

“…if the facts narrated by the prosecution and the victim are correct, it is unfortunate because the petitioner is from a noble profession. After going through the statement of the victim (if it is correct), a human being cannot complete reading it without tears in their eyes because the allegation is that the petitioner abused a minor girl, without her consent. The allegation is that the petitioner, who is a lawyer gave alcohol to the victim and thereafter, committed penetrative sexual intercourse with a minor girl. If the facts are correct, it is a shame to the profession. Such a person is not entitled to any discretionary relief from this Court.”

Valid Adoption By Christians Made As Per Civil Law Is Recognized Under Canon Law: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Mary Joseph and Another v Thomas Joseph and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 202

The Kerala High Court has held that there is no prohibition under Canon Law for a valid adoption for Christians.

Thus, Justice A. Badharudeen observed that though there is no personal law in India for Christians recognising adoption, a valid adoption as per the civil law is recognised by Canon Law.

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.

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 fulfill his marital duties.