Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 03 - 09, 2025

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

Judgments/ Orders This Week

[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, ˇJustice 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.

Other Important Developments This Week

Munambam Land Not Waqf Property, Deed Contains No 'Permanent Dedication' To God: Farook College Argues In Kerala High Court

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

Case No: WP(C) 2839/ 2025

Farook College, which is embroiled in Munambam land dispute with Kerala Waqf Samrakshana Vedhi, a registered society which works to protect Waqf properties in the state, has claimed before the Kerala High Court that the lands in question are not Waqf property.

The Single Bench of Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas was hearing the petition challenging the appointment of Inquiry Commission to look into the dispute.

[Veterinary Student Death] 'Ragging Worse Than Vandalism': Kerala High Court Stays Re-admission Of Accused Students At Mannuthy Campus

Case Title: Sheeba M R v Kerala Veterinary And Animal Sciences University

Case No: WA 272/ 2025

The Division Bench of the Kerala High Court has stayed the order of the single judge which allowed the re-admission of eighteen students at the College of Veterinary & Animal Sciences at Mannuthy who were implicated as accused in the suicide of Sidharthan J S.

The Division Bench of Justice Amit Rawal and Justice K.V. Jayakumar granted her leave to appeal. The Division Bench also stated that the mother should also be given a hearing opportunity while the fresh disciplinary enquiry is being conducted by the University. 

The Court while staying the order of the single judge permitting the re-admission of the students at the campus in Mannuthy orally observed in Court today, “students indulging in ragging are worse than those indulging in vandalism.”

Kerala State Audit Dept Reports Irregularities In Awarding Contracts, Finances Of Guruvayoor Devaswom; High Court Seeks Response From Board

Case Title: DR. P S Mahendra Kumar V State Of Kerala

Case No: WP(C) 7426/2024

The Senior Deputy Director of Kerala State Audit Department of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Unit has filed an affidavit before the Kerala High Court pointing out various financial irregularities in the audit report of the Guruvayoor Devsawom.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K.Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. has granted two weeks' time to the Standing Counsel of the Guruvayoor Devaswom Board to obtain instructions on the affidavit. The matter has been posted to February 21, 2025.

Sharon Murder Case: Kerala High Court Admits Death Row Convict Greeshma's Appeal, Suspends 3 Yrs Sentence Of Her Uncle

Case Title: Greeshma @ Sreekutty and Another v State of Kerala

Case No: Crl.A 253/ 2025

The Kerala High Court today suspended the sentence imposed upon Greeshma's maternal uncle Nirmalakumaran Nair, who was convicted to three years imprisonment under Section 201 of the IPC for destruction of evidence in the Sharon murder case.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian also admitted the appeal filed by Greeshma and her uncle.

Kerala High Court Reserves Verdict In Appeal Moved By ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe Into His Death

Case Title: Manjusha K v CBI

Case No: WA 193/2025

The Kerala High Court has reserved its orders in the writ appeal moved by deceased ADM Naveen Babu's wife against the refusal to order a CBI probe into her husband's death.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian asked the appellant if they were alleging any kind of malice against the SIT who is investigating the matter now. The Court opined that the appellant has not made out sufficient reasons for ordering a CBI probe.

[Hema Committee Report] Ensure Chairperson Of Film Policy Drafting Committee Inspires Confidence Of Women: Kerala High Court Tells State

Case Title: Jannath v State of Kerala & Other Cases

Case Number: WPC No. 31205/2024 & Other Cases

The Special Bench of Kerala High Court comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice C. S. Sudha has orally remarked that for the purpose of compliance with the Hema Committee Report, it would be prudent to appoint a Chairperson of the Film Policy Drafting & Cinema Conclave Committee, who inspires the confidence of women.

"Don't Arrest": Kerala High Court In Congress Leader Laly Vincent's Plea Seeking Anticipatory Bail In CSR Scam Case

Case Title: Laly Vincent v State of Kerala

Case No: Bail Appl. 1789/2025

Congress leader and lawyer Laly Vincent has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a case registered against alleging her involvement in a CSR scam.

The allegation is that Laly Vincent along with the other 6 accused persons after collecting money from various persons and promised to provide two-wheelers at a subsidized price by securing the remaining funds through CSR contributions from companies.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan orally stated, “Its a dangerous case, tell your client, anyways don't arrest… I am told that about 50 lakhs is credited to her account….”

"Firecrackers Not Religious Or Customary Part Of Temple": Plea In Kerala HC Seeks Curb On Firecrackers At Vadakkumnadhan, Paramekkavu & Other Temples

Case Title: Venkitachalam v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 5139/ 2025

A resident of Thiruvambady had filed a petition against bursting firecrackers in Vadakkumnadhan Temple, Paramekkavu Temple and other temples. The petitioner claimed that the practice is against the orders of the Supreme Court and Rule 5A(2) of Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000. The petitioner further submitted that such activities affected his right to live peacefully without any apprehension of damage or danger to his life or properties.

Kerala High Court Grants Interim Protection To Former MLA PC George Booked For 'Hate Speech' Against Muslim Community

Case Title: P C George v State of Kerala

Case No: Bail Appl. 1874/2025

Former MLA PC George has approached the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in connection with a FIR lodged against him for allegedly making hate speech against the Muslim community during a channel debate.

Justice P V Kunhikrishnan orally said that he is a public figure and everyone listens to him that he must be careful while using words. “He shall not be arrested till next posting date”, stated the Court and posted the matter to 17^th February.

Kerala High Court Issues Notice On Plea Against 'Oru Jaathi Jathakam' Movie For Allegedly 'Humiliating' Members Of LGBTQ+ Community

Case Title: Shakiy S. Priyamvadha v The Chairman, CBFC

Case No: WP(C) 5164/ 2025

A writ petition has been filed before the Kerala High Court against the movie 'Oru jaathi jathakam' for allegedly humiliating and being derogatory towards the LGBTQ+ community. The petition was filed by Shakiy S. Priyamvadha who moved the petition as a representative of the community.

The petitioner has submitted that the movie uses derogatory words to refer to the community. The petitioner argued that the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) by allowing the exhibition of the film violated the right to dignity under Article 21 of the members of the marginalized community. It is also urged that the CBFC acted arbitrarily, and unreasonably and violated Article 14 by refusing to take corrective steps despite receiving a complaint in this regard.