Kerala High Court Monthly Digest: February 2025 [Citations: 73 - 143]

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

Sneha Vijayan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

State of Kerala v Pradeepkumar A.V, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

Biju Abraham and Another v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

Ciby George v District Collector & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

Dr V K Sulochana v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Sindhu K. & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

Harilal S v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

Jamal K. M. v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

M.G. Sreejith V. M/S MSS Hospital And Nursing College Pvt. Ltd and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

Anilkumar V K v Sunila P., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

Kamakshikutty K.P V State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

State of Kerala and Others v V. P. Aboobacker, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

Uneen v Shoukathali, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91

Divya K S v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

State of Kerala v Dr Jyothish Kumar V& Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 93

T.M.Leela and another V. P.K.Vasu , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 94

Dr.S.Ganapathy V Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97

Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 98

Mahadevi v Sub Divisional Magistrate, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 99

XX v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

G. Giri v G. Geetha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 101

N Prakash v Manoj Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

Chinnamma George v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

AS v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

Rajitha P.V. v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd V. State Of Kerala and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

Suresh Nathan V The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

Abdul Azeez v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

Ayishabi Thcharakkunnummal v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

Dasan v Yathra and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

Shibin Shiyad v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

Sajeevan Swamy v Johnson and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

Hareesh M. S. v The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

Mrs Shinu K R v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

Sadanandan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

Fathima v Vappinu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

Sheeba Suresh v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

Mohammed Sajjid v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

Sobhanakumari v State Of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

C. Krishnankutty Nair v Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

A. K. Thankappan v State of Kerala & Connected Case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

Suo Moto v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 123

Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories , 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

P C George v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125

Sreekala K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 126

Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 127

Dr. Hafeez Rahman P. A. v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 128

Manu Kumar M K V State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 129

The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 130

Sharanya v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131

Sarika S. v Radhamma and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 132

Linimol K v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 133

x v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 134

Sajitha Abdul Nazar v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 135

Dr Ditto Tom P. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

Saijo Hassan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 137

State of Kerala v Abdul Gafoor and Others & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 138

The Mannam Sugar Mills Co-Operative Ltd. V Deputy Superintendent Of Police, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 139

HDB Financial Services Limited v The Sub Registrar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 140

Prasad S. v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 141

Sreeraj K. C. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

Noushad K . v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 143

Judgments/ Orders

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

Case Title: Vipin P G v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 73

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

[KAAPA] Detaining Authority Has Duty To Provide Legible Copies Of Relevant Documents To Detenu: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sneha Vijayan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 74

The Kerala High Court has held that the detaining authority under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA) has a duty to provide the detenu with legible copies of all relevant documents forming basis for the detention, including the detention order.

The Division Bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian observed that detenu would get an effective opportunity to file a representation before the Advisory Board and Government only when he has legible copies of relied-upon documents.

Interim Orders Affecting Substantial Rights Of Parties And Causing Prejudice Are Appealable While Writ Petition Is Pending: Kerala HC

Case Title: State of Kerala v Pradeepkumar A.V

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 75

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that interim orders that affect the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and cause significant prejudice, are appealable during the pendency of the writ petition under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. observed thus: 

“The impugned interim order of the learned Single Judge is not an order merely procedural in nature. Such an order, touching upon the substantial rights and liabilities of the parties and causing substantial prejudice to the appellants, is an interim ordera qualified for challenge in an appeal filed under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act.”

Kerala High Court Flags Exponential Rise In Cases Of Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says It Includes Her 'Moral And Psychological' Modesty

Case Title: Biju Abraham and Another v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 76

The Kerala High Court in a recent judgment expressed concern over the exponential rise in cases relating to outraging a woman's modesty. Justice A. Badharudeen said that though the law has been strengthened in the matter of sexual offences, the effective implementation of the same should be ensured.

Kerala High Court Orders Demolition, Reconstruction Of Housing Towers Built For Personnel In Armed Forces Citing Structural Issues

Case Title: Ciby George v District Collector & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 77

The Kerala High Court has ordered the Army Welfare Housing Organisation (AWHO) for the demolition and reconstruction of Chander Kunj Army Towers (Towers B and C).

Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. further directed the District Collector to constitute a committee with experts for a proper implementation of the demolition and reconstruction of the towers with equal size and facilities.

When Delay In Trial Is Solely Due To Prosecution's 'Lethargy', Personal Liberty Overrides S.37(1)(b) Of NDPS Act: Kerala HC Grants Bail

Case Title: Shuaib A. S. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 78

The Kerala High Court recently held that when the prosecution is solely responsible for the delay in concluding the trial, the liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides the effect of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act.

Justice A. Badharudeen in the present case noted that the trial could not be completed on time due to 'lethargy on the side of the prosecution'. The Court however added that bail cannot be given on the ground of delay in completion of trial if it is seen that the accused has contributed to the delay in any way.

Kerala High Court Permits NDPS Accused To Go Abroad For Employment, Says Comparison With Vijay Mallya, Nirav Modi 'Unwarranted'

Case Title: Sooryanarayanan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 79

The Kerala High Court recently stated that it was unjust to deny a 24-year-old man, who is the fourth accused in an NDPS case, permission to travel abroad for employment when conclusion of trial was not foreseeable in near future.

In the facts of the case, Justice VG Arun further observed that the Sessions Court citing examples of Vijay Mallya and Nirav Modi to deny permission to accused was 'unwarranted'.

Kerala HC Grants Anticipatory Bail To Reporter TV Editors In POCSO Case, Says 'Inappropriate Questions' To Child Should Have Been Avoided

Case Title: Arun Kumar K. and Another v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 80

The Kerala High Court on Monday (February 3) allowed the anticipatory bail applications filed by Malayalam news channel Reporter TV's consulting editor Arun Kumar K. and Sub-editor Shabas Ahammed. The duo were booked under Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act for allegedly sexually harassing a girl child through words and gestures.

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan observed that prime facie, while the allegations did not constitute a criminal offence under the POSCO Act, the Court stated that the reporters asked the child inappropriate questions which could have been avoided.

