Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

Nominal Index [Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643 - 657]Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643Rajasimhan v. Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645 Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646 Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 648Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 649Shoranur Metal Industries LLP and Anr. v. The Metal Industries Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 650Jaimon Joseph v. KSRTC and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 651State of Kerala v Anil Kumar @ Kolusu Babu and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 652SJR Kumar v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 653Shinoj v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 654Bar Council of India v. Yeshwanth Shenoy, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 655P T Babu v Vijaya Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 456XXX v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 657Judgments/ Orders This WeekKerala High Court Closes Plea Seeking Conduct Of Enrollment After Bar Council Of Kerala Enrols New Batch Of AdvocatesCase Title: Stephen V Thomas v Bar Council of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 643The Kerala High Court has closed a plea seeking to conduct enrollment of law graduates to the Bar Council of Kerala.Justice N Nagaresh closed the matter after the counsel for the petitioner told the court that the enrollment for the new batch of advocates had been conducted on 11 and 12th October 2025.The Court has previously invoked Section 58 of the Advocates Act to protect the interests of law graduates awaiting enrollment and has directed the Bar Council of Kerala to conduct enrollment of advocates.Kerala High Court Dismisses PIL Against Arundhati Roy's 'Mother Mary Comes To Me'Case Title: Rajasimhan v. Union of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 644The Kerala High Court on Monday (October 13) dismissed the Public Interest Litigation filed seeking action against author Arundhati Roy's book 'Mother Mary Comes To Me' for having a photo of the author smoking on the cover. The petitioner had sought a stay on the book's sale without a statutory label.The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji delivered the judgment. "Authorities Must Prevent Unauthorised Constructions": Kerala High Court Orders Restoration Of Mangrove In KunhimangalamCase Title: P P Rajan v State of Kerala and Ors.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 645The Kerala High Court has observed that the state Authorities are under a statutory mandate to ensure unauthorised constructions are prevented in protected zones under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 read with Coastal Regulation Zone Notifications.The observations were made by the division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, while delivering judgment in a public interest litigation filed by an agriculturist from Kannur who alleged large-scale destruction of thick mangroves classified under Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) I A and I B in Kunhimangalam Village by two private individuals for commercial real estate development.Violation Of Mandate U/S 53A & S.38 Abkari Act Gives Benefit Of Doubt To Accused: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Prabhu Prakash and Anr. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 646The Kerala High Court has recently held that when there is a violation of the mandate under Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Court was considering an appeal preferred by two persons, who were convicted of the offence under Section 8(2) of the Act.Justice Johnson John observed: “As noticed earlier, in this case, there is violation of the mandate of Sections 53A and 38 of the Abkari Act and there is also no satisfactory evidence to establish a fool proof chain of custody to prove that it was the sample taken from the contraband liquor which ultimately reached the hands of the chemical examiner in a fool proof condition and therefore, I find that the appellants are entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt.”Kerala High Court Sets Aside Injunction Against Forcible Possession Of Elephant Obtained By Suppressing Material Facts About Earlier CasesCase Title: Jayakrishna Menon v. Krishnankutty and Anr.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 647The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment setting aside an ad-interim injunction granted against the defendants from taking forcible possession of an elephant in the plaintiff's custody after noting that the impugned order was obtained through suppression of material facts regarding earlier litigation.Justice M.A. Abdul Hakhim further opined that since the plaintiff came before court with unclean hands, he is not entitled to a relief of fresh consideration by the trial court. He also clarified that the trial court has to dispose of the suit untrammeled by the observations in the judgment.[SARFAESI Act] HC Cannot Interfere In...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 13 - October 19, 2025

Anamika MJ

Tags