Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 10- February 16, 2025

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

Judgments/Orders this week

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.

Other significant developments this week

Right To Agitate Does Not Give License To Block Public Roads Or Footpaths: Kerala High Court Observes

Case Title: N Prakash v M V Govindan Master

Case Number: Con Case (C) No. 3252/2024

The Kerala High Court today (February 10) orally observed that while people can agitate in an appropriate manner, this does not give them the license to block public roads or footpath.

The Division Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. was considering the contempt case filed in aftermath of the CPI(M)'s Palayam area conference, held in Vanchiyoor reportedly blocking one half of the road.

“Any person can have the agitations in an appropriate way, but that will not give a license to put up stages on the public road or even on the pedestrian facilities provided on the road”, Justice Anil K. Narendran orally observed.

Congress Activist Sheeba Suresh Moves Kerala High Court Seeking Anticipatory Bail In 'Scooter Scam Case'

Case Title: Sheeba Suresh v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: BA 1917/ 2025

Congress Leader and former Kumily Panchayat President Sheeba Suresh has approached Kerala High Court seeking bail in the Scooter Scam case. The matter came up before the bench of Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan on Monday (10th February) and the Court has directed the Public Prosecutor to get instructions from the Government. The case will be considered on 18th February.

Transman Moves Kerala High Court For Cryopreserving Eggs

Case Title: Hari Devageeth v Union of India

Case No: WP(C) 5306/2025

A 28 year old person from the transgender community, assigned female at birth but identifying as a man, has approached the Kerala High Court for freezing and storing eggs. KIMS Hospital Trivandrum has denied him permission to cryopreserve his eggs based on his self-perceived gender identity, aggrieved by which he has approached the High Court.

Justice C. S. Dias issued notice to the KIMS Hospital. Government Pleader took notice for the State government and the Director of the Social Justice Department. Deputy Solicitor General of India took notice for the Union government and the National ART and Surrogacy Board.

Kerala High Court Rehears Appeal Moved By Deceased ADM Naveen Babu's Wife Seeking CBI Probe After Change Of Counsel

Case Title: Manjusha K v CBI

Case No: WA 193/2025

The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (February 11) reheard the writ appeal moved by deceased ADM Naveen Babu's wife against the refusal to order a CBI probe into her husband's death.

On February 6, after hearing the arguments of Senior Advocate S Sreekumar, the Court reserved the matter for orders. However, Naveen Babu's family expressed dissatisfaction with Senior Advocate S Sreekumar's request for a Crime Branch investigation, instead of CBI investigation. Consequently, Naveen Babu's family engaged Senior Advocate K Ramkumar to represent them.

The Division Bench of Justice P.B.Suresh Kumar and Justice Jobin Sebastian heard Senior Advocate K Ramkumar and reserved the matter for orders.

Hema Committee Report: Amicus Curiae Tells Kerala High Court That An Eminent Woman Should Lead Formulation Of Film Policy

Case Title: Navas A. @ Paichira Nivas v State of Kerala and Others

Case No: WP(C) 29846/ 2024

Advocate Mitha Sudhindran, appointed as Amicus Curiae by the special Bench hearing matters related to the Justice Hema Committee Report has suggested in her report submitted before the High Court that it would be wise to nominate a lady of eminent reputation and experience to head the formulation of film policy. The High Court in its hearing had orally remarked that State should see that the chairperson of the film policy drafting committee should be a person that inspires confidence in the women.