When Doctor Who Initially Treated POCSO Victim Reported Crime To Police, Action Against Subsequent Doctor U/S 21 Is Unwarranted: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr V K Sulochana v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 81

The Kerala High Court has held that the POCSO Act does not provide an outer limit for reporting of offences to the Police, and that the intent is to report to the Police without delay.

The Court was considering whether a doctor, who treated the victim subsequently, could be held criminally liable for failing to report the commission of offences under the POCSO Act, when the information had already been provided to the police by the doctor who initially treated the victim.

Justice A. Badharudeen stated that since the FIR has been registered based on information given by the first doctor to the Police without delay, criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is unwarranted and lacks justification.

Kerala High Court Dismisses VHP's Challenge To Caste Certificate Of Hindu Woman Married To Christian Man

Case Title: Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath Vibhagh Karyalayam v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 82

The Kerala High Court has dismissed a writ appeal preferred by Vishwa Hindu Pareeshath (VHP) against the grant of OBC Non-Creamy Layer certificate to a Hindu woman namely Kumari Bindhu, who married a Christian man.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu noted that this being a service matter, VHP who is neither an affected employee nor the State, has no locus standi to challenge it.

MV Act | Deceased's Married Sister May Not Be Dependent, But As Sole Heir Is Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Estate: Kerala HC

Case Title: The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v Sindhu K. & Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 83

In a case motor vehicle compensation case where a man died in an accident, the Kerala High Court said that his married sister cannot claim compensation for loss of dependency, but as his sole legal heir, she is entitled to claim compensation under the heads of loss of estate as well as loss of love and affection.

Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen held that, the sibling is entitled to compensation under the head of 'loss of estate'.

Non-Disclosure Of Minor Criminal Cases Which Were Quashed Not Fatal For Appointment To Govt Post: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Harilal S v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 84

The Kerala High Court observed that every non-disclosure of criminal cases by an individual cannot be regarded as fatal for his appointment to a government post.

While quashing the termination notice and relieving order issued to the employee, Justice D.K. Singh pointed out that the authority has not considered the fact that the non-disclosure of these cases did not impact the employee's suitability for the post, since the cases were not serious in nature and were not offences involving moral turpitude. 

Only Authorised Vendors With Valid ID Cards Can Vend In Kochi Municipal Corporation Area: High Court Issues Directions On Street Vending

Case Title: Jamal K. M. v State of Kerala and Others & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 85

The Kerala High Court has issued a slew of directions to regulate street vending activities within the limits of the Kochi Municipal Corporation, clarifying that only those individuals who have a valid ID card and whose name features in the list of authorized street vendors published by the Corporation are permitted to vend.

After noting that the Street Vending Plan under Section 21 of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act had been finalised and notified by the State Government in June last year, Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar issued the following directions:

1. Only those street vendors whose name is in the list of authorized street vendors published by the Corporation and having the valid certificate and id cards issued by the Corporation shall be seen as authorized street vendors. Only they are permitted to carry vending operations within the limits of Kochi Municipal Corporation.
2. All applications seeking issuance of certificates of vending shall be processed by the Corporation in accordance with the provisions of The Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014, The Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Rules and The Kerala Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending and Licensing) Scheme.
3. The Monitoring Committee and the Jagratha Samithi constituted by the Court during the pendency of the matter shall continue to function as directed by the Court for a further period of six months or till such time the authorities under the Act establish their own regulatory mechanism, whichever is earlier.
4. The exercise of shifting authorized street vendors currently operating in non-vending zones to the nearest vending zone shall be completed within a period of three months.

Needs Great Care: Kerala HC Cautions On Comparing Signatures Based On Photocopy When Original Document Is Absent, Calls It 'Slippery Slope'

Case Name: M.G. Sreejith V. M/S MSS Hospital And Nursing College Pvt. Ltd and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 86

The Kerala High Court single Judge Justice Syam Kumar VM recently cautioned that comparing signatures based on photocopy, in the absence of an original document, is a “slippery slope” and should be done with great care and circumspection.

Courts Can't Rely On Rigid Definitions Of Cruelty, Must Assess If Conduct Makes It Unreasonable For One Spouse To Live With Other: Kerala HC

Case Title: Anilkumar V K v Sunila P

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 87

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that while dealing petitions for divorce on ground of cruelty, Courts cannot rely on rigid definitions of cruelty.

Stating that the emotional quotient of every individual is different, it added that Courts must assess whether the conduct of one spouse has made it unreasonable for the other spouse to live with them.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha stated that cruelty as a ground for divorce varies from case to case and must be assessed on a case by case basis.

Pay ₹27,500 Honorarium To Pre-Primary School Teachers & ₹22,500 To Ayahs: Kerala High Court Directs State Govt

Case Title: Kamakshikutty K.P V State Of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 88

The Kerala High Court has ordered the government to pay an amount of rupees twenty seven thousand five hundred rupees per month to pre-primary school teachers and rupees twenty two thousand five hundred per month to ayahs attached to the Government Pre- Primary Schools appointed by the respective Parent Teachers Association.

The above order was passed in writ petitions filed by pre-primary school staff (teachers and ayahs) of PTA run schools, who approached the Court seeking for issuance of orders formulating service conditions including the scale of pay in par with the teachers of Government run pre-school. 

Justice Harisankar V. Menon ordered thus  “The Teachers/Ayahs to be paid an honorarium of Rs.27,500/- and Rs.22,500/- respectively, effective from March 2025 onwards, to be disbursed from April 2025. Escalation as above to have retrospective effect from 01.08.2012 and Government to disburse arrears within six months' time.”

S.74 Kerala Forest Act Protects Acts Done By Officials In Good Faith, Doesn't Grant Unbridled Power Of Seizure: High Court

Case Title: State of Kerala and Others v V. P. Aboobacker

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 89

The Kerala High Court held that if absolute protection is given to officers under Section 74 of Kerala Forest Act, damages caused to the person due to mischievous acts of an officer would not be addressed. For context, Section 74 gives protection from criminal or other proceedings to forest officers for acts done in good faith.

Justice A. Badharudeen clarified that the statutory protection is not a shied for actions done without rational application of cognitive faculty. The Court further held that when the seizure and confiscation was found to be illegal and was set aside, protection under Section 74 of the Act cannot be claimed for such acts.

Can Uniform Format Be Established For Incorporating Terms Of Settlement In Judicial Orders For ADR Cases: Kerala High Court Considers

Case Title: Suo Motu Jpp Initiated By The High Court Of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 90

The Kerala High Court stated that incorporating terms of settlement in judgments, decrees and orders would depend upon the 'nature of cases' and 'consent of parties'. The Court clarified that an omnibus order cannot be issued in the absence of a statutory provision and stated that each judge must decide based on the consent of parties whether the terms of settlement can be included in the judicial orders. The Court further stated that it would be appropriate not to include the terms of settlement if parties do not consent to it.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S.Manu observed that it might not be feasible to issue judicial directions prescribing a specific format for judicial orders, in the absence of statutory backing.

Children Must Maintain Aged Parents Even If They Receive Some Financial Support From Family/Friends: Kerala HC Explains Filial Duty

Case Title: Uneen v Shoukathali

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 91

The Kerala High Court recently stated that even if aged father or mother receives financial support from friends or relatives to support themselves, it does not absolve the children of their obligation to provide maintenance.

Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that filial duty is a fundamental obligation and is embedded in morality, religion and law. The Court stated that children, particularly sons have a greater obligation to support their aged parents as outlined in various religious texts and codified under several laws.

Govt Can't Impose Compulsory Service Bond On Students Midway Through Course, 'Legal Certainty' Proscribes Unforeseen Obligations: Kerala HC

Case Title: Divya K S v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 92

The Kerala High Court has ruled that government cannot insist students to execute bonds for compulsory service midway through their course. The Court further stated that the government should have informed the students about the compulsory service before admitting them to the program and cannot impose the execution of such bond agreements midway through their studies. 

The Division Bench of Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar explained the concept of 'legal certainty' and stated that government actions must be based on pre-established rules, with clear certainty regarding about the penalties that would follow in case of breach of those rules.

PSU Employees Nearing Superannuation Can't Seek To Continue In Service Until Govt Takes Formal Decision To Enhance Retirement Age: Kerala HC

Case Title: State of Kerala v Dr Jyothish Kumar V& Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 93

The Kerala High Court has set aside a single bench order permitting employees of various Public Sector Undertakings (PSU's) to continue in service, irrespective of their retirement age, until the government takes a decision on the expert committee's report on the feasibility of enhancing retirement age from 58 to 60. 

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. however did not interfere with the single judge's decision insofar as it ordered the State government to direct the Expert Committee to submit its report.

Article 227 Of The Constitution Cannot Be Used As An Appellate Or Revisional Power: Kerala High Court

Case Name: T.M.Leela and another V. P.K.Vasu 

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 94

The Kerala High Court, while dismissing a petition, observed that its supervisory jurisdiction, as provided under Article 227 of the Constitution, cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. Such power must be exercised sparingly and in cases of apparent error or grave injustice. 

“The power under Article 227 of the Constitution would be restricted to interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of law and would be exercised most sparingly in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. It cannot be used as an appellate or revisional power. The supervisory jurisdiction is not available to correct mere errors of fact or law unless the following requirements are satisfied-- (1) the error is manifest or apparent on the face of the proceeding, such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law; and (2) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice occasioned thereby.,” held the Court.

Kerala High Court Rejects Septuagenarian's Plea Against 'Brain Death', Says Parliament Recognized It Through Definite Medical Procedure

Case Title: Dr.S.Ganapathy V Union Of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 95

The Kerala High Court has ruled that it cannot review the concept of brain death in India since the Parliament is the only authority to define brain death.

The Court further stated that the Parliament through the Transplantation of Organs and Tissues Act (THOTA) of 1994 has recognized brain death and the procedure for transplantation of human organs from brain dead patients in India.

The Court passed the above order in a PIL moved by Dr S. Ganapathy who challenged the concept of brain death, argued that it was unscientific and certifying brain death violated Article 21 of the Constitution. He also challenged the constitutional validity of Section 2(d) and (e) of the Transplantation of Organs and Tissues Act 1994 (THOTA).

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar noted that Section 2(d) of THOTA defines brain stem death and Section 2 (e) defines the term deceased person.

Person Accused Of Vandalising Property Upon Trespass Can Be Asked To Deposit Damages As Condition To Grant Bail: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sunil Kumar H. and Others v State of Kerala and Another & connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 96

The Kerala High Court has held that a person booked for committing mischief under Section 324 of BNS along with house-trespass under Section 333 of BNS, can be asked to deposit an amount in accordance with the damage allegedly caused by him, as a condition precedent to bail.

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan held that the courts should compulsorily impose this condition while giving bail and should deviate from it only when there are sufficient reasons.

The Court observed that this will act as a deterrent and will send a message to the society.

Adoptive Parents Not Allowed To Meet Child Physically, Must Be Provided Child Study Report & Medical Report To Give Preference: Kerala HC

Case Title: Lijo Stephen Chacko v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 97

The Kerala High Court ruled that prospective adoptive parents must be given child study report and medical examination report to review when they are referred the profiles of children for possible adoption. 

Justice C.S. Dias referred to Section 59 (6) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act of 2015 and Adoption Regulations of 2022 to state that child study report and medical examination report of children who are legally free for adoption must be uploaded on the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) platform which is the designated portal of the Central Adoption Resource Agency.

Contempt Jurisdiction Is Independent, Civil Contempt Petitions Need Not Be Placed Before Same Bench Which Passed Original Order: Kerala HC

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 98

The Kerala High Court has ordered that it is not necessary to always place a civil contempt petition before the same Bench which passed the order against which the contempt petition was filed. Currently, this is the practice being followed by the High Court.

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu was deciding on a suo motu petition placed before it by the Registry in the aftermath of another Division Bench order of the Court.

Emergency Situation May Arise For Removal Of Street Vendors, But It Cannot Be Used As Grounds To Bypass Their Statutory Rights: Kerala HC

Case Title: Mahadevi v Sub Divisional Magistrate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 99

The Kerala High Court held that the Corporation should not evict street vendors, citing grave and emergent reasons, in violation of their statutory rights guaranteed under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act of 2014.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu observed that the 2014 Act was enacted by the Parliament to create a harassment free environment for street vendors, to safeguard their rights and livelihood. The Court further stated that 2014 Act requires constitution of a Town Vending Committee, creation of a street vending plan every five years, formulation of a regulatory scheme and also provides a procedure for relocation of licensed street vendors to another suitable site.

