Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166-180]Ajeesh @ Ajeeshkumar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166Aanjaly Sandeep Shetty v. Additional Commissioner, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 167V. Subramanian v Union of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 168K R Harikrishnan v SI of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 169The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Last Hour Ministry, 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 166-180]
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
Judgements/Orders This Week
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Other Developments This Week
Case Title: Prabhavathi v State of Kerala
Case No: WP (Crl) 290/2025
The Kerala High Court, today, directed the investigating officer who was investigating the complaint filed by the mother of a 15 year old missing child, who was later found dead, to appear before the Court tomorrow (March 11) with the case diary.
As per facts, 15-year-old girl child from Kasargod district had been missing since February 11. On the same day, Pradeep who is a 42 year old taxi driver who was known to be close to the child's family was also found to be missing.
The General Body of the Kerala High Court Advocates Association decided to suspend Senior Advocate George Poonthottam from the KHCAA for meeting the Chief Justice without the consent of the Association to resolve the issue relating to Justice A Badharudeen.
Case Title: Asha Lawrence and Another v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: RP 280/ 2023
Asha Lawrence, daughter of CPI(M) veteran M. M. Lawrence has approached the Kerala High Court once again challenging donation of her father's body to Ernakulam Medical College.
She is also joined by her sister Suja Boban in the writ petition. It is submitted that they have recently retrieved a video in which their father had stated that his body should be buried in the place where Suja says.
The veteran had passed away at the age of 95 on September 21, 2024. He was the District Secretary of CPI(M) and was jailed during the emergency time. In the year 1980, he became Lok Sabha Member from Idukki district in Kerala, and later served as convener of LDF, member of the CPI(M) Central Committee and State and National secretary of Centre for Indian Trade Unions (CITU).
Case Title: Prabhavathi v State of Kerala
Case No: WP (Crl) 290/2025
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (11th March) directed the Police to file a statement regarding investigation into the disappearance and death of the 15-year old girl child from Kasargod.
While dealing with her mother's plea accusing the Police of inaction in the matter, a Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha also orally remarked, “We cannot find from the CD (Case diary) that they have not taken action, they have taken action. You may have a case that the investigation is not proper. That's not for us to take a call on and we are not going to speak about the investigation.”
Case Title: Gramasree Mission And Others v State of Kerala
Case No: WP (Crl) 299/2025
Seven NGO's from across the State have approached the Kerala High Court seeking direction to the Chief Secretary to investigate and take action against the National NGO's Confederation and others responsible for the CSR funds scam under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act 2019 (BUDS Act).
The matter came up before Justice Kauser Edappagath today and it is posted to March 27 for further consideration. The Public Prosecutor sought time to get instructions.
Case Title: M/s M. D. Esthappan And Another v Reserve Bank of India and Others & Connected Cases
The Kerala High Court has held that lawyers being permitted to enter the Court proceedings through video conferencing does not mean that they can record and circulate court proceedings. Stating thus, Justice P. Gopinath took exception to Advocate Mathews Nedumpura's conduct in recording and circulating court proceedings through WhatsApp. The bench observed that such action prima facie constitutes contempt of court as it not only lowers the court's dignity but is also prohibited under the relevant rules.
Case Title: Muhammed Iqbal v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: Crl.MC 2327 of 2025
The Kerala High Court on Monday (10th March) gave further time to the State government to file its response to the petition filed by father of Shahabas, a class 10 student who was allegedly attacked by his tuition fellows in Kozhikkode, leading to his death.
Shahabas' father Muhammed Iqbal seeks to prevent the accused children from writing the 10th SSLC examination, scheduled between March 03 to March 27.
Case Title: P.P. Divya v Manjusha K
Case No: IA 1/2025 In WP(Crl.) No. 1297 OF 2024
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the Registry to provide copy of writ petition, exhibits and other documents filed by Manjusha, wife of deceased ADM Naveen Babu to PP Divya, who is allegedly accused of abetting his suicide.
The single bench of Justice Kauser Edappagath passed the above order in an application filed by Divya in the writ petition filed by Manjusha seeking CBI probe into Naveen Babu's death.
Case Title: Shiji v Chief Secretary of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 30664 of 2017
The Kerala High Court asked the state government to submit an affidavit about the machines that is now being used in the Regional Cancer Centre for blood test after an incident where a patient got HIV from blood transfusions were brought to the notice of the Court.
The petitioner lost his daughter after she got infected with HIV. His daughter was suspected of having leukemia. She got 49 blood transfusions from Regional Cancer Centre, Trivandrum. Later, it was found out that one of the donors was HIV positive. The petitioner's daughter got infected during the course of the treatment.
The Government informed the Court that the unfortunate incident occurred because the testing technology used at the time could not detect the infection as there was a window period of 4 to 8 weeks before the infection could be detected.
Justice Mohammed Nias C. P. asked the State to detail the steps taken after the said incident and to say how the technology used now is superior to the one used at the time of the incident.
Case Title: K N Anand Kumar v State of Kerala
Case No: BAIL APPL. No. 3680/2025
K.N. Anand Kumar, the founder and Managing Trustee of National NGO's Confederation who is presently in judicial custody in the CSR Scam case has approached the Kerala High Court seeking bail.
In his bail application, Anand Kumar aged 70 years submitted that he was arrested on March 11 and is in judicial custody at hospital due to cardiac problems. It was submitted that he has already undergone angioplasty and has many age related issues.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan sought instructions and posted the bail application to next week.
Kerala High Court Seeks Detailed Action Plan From State Over Elephant Attacks In Aralam Farm
Case Title: Baiju Paul Mathews v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 7858 of 2025
The Kerala High Court, on Thursday (13th February), asked the State Government if any plan of action had been formulated to combat the repeated elephant encroachments and attacks happening on Aralam farm in Kannur.
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu asked the State to submit details on any plan of action formulated, the short-term and long-term plan and the timeline within which it proposes to complete each stages in the plan.
