Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 3 - March 9, 2025

Manjusha K v CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judgments/ Orders This Week

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

Case Title: Manjusha K v CBI

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 149

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

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

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

Case Title: N Prakash v R Ashakumari

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 150

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

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

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

Case Title: Sidhique Chundakkadan v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 151

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Sharmina S v Sub Divisional Magistrate

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 152

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

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 153

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 154

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

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

Case Title: XXX v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 155

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

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

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

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 156

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 157

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

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

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

Case Title: Ammu Ajit v Central Adoption Resource Agency

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 158

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Shuhaib v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 159

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

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

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

Case Title: Muhammed Shibil v State of Kerala and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 160

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

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

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

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

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 161

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

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

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

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

Case Title: George Cyriac v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 162

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

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

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

Case Title: The Joint Commissioner v Nishad K U

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 163

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

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

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

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

Case Title: Sammil v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 164

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

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

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

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

Case Title: B Ajai v State of Kerala

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 165

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

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

Other Important Developments This Week

Take No Coercive Steps Against Wayanad Landslide Victims Who Defaulted On Loan Till Centre Decides On Waiver: Kerala HC Directs State

Case Title: In Re: Prevention And Management Of Natural Disasters In Kerala V State Of Kerala

Case Number: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 3) ordered the State to direct the State Level Bankers' Committee (SLBC) not to take any coercive steps against any Wayanad landslide victim who has defaulted on bank loans, till the matter of loan waiver is decided by the Central Government.

The Division Bench of the Court comprising Justice A. K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Easwaran S. was hearing the suo motu case initiated by the High Court in the aftermath of large-scale landslides that hit Wayanad in July 30, 2024. The Court has been actively monitoring the rehabilitation activities undertaken by the State and the support offered by the Centre since then.

'Commission Relying On Incorrect Data To Ascertain Population': Residents Of Arattupuzha Grama Panchayat Move Kerala HC Against Delimitation

Case Title: Vinod T and Another v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 7688 of 2025

Two residents of Arattupuzha Gram Panchayat have moved the Kerala High Court, challenging the delimitation process done in their constituency. After the recent delimitation process conducted in the State, the number of wards in the Panchayat has been increased from 18 to 19.

The petitioners claim that seat limitation and the consequent delimitation process are based on incorrect data. They had sought the Court to declare the delimitation process in their panchayat as illegal.

KeLSA Moves PIL In Kerala High Court To Curb Ragging In State, Special Bench To Hear Matter

Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v Government of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 8600/ 2025

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (4^th March) said that it will constitute a special bench to hear the issue of ragging in the state. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu made this order while considering a PIL filed by the Kerala State Legal Service Authority (KeLSA) to curb the issue of ragging in the state.

Kerala High Court Lifts Suspension Of Website Of Lending Service Provider 'Olyv'

Case Title: Smartcoin Financials Pvt Ltd vs Union of India and others

Case No: WP(CRL.) NO. 669 OF 2024(S)

The High Court of Kerala has lifted the blocking of the website 'olyv.in', which is a Lending Service Provider (LSP). 

The website was deactivated following a communication issued by the Kerala Cyber Crime Coordination Centre (Kerala Police) invoking powers under Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to the domain service provider. The Kerala Police issued the communication based on complaints received at various police stations regarding unethical practices of digital loan lending apps and cheating of individuals using personal data. An FIR was also registered against Smartcoin Financials Pvt Ltd, the company running "Olyv", under Sections 84C r/w 66D, 85 of IT Act, alleging the offence of advertising through online media for granting loans with the intention to do unfair practices.

Kerala High Court Orally Observes 1998 State Law Inadequate To Curb Menace Of Ragging, Expresses Need To Formulate Rules

Case Title: Kerala State Legal Service Authority v Government of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 8600/ 2025

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (March 5) orally observed that rules need to be framed under Kerala Prohibition of Ragging Act, 1998 to effectively tackle the menace of ragging. 

The High Court orally noted that the State only had a brief legislation of 9 sections to address the issue. It observed that since the passing of the legislation, UGC has come up with detailed guidelines to curb ragging in colleges and the State might need to look into the need of introducing changes into the existing law. The Court further observed orally that there were no mechanism for prevention in the State legislation.

The special comprising of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice C. Jayachandran was considering a petition filed by Kerala Legal Service Authorities (KeLSA) to curb the menace of raging in the State. The Court looked into the existing provisions to curb ragging namely the 1998 Act and the UGC Regulation on Curbing the Mrnace of Ragging in Higher Educational Institutions.

Party-In-Person Must File Case From Own E-Filing Account, Registry Can Object If Case Filed From Another Person's ID: Kerala High Court

Case Title: Shahada T.K. v Habeebullah P.T

Case No: WP(Crl) No. 1106 of 2024

The Kerala High Court has ruled that when a party in person wants to file a case, that person must be registered as an Electronic-Filer (E-Filer) under the Electronic Filing Rules for Courts (Kerala) 2021 and must file the case from their own account.

Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas further said that the Registry can raise an objection if the case is filed by a party-in-person using the E-filing account of another person. This, the bench reasoned is because E-filing Rules do not permit sharing of user ID and password.

Jharkhand Police Which Came Looking For Inter-Faith Couple Has Gone Back: State Informs Kerala HC, Protection Order Extended By A Month

Case Title: Asha Verma v Director General of Police 

Case No: WPC 7928/2025

The Kerala High Court on Friday (March 7) recorded the statement of the Government Pleader that Jharkhand police, which came in search of the interfaith couple from Jharkhand who got married in Kerala, went back noting the pendency of the instant case before the High Court.

The case was filed before the High Court by the couple seeking police protection, saying they faced threat from their families.

On February 27, the high court had granted the couple police protection and had directed the police to ensure that they are not repatriated to any other place during the pendency of the writ petition. On Friday, Justice C. S. Dias extended that order for one month.

KHCAA Rejects Judge's Offer To Apologize In Chamber; Says 'When Insult Happened In Open Court, Apology Also Should Be In Open Court'

The Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) has written a letter to the Chief Justice of the High Court demanding an apology in open court for allegedly humiliating the widow of a recently deceased advocate.

As per the letter, when Adv. Saritha Thomas, wife of the late Adv. Alex Scaria, sought time to file a fresh vakalat in a case where her husband had filed the vakalat, it is said that Justice A. Badharudeen insulted and humiliated her.