Often False POCSO Case Launched Against Spouse To Avoid Handing Over Minor Child's Custody: Kerala High Court

Case Title: XX v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 100

Kerala High Court while quashing a POCSO case filed by the mother on behalf of her child against her divorced husband observed that there are instances where one spouse uses their minor child to file false POCSO case against the other, to win custody cases.

“In cases when the husband and wife are in loggerheads and one among them sues for custody of a minor child, there are instances whereby the other spouse who is not ready to part with the custody of the minor used to fabricate facts to implicate the facts to implicate the other spouse in PoCSO offences by using the child whose custody is sought for. The intention behind implicating the spouse who demands custody of the child is to avoid the claim for custody.”

Suppression Of Assets While Seeking Permission To Sue As 'Indigent Person' Indicates Party Playing Fraud On Court: Kerala High Court

Case Title: G. Giri v G. Geetha

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 101

The Kerala High Court has observed that if a person does not fully disclose the details of his property while applying to sue as an indigent person, it is an indication that he wants to play fraud on the court by suppressing his ability to pay court fee. 

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in such cases, the courts can reject the application under Order 33, Rule 5(b) of CPC saying that the applicant is not an indigent person.

“When a party in possession of movable/s and immovable property/ies fails to disclose the details of movable/s or immovable property/ies, which is mandated under Order 33 Rule 2, the same would throw light on the fact that he had suppressed material facts about movable/s and immovable property/ies, with a view to mislead the court and play fraud on the Court by suppressing his assets, which would disclose his capacity to pay the Court fee. To put it differently, suppression of the assets held by the person, who wants to sue as an indigent person is a clear indication to hold that the said person hided his assets, knowing fully well that disclosure of his assets would show prima facie, his capacity to pay the Court fee.”

Death Penalty, Imprisonment, Breach Of Peace, Trial Of Offences: Kerala HC Clarifies Scope & Application Of Criminal Writ Petitions

Case Title: N Prakash v Manoj Kumar

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 102

The Kerala High Court has stated that proceedings that may result in punishments such as death, imprisonment and forfeiture of property should be filed as Writ Petitions (Criminal). It also stated that petitions related to maintenance of law and order, prevention of breaches of peace, prevention of vagrancy should be filed as Writ Petitions (Criminal). Additionally, the Court clarified that any petitions under Article 226 or 227 concerning investigations or trial of offences should also be regarded as Writ Petitions (Criminal).

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu, however, observed, that the list of cases in which writ petitions (civil) and writ petitions (criminal) are to be filed cannot be exhaustive.

Physically Incapacitated Accused On Bail Can Be Permitted To Appear Virtually For Judgment Pronouncement By JMFC: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Chinnamma George v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 103

The Kerala High Court has ruled that an accused who is out on bail and is physically incapacitated can be permitted to appear through virtual mode on the date fixed for the pronouncement of judgment, by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court.

Section 353(6) CrPC states that an accused, not in custody, has to be present for hearing the judgement pronounced, except when personal appearance has been dispensed with.

Rule 3(1) of the Electronic Video Linkage Rules for Courts (Kerala) of 2021 reads thus: Electronic video linkage facilities may be used at all stages of judicial proceedings or under any other special law for the time being in force, and also to such other proceedings which are conducted by the Court.

Justice V.G. Arun observed that Rule 3(1) can include pronouncement of judgement also.

Kerala High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Sexually Abusing Granddaughter, Notes His Custody Was Causing Further Trauma To Victim

Case Title: AS v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 104

The Kerala High Court released a POCSO accused on bail considering that his prolonged custody was causing trauma to the victim. The accused was the step-grandfather of the victim and she was relying on him for her livelihood.

Considering the extraordinary situation, Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan granted bail to the accused.

“From the above report, it is clear that the grandmother and the victim are relying on the petitioner for their livelihood. The victim is now facing trauma because, in her instance, her grandfather is kept in custody…Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the petitioner can be released on bail, after imposing stringent conditions.”

Woman Becomes Eligible For Surrogacy At 23 Years Age And Ineligible On The Preceding Day Of Her 50th Birthday: Kerala HC Clarifies

Case Title: Rajitha P.V. v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

In reference to Section 4 (c) (i) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act 2021, the Kerala High Court stated that a female would be eligible to obtain eligibility certificate for surrogacy when she attains the age of 23 and becomes ineligible on the preceding day of her 50th birthday. 

The Court thus clarified the maximum age limit for female cannot be extended till the preceding day of the 51st birthday, since the legislature has imposed these age restrictions based on the normal age that which women conceive biologically.

The single bench of Justice C.S. Dias also stated that the Court cannot extend the age limits fixed by the legislature by exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.

Moratorium During Insolvency Process Does Not Bar Cheque Dishonour Proceedings Against Persons Referred U/S 141 Of NI Act: Kerala High Court

Case Name: Carnival Films Pvt. Ltd V. State Of Kerala and another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 106

The Kerala High Court yesterday (on February 12), observed that during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process, initiation of cheque dishonour proceedings, due to the moratorium, is prohibited only against the corporate debtor and not against the persons referred under Section 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). In other words, the accused persons in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business will continue to be liable for cheque dishonour offences.

“(i) When the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process of the company is underway, the corporate debtor would be covered by the moratorium provision contained in Section 14 of the Code by which continuation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the corporate debtor and initiation of Section 138/141 proceedings against the said debtor during the corporate insolvency resolution process are interdicted. (ii) The moratorium provision under Section 14 of the Code would apply only to the corporate debtor. (iii) The natural persons referred to in Section 141 of the N.I.Act continues to be statutorily liable under Chapter XVII of the N.I. Act.,” the Bench of Justice K Babu held.

Consumer Protection Act 2019 | State Commission Can't Dismiss Compliant For Non-Prosecution, Obliged To Give Decision On Merits: Kerala HC

Case Title: Suresh Nathan V The State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 107

The Kerala High Court has ruled that the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot dismiss a complaint for default or non-prosecution.

Justice C.S. Dias said, “…the State Commission is not empowered to dismiss a complaint for default or non-prosecution, but is obliged to decide the complaint on its merits.”

The order was passed relying upon Sections 37-B, 38 and 49 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Defense Counsel Can't Be Precluded From Cross-Examining Child Witness Unless He Misuses Liberty & Makes Child Uncomfortable: Kerala HC

Case Title: Abdul Azeez v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 108

The Kerala High Court has ruled that there are no statutory provisions in the newly enacted criminal laws, the POCSO Act, or the Guidelines for Recording of Evidence of Vulnerable Witnesses of 2024 issued by the High Court that permit screening of child witness from the defense counsel.

Justice C. Jayachandran observed that it must be presumed that the legislature has considered all the relevant aspects and consciously decided not to screen the vulnerable witness from the defense counsel.

Reference To IPC Provisions In Definition Of 'Rowdy' Under Anti-Social Activities Law Is A Reference To Relevant BNS Provisions: Kerala HC

Case Title: Ayishabi Thcharakkunnummal v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 109

While examining the definition of 'rowdy' under the Kerala Anti-Social Activities Prevention Act (KAAPA), the Kerala High Court observed that the reference to the repealed IPC provisions in the definition, has to be construed as a reference to relevant provision in the BNS.

It held that when such reference is to a chapter of IPC, the corresponding chapter of BNS shall be referred to and it would include even new offences in the chapter.

A division bench of Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian held that by application of Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act, references to IPC in the Section 2(t) KAAPA can be construed as corresponding provision in BNS. Section 8(1) of the General Clauses Act says that if a law is repealed or re-enacted, then the reference to the repealed law shall be construed as a reference to re-enacted law.

Oral Examination To Explain Interrogatories Shall Be Done Only In Extraordinary Situations: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Dasan v Yathra and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 110

The Kerala High Court held that courts should order oral examination (viva voice examination) only in exceptional cases for the purpose of getting further information if a person has not answered or answered insufficiently a question in the interrogatory. 

Under Order XI Rule 11 of CPC, if a person interrogated omits to answer or answers insufficiently, the Court on an application by the interrogating party can direct the opposite party to answer or answer further either by affidavit or by viva voice.

Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that the party cannot apply for a particular course of action. The party can only make an application under Order XI Rule 11 and the manner in which the other party shall answer shall be decided by the Court.

Kerala High Court Orders Mufti Police To Carry ID Cards, Authorization Order For Proper Identification

Case Title: Shibin Shiyad v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 111

The Kerala High Court has ordered mufti police to carry their identity cards and the specific order authorizing them to discharge their duties in mufti, for proper identification by the citizens.

Mufti police is a term used to refer to police who is wearing civilian dress instead of uniform, during their job.

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan observed that in the absence of such ID and authorization order, the public cannot be blamed for questioning a mufti police.

In Ex-Parte Proceedings, Court Is Not Expected To Blindly Pass Orders In Favour Of The Party Which Is Present: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajeevan Swamy v Johnson and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 112

The Kerala High Court has held that in ex-parte proceedings, a Court can pass an order in favour of the party present only if they can successfully establish their rights or the liability of the opposite party. The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar added that the court is not expected to blindly pass an order in favour of the party present.

ICC Cannot Proceed With A Complaint Under POSH Act If It Does Not Contain Allegation Of Sexual Harassment: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Hareesh M. S. v The Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 113

The Kerala High Court held that an Internal Complaints Committee cannot proceed with a compliant if the allegations made in it does not constitute 'sexual harassment' under Section 2(n) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). 

Justice D. K. Singh said that in such cases, the jurisdictional fact for taking cognizance does not exist.

Appointment As Govt Pleader Or Public Prosecutor Not A 'Right', No Reservation Provided For Persons With Benchmark Disabilities Under RPwD Act: Kerala HC

Case Title: Mrs Shinu K R v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 114

The Kerala High Court has ruled that reservation to persons with benchmark disabilities under Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 cannot be extended while appointing government pleaders and public prosecutors, as they do not have a specific cadre strength, and therefore, no vacancies within a cadre where such reservations can be applied.

Justice D.K. Singh observed that appointment of advocates as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors is a decision of the Government, as they are the client here. It was also stated that no one has an inherent right to claim appointment as Government Pleaders or Public Prosecutors.

Cess Levied On Cinema Tickets U/S 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act Is Constitutionally Valid: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Kerala Film Exhibitors Federation v. State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 115

The  Kerala High Court has stated that cess levied on cinema tickets under Section 3C Of Kerala Local Authorities Entertainment Tax Act is constitutionally  Valid.

“Cess can also mean a tax levied for a special purpose or as an increment to the existing tax and, in given circumstances, a fee. In the case at hand, entertainment tax is already levied under the Act of 1961 and the Cess under Section 3C is an additional levy. Thus, the contention of the Assessee that under Entry 62 of List II of Schedule VII to the Constitution of India, only tax can be levied, and Cess cannot be levied is without merit” stated the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu.

Political Parties Must 'Finish' Opponents On Electoral Battlefield, Norm Of Attacking Rivals Must Be Strictly Dealt With: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sadanandan v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 116

The Kerala High Court has increased the fine amount from rupees 25,000 to 50,000 for eight CPI(M) leaders and workers who attacked C. Sadanandan Master, which led to the amputation of his legs. The attack took place due to the political rivalry between CPI (M) and RSS workers, since Sadanandan Master, a former SFI member in college, joined the RSS and became the district Upa Karyavahak of the RSS in Kannur District.

Justice C.S. Sudha observed that the Court cannot show leniency imposed upon the accused persons since that would send a wrong message to society which would only encourage such crimes. The Court called the attack on Sadanandan Master as brutal, dastardly and near fatal attack and stated that he has been waiting for justice for the past 31 years.

Amending Original Plea Before Family Court To Incorporate Reliefs Under Domestic Violence Act Will Not Change Its Nature And Character: Kerala HC

Case Title: Fathima v Vappinu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 117

The Kerala High Court ruled that amending an original petition filed before the Family Court incorporating reliefs under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is permissible and that it will not change the nature and character of the original petition.

The Court further stated that reliefs to be claimed under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act can also be granted by the Family Court under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to provide protection and justice to the victim.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed the petition for amendment filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC to incorporate reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the DV Act.

Scooter Scam: Kerala HC Directs Police To Send Notice To Congress Activist Sheeba Suresh If Arraigned As Accused

Case Title: Sheeba Suresh v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 118

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (18^th February) ordered that the concerned officer shall send a notice to former Kumily Panchayat President and Congress activist Sheeba Suresh if she is implicated in the scooter scam case registered in Kumily Polce Station. The case is now registered only against Ananthu Krishnan for allegedly cheating a number of persons in the State by collecting money after promising to provide electric scooters at 50% of the price.

When the case came up for hearing before Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnanon Tuesday, the Public Prosecutor informed the court that the petitioner is not yet arraigned as an accused in the case. The Court closed the petition saying that if she is implicated in the offence in future, the officer concerned shall issue notice to her in accordance with law.

S.187(3) BNSS | Default Bail Can Be Granted After 60 Days For Offence Punishable With Imprisonment Which May Extend To 10 Yrs: Kerala HC

Case Title: Mohammed Sajjid v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 119

The Kerala High Court has granted default bail under Section 187(3) BNSS to an accused in a drugs case, booked under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years (maximum ten years punishment), after 60 days in custody.

Justice PV Kunhikrishnan did not apply Section 187(3)(i) to the Petitioner-accused, noting that the maximum punishment that can be imposed upon the Petitioner is up to ten years, whereas Section 187(3)(i) relates to offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of ten years or more.

Don't Hesitate To Quash False Cases: Kerala HC Cautions Agencies, Courts Against Misuse Of SC/ST Act By Litigants With 'Evil Thoughts'

Case Title: Sobhanakumari v State Of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 120

The Kerala High Court observed that when complaints with the police do not yield desired results, or when there are failed litigations or pending litigations between the parties, the raising of allegations under the SC/ST (POA) Act gives a strong indication that such allegations may be false.

Justice A. Badharudeen cautioned that the investigating agencies and courts have a very vital role to find out truth from false allegations to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The Court further stated that false cases must be quashed without hesitation.

Kerala High Court Emphasises Importance Of Careful Selection Of CWC Members Who Have Actively Been Involved With Issues Of Children In Past

Case Title: C. Krishnankutty Nair v Principal Secretary and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 121

The Kerala High Court emphasized that the members of the Child Welfare Committee should have been actively involved with issues related to children namely their health, education or welfare activities before being appointed to the post.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu emphasized that such a qualification is essential considering the duties of the members of the Committee.

Kerala High Court Quashes Case Against Former ADM Who Allegedly Recommended Arms License For 'Thokku Swami'

Case Title: A. K. Thankappan v State of Kerala & Connected Case

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 122

The Kerala High Court quashed further proceedings under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) against former Additional District Magistrate for recommending to give Arms license to Bhadranandaji popularly known as 'Thokku Swami'.

In the instant case, it was alleged that the arms license was given to the Bhadranandaji due to the personal recommendation given by the then Additional District Magistrate. The former ADM and Bhadranandaji was booked under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, Rule 51-A (suppressing any factual information or giving any false information in the application) of Arms Rule and Section 30 (Punishment for contravention of license or rule) of the Arms Act. They both had approached the Court to quash further proceedings in the case against them.

Justice P. G. Ajithkumar said that as per Section 13 of the Arms Act and Rule 2(5) of the Arms Rules, the District Magistrate is the authority empowered to grant license and it was upon him to get the report of the police officer in the nearest police station on getting an application for license. The Court held that the Collector was not bound by the recommendation of the ADM and hence ADM cannot be accused of misusing his official position as required under Section 13(d)(ii) of the PC Act.

Kerala Floods: High Court Closes Suo Moto Case Over Dam Water Level Regulation, Takes Note Of Steps Taken By State For 'Monsoon Preparedness'

Case Title: Suo Moto v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 123

The Kerala High Court has closed its suo moto case initiated in 2020 for safety evaluation of dams, monitoring dam shutters and regulating dam water levels in the State, in light of frequent flooding.

While doing so, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu took note of various steps implemented by the State government since 2020, to ensure better management of monsoon in the State.

Consolidated SCN Involving Multiple Assessment Years Can Be Issued Only When Common Period Of Adjudication Exists: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Joint Commissioner (Intelligence and Enforcement) v. M/s Lakshmi Mobile Accessories 

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 124

The  Kerala High Court stated that consolidated show cause notice involving multiple assessment years can be issued when common period of adjudication exists.

“Issuing a consolidated show cause notice covering various financial/assessment years would cause prejudice to an assessee who would not get the full period envisaged for adjudication under the Statute, if that period is circumscribed by the limitation period prescribed in relation to an earlier financial/assessment year” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.

Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To BJP Leader P C George In Hate Speech Case

Case Title: P C George v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125

The Kerala High Court today dismissed the anticipatory bail application filed by BJP leader PC George, booked for allegedly making hate speech against the Muslim community during a channel debate.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan dismissed the bail application.

Lack Of Mandatory Jail Sentence For Hate Speech Crimes Serious Matter : Kerala High Court Flags Issue To Parliament & Law Commission

Case Title: P C George v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 125

While denying anticipatory bail to BJP leader PC George in a case for making remarks against the Muslim community, the Kerala High Court expressed concerns about the rising frequency of statements based on caste and religion.

"Nowadays, there is a tendency to make statements based on religion, caste etc. These are against the basic structure of our Constitution. These tendencies should be nipped in the bud," Justice PV Kunhikrishnan observed in the bail order.

The Court also flagged an inadequacy in the present penal provisions dealing with hate speeches, as the offender can get by paying a fine. The Court further pointed out that even second-time offenders are not subjected to higher punishment and emphasized that this issue requires consideration by the Parliament and the Law Commission.

Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts U/S 102 CrPC For Crimes Under Prevention Of Corruption Act: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sreekala K. v Central Bureau of Investigation and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 126

Kerala High Court has held that freezing of a person's bank accounts under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure while investigating his involvement in offences under Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) is valid. 

Justice C. Jayachandran rejected the petitioner-accused's argument that the freezing should have been done only through the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944.

The Court however held that these provisions had separate objectives and the seizure under CrPC cannot be found fault with. 

The Court said that Section 102 provides for seizure of property which is suspected to have been stolen or which is found in circumstances creating suspicion of commission of an offence. It observed that Section 102 is invoked as a step in aid of investigation, to seize a piece of evidence. On the other hand, the Ordinance aims to secure the money which has been procured by the accused by means of a scheduled offence so that the same can be forfeited if the accused is ultimately found guilty.

Kerala High Court Closes Bail Plea By Rahul Easwar In Criminal Case Filed By Actress Upon Being Told Offences Were Bailable

Case Title: Rahul Easwar v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 127

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (18th February) closed a bail petition moved by Rahul Easwar on being informed by the Public Prosecutor that the offences alleged against him were bailable. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan has directed Rahul Easwar to appear before the police station as per the notice served to him by the police.

To Protect Interest Of Minor Victims, Preserve Evidence': Kerala HC Directs Doctors To Preserve Foetuses After Performing Abortion On Minors

Case Title: Dr. Hafeez Rahman P. A. v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 128

The Kerala High Court has given a direction to the Director of the State Health Department to inform all doctors of the State to preserve the fetus of minor victims and to get written permission from the Investigating Officer/ District Police Superintendent in order to destroy it. 

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that this was required to protect the interest of the minor victims and to ensure that the accused does not flee trial for want of vital piece of evidence.

Compassionate Employment Cannot Be Denied To Dependents Who Have Been 'Fighting For Claim' By Fixing Subsequent Cut-Off Date: Kerala HC

Case Title: Manu Kumar M K V State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 129

The Kerala High Court recently stated that when the benefits of a compassionate employment scheme have been extended to the dependants of employees of private aided colleges, then neither the government nor the college authorities can deny these benefits to the dependants who have been fighting for this cause by fixing a subsequent cut-off date for availing the benefit of the scheme.

In this case, the petitioners were denied compassionate employment on the grounds that the benefit would only be extended to the dependents of employees of private aided colleges who passed away after October 7, 2013.

Justice N.Nagaresh stated that the government in an earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners had already accorded sanction to the management to ignore the cut-off date.

Article 226 Can't Be Invoked Against An SCN Issued U/S 74 Of CGST Act At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court

Case Title: The Deputy Commissioner (Intelligence) v. Minimol Sabu

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 130

The  Kerala High Court stated that Article 226 cannot be invoked against a show cause notice issued under Section 74 of the CGST Act at preliminary stage.

“Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant to be used to break the resistance of the Revenue in this fashion. In exercise of such jurisdiction, the High Court is required to refrain from issuing directions to the authorities under the taxation statute to decide issues in stages or on a preliminary basis,” stated the Division Bench of Justices A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Easwaran S.

Mental Health Act Bars Punishing Persons For Offences Committed While Attempting Suicide : Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sharanya v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131

The Kerala High Court ruled that convicting and sentencing a person under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code for other offences is illogical when they have attempted to commit suicide in the course of same transaction. The Court held that, under Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, such prosecution is barred unless the prosecution proves that the individual was not under severe stress.

The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan stated that Section 115 creates a statutory presumption that a person who attempted suicide is under severe stress, unless proven otherwise and therefore cannot be prosecuted under the IPC for other offences committed in the same transaction. The Court thus declared all proceedings against the appellant as illegal and set it aside.

Kerala High Court Allows Institution Of Fresh Suit Over Litigant's Claim That Proper Relief Could Not Be Sought Due To Wrong Legal Advice

Case Title: Sarika S. v Radhamma and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 132

The Kerala High Court recently allowed a petitioner to withdraw a suit which was at the appellate stage upon seeing that proper reliefs were not incorporated in the original suit.

The petitioner had filed a suit seeking a declaration of easement right of prescription over a property and for consequential injunction against the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit saying that she failed to prove ingredients for claiming the right of easement by prescription.

Justice K. Babu noted that the trial court had found that the property was landlocked and the plaintiff could have succeeded in establishing easement rights by necessity.

Kerala High Court Grants Extraordinary Family Pension To Kin Of CRPF Personnel Who Died On Duty, Denied On Allegation Of Being Inebriated

Case Title: Linimol K v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 133

The Kerala High Court recently granted extraordinary family pension to the wife of a deceased CRPF personnel who died during the course of his duty due to drowning in a tank of water while employed as Constable General duty in the 85th Battalion (Bn) deployed in Chhattisgarh.

In doing so the court held that when the Court of Inquiry (CIF) conducted by the CRPF did not indicate that the deceased was in an inebriated state, the Pension Accounting Office (PAO) cannot deny extraordinary family pension under Central Civil Service (Extraordinary Pension) Rules of 1972 to his family.

Justice D.K. Singh relied upon the Apex Court decision in Renu Devi v Union of India(2020) which held that death occurring due to participation in sports events/adventures/activities would also be considered as death in the performance of duty.

POCSO Act | Physical Contact Of Penis With Female Genital Constitutes 'Penetrative Sexual Assault', Vaginal Insertion Not Necessary: Kerala HC

Case Title: x v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 134

The Kerala High Court has held that penetration of male genital organ within the labia majora or vulva without penetrating the vagina will constitute the offence of penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of POCSO Act.

The Division Bench comprising Justice P. B. Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian read the explanation of 'vagina' given under Section 375 of IPC into the POCSO Act by way of Section 2(2) of POCSO Act.

“… penetration of the male genital organ within the labia majora or the vulva, with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim completely, partially or slightly would make out the offence of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act as well.”

Married Woman Of Eligible Age Can Undergo IVF Treatment Despite Husband's Ineligibility Provided He Consents: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sajitha Abdul Nazar v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 135

The Kerala High Court has permitted a married woman aged 46 years to avail Assisted Reproduction Technology (ART) procedure, even though her husband who is 57 years old has become ineligible to avail the ART services.

The Court found that the married woman can independently undergo ART procedure through intrauterine insemination using donor male gametes, even though the husband has surpassed the eligibility age of 55 years.

Justice C.S. Dias observed that the wife's eligibility to apply for ART procedure operates independently despite the ineligibility of the husband. The Court clarified that this is because the ART (Regulation) Act follows an individual centric approach, specifying separate age criteria for men and women under Section 21, rather than a combined age limit for a 'commissioning couple'.

Not Mandatory To Obtain Sanction To Prosecute Public Servant For Failing To Report POCSO Offences, S. 19 Contains Non-Obstante Clause: Kerala HC

Case Title: Dr Ditto Tom P. v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 136

The Kerala High Court has held that it is not mandatory to obtain sanction under Section 197 of CrPC or Section 218 of the BNSS to prosecute a public servant under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act for failing to report POCSO Offences 

The Court made this ruling on noting that Section 19 which mandates reporting of POCSO offences begins with a non-obstante clause, 'Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973' and thus it excludes the applicability of Section 42A of the Act.

Will Remove Former HC Judge From Array Of Accused In CSR Scam Case: Kerala Police To High Court

Case Title: Saijo Hassan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 137

The Kerala High Court today closed the PIL filed by lawyers challenging the registration of FIR against former Kerala High Court judge Justice C N Ramachandran Nair in the CSR funds scam case, on recording the written statement filed by Director General of Prosecutions that he would be removed from the array of the accused.

The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammad Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar observed thus: “we record the above written statement. Today a statement handed over to the Director General of Prosecution has been placed before us. We record the same. In such view of the matter, the investigating officer shall act upon that statement and do the necessary steps to exclude the former judge of this Court from the array of accused,"

Govt Must Be Able To Determine Strength Of Local Bodies In Interest Of Effective Governance: Kerala HC Affirms State's Delimitation Exercise

Case Title: State of Kerala v Abdul Gafoor and Others & Connected Cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 138

The Kerala High Court on Monday (24th February) overturned the decision of a Single Bench invalidating the delimitation exercise for 8 municipalities and one panchayat.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that even after an initial determination of seats under Section 6(1) of the Acts, there is no restriction on the Government to exercise its power under Section 6(1) to alter the number of seats as long as the alteration remains within the limits prescribed under Section 6(3). 

The Court also observed that this approach is necessary for the effective functioning of the local bodies. “If this approach is not followed, the functioning of local bodies could be significantly disrupted, as the Government would have to await a fresh census before making adjustments. Such a requirement is neither envisaged by constitutional provisions nor by statutory law. The Government must be able to determine the strength of the local bodies in the interest of effective governance, taking into account factors such as resource allocation, revenue generation and administrative efficiency. As long as these decisions adhere to statutory provisions, the Court should not interfere with the Government's exercise of power in this regard.”

No New Flag Masts Or Poles To Be Erected In The State Without Permission From Competent Authorities: Kerala High Court Orders

Case Title: The Mannam Sugar Mills Co-Operative Ltd. V Deputy Superintendent Of Police

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 139

The Kerala High Court ruled that no temporary or permanent flag masts or poles shall be installed in any public space, puramboke area, or road margins within the State without obtaining the necessary permissions or clearances from competent authorities as required by law. 

The single bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran further directed the Secretary of the Local Self Government Institutions to issue a circular informing all Local Self Government Institutions and other relevant entities of this directive.

Attachment Under Banning Of Unregulated Deposit (BUDS) Act Doesn't Have Precedence Over SARFAESI/ IBC Proceedings: Kerala HC

Case Title: HDB Financial Services Limited v The Sub Registrar and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 140

The Kerala High Court held that attachment under the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act (BUDS Act) does not have precedence over proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI Act) or the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC).

Section 13 of the BUDS Act says that an order of provisional attachment passed by the Competent Authority shall have precedence and priority over any other attachment. However, the section starts with the expression, 'Save as otherwise provided in the SARFAESI Act or IBC Code, an attachment passed by the Competent Authority, shall have precedence and priority..'. Justice Gopinath P. held that this could only mean that the action/ proceedings under the SARFAESI Act and IBC were saved from the provision providing precedence to the BUDS Act.

State Has Taken Substantial Steps On Issue Of Desiltation Of Dams, Reservoirs To Restore Storage Capacity For Flood Mitigation: Kerala HC Closes PIL

Case Title: Prasad S. v Union of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 141

The Kerala High Court recently observed that the State Government has implemented various measures like formulating a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) and establishing Technical and Empowered Committees to facilitate desiltation of dams and reservoirs in the State for restoring storage capacity and flood mitigation.

Desiltation is the removal of silt and sediments from dams and reservoirs to improve their natural water storage capacity.

The Court was hearing a 2021 public interest litigation requesting a sedimentation study report of the dams, reservoirs, and rivers for flood mitigation in the State.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu noted that the government in 2017 has sanctioned a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the desiltation of reservoirs to restore their storage capacity, which was subjected to subsequent modifications also.

Alleging Rape On False Promise Of Marriage Is 'Baseless' When Complainant Lady Was Already Married And Not Divorced: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Sreeraj K. C. v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 142

The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the offence of 'rape on the false promise of marriage' would not stand when the complainant lady was already married and continuing in that marriage at the time.

Justice A. Badharudeen observed that in that case the promise of marriage itself is an impossibility. The Court said that for this offence, it has to be shown prima facie that the consent was obtained on misconception of fact which was not the case here.

Police Can Fearlessly Take Action Against Women Implicating Innocent Men In False Sexual Assault Cases: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Noushad K . v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 143

The Kerala High Court while granting bail to a man accused of committing sexual harassment remarked that nowadays, there is a tendency to make serious allegations of sexual assault against innocent people. The Court said that merely because the complainant is a lady, there is no presumption that her version is the gospel truth. 

Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan declared that a criminal investigation involves investigation of the case of the complainant and accused and not just of the complainant. The Court said that if during investigation, the police finds that the lady complainant has made false allegation of sexual assault against a man, they can take action against the lady also. The Court assured the officers that they need not fear of any backfiring for taking such actions, as the law will take care of the officers if they are coming up with correct findings.