Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: February 24 - March 02, 2025
Tellmy Jolly
2 March 2025 1:19 PM
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131-148]Sharanya v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131Sarika S. v Radhamma and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 132Linimol K v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 133x v The Deputy Superintendent of Police and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 134Sajitha Abdul Nazar v Union of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 135Dr Ditto Tom P. v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw...
Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 131-148]
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
Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
Ashok Harry Pothen Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/S. Indian Bank, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
Judgments/Orders This Week
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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'.
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,"
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case Title: Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 144
In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court held that a prima facie opinion at the bail application stage would not impact the investigation and trial. It further observed that the trial court cannot reject legal contentions of the accused merely on the ground that they amount to a prima facie finding, as such determination is only relevant at the bail application stage.
Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan clarified that a 'prima facie opinion' by the bail court cannot be relied upon by the trial court when deciding the main case. The Court also emphasized that such a prima facie finding by bail court would not hinder investigating agency from proceeding with the investigation.
Case Title: M/s Ramanattu Motor Corp. v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 145
The Kerala High Court has explained the difference between 'non-service of notice' and 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice'.
“Lack of knowledge of service of notice can amount to a violation of principles of natural justice only in certain limited circumstances. When lack of knowledge is attributable to the default of the sender of the notice, then 'not noticing or lack of knowledge of service of notice' can amount to a negation of the principles of natural justice,” observed Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas.
Case Title: Afeefa Khadir v State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 146
The Kerala High Court has laid down that procuring and selling train tickets booked using IRCTC (Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.) website for commercial uses violates the terms and conditions specified on the IRCTC website.
Here, a petitioner lady had approached the Court for quashing proceedings against her for allegedly booking and selling online tickets without authorization from the IRCTC. Crime was registered against her under Section 143 of the Railways Act which prohibits anyone other than a railway servant or an authorized agent from procuring and supplying railway tickets.
Justice S. Manu relied upon Apex Court decision in Inspector, Railway Protection Force, Kottayam v Mathew K Cheriyan and another (2025) to state that Section 143 would also include sale of e-tickets booