Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181 – 202]XXX v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181Badi Govindan v Dayaroth Arikothan Rohini, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 182T K Pavithran v Kerala Lok Ayukta, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 183Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 184Dhanesh M v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 185Ummu Kulsoom and Others v Mayyanad...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 181 – 202]
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
Judgments/ Orders This Week
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.”
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.
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Vismaya V. K. v Union of India and Others
Case No: WP(C) 9588/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (March 13) sought Centre's response to a petition filed by athlete and 2018 Asian Games Gold Medalist Vismaya V. K. against the denial of exemption given to her in doping test.
The petition was considered by Justice C. S. Dias.
The athlete failed the doping test conducted in August 2024. She submitted before the Court that prohibited substance was found in her body as she was consuming medicine for infertility treatment. She submitted that she had fully disclosed about this in the doping control form while undergoing the test. However, the result came back saying there was Adverse Analytical finding in the doping test and she was placed under provisional suspension.
Kerala High Court Relaxes Dress Code For Advocates During Summer
The Kerala High Court administrative committee have allowed relaxations in the dress code after receiving a representation from the Kerala High Court Advocates Association. The Association had requested for dispensing with the dress code by taking into account the rising heat in the summer.
Case Title: Women In Cinema Collective v State of Kerala & Others & Connected Matters
Case Number: WPC 41327/2024 & Connected Matters
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 18) orally observed that depiction of violence in visual media can have an undesirable effect on people however, to what extent it can be shown has to be ascertained keeping in mind the right to freedom of speech and expression.
A division bench of Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C. S. Sudha said,
“Violence in visual media can have an undesirable effect on people because you glorify this violence. On the other hand, you have the freedom of speech and expression. So to what extent will you go? It will again depend on what is public morality, what is constitutional morality. These are all areas which you cannot gloss over. You need to see the development of the law and what society considers to be immoral or moral. So is glorifying of violence desirable or is it just them telling us that this is what is happening in society today.”
Case Title: Prabhavathi v State of Kerala
Case No: WP (Crl) 290/2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (March 18) orally enquired whether the possibility of murder has been considered in the disappearance and death of the 15-year old girl child from Kasargod.
While dealing with the mother's habeas corpus plea alleging police inaction in the matter, a Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha orally observed:
“This is not a case where the police officers have not investigated…Unfortunately this has happened. We need to know whether murder angle is investigated…what if both are murders? You can't presume that either both of them committed suicide or that he committed suicide. It could be that both of them were killed.”
Case Title: Advocate Vishnu Sunil Panthalam @ Vishnu Sunil v Kadakkal Temple Advisory Committee
Case No: WPC 10893/2025
The Kerala High Court ordered the Travancore Devaswom Board to ensure that no activities are permitted in Temple premises which affects its sanctity during annual Temple festivals or other festivals.
The Court passed the above order in a writ petition filed aggrieved by performance of revolutionary songs of Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), which is the youth wing of CPI (M), during the Temple festival at Kadakkal Devi Temple in Kollam district on March 10, 2025. The Kadakkal Devi Temple is a temple under the Travancore Devaswom Board.
The Division Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. on viewing the videoclips of the performance conducted in the open stage constructed in the Temple Premises orally said, "Temple festival are for entirely different purposes."
Case Title: One Earth One Life v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 1801 of 2010
The Kerala High Court has barred construction activities in Manjummala and Parunthampara villages of State's Idukki district, without first obtaining a No Objection Certificate from the Revenue Department and building permit from the concerned Local Self Government Institution.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. added that no excavation of land or any construction shall be permitted on the aforesaid land. The movement of goods vehicle carrying construction materials is also stopped for the time being.
Case Title: K. N. Ananda Kumar v State of Kerala
Case No: BA 3713/ 2025
While hearing the bail plea of KN Anand Kumar, founder of National NGO's Confederation and accused in CSR Funds Scam, the Kerala High Court flagged the rise in cases of influential accused securing bail on medical grounds.
As the matter came up for hearing today, the Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan orally remarked,
“I will not entertain that medical ground, unless the prosecutor says that medical facility is not available in jail…Influential people's bail applications in Kerala are becoming medical tourism...you tell me if he needs any other medical (treatment) that is not available in the jail.”
Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v Government of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 8600/ 2025
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (19th March) asked the State government to file within one week, a draft composition of the working group that is proposed to frame comprehensive Rules to curb the rising menace of ragging in the State.
Special Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran had earlier observed that a stronger statutory mechanism is needed to arrest ragging activities. It had thus directed the State to constitute a multidisciplinary working group comprising of ex-officio members and nominated experts from various field to draft the Rules and assess whether any amendment is needed to the Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998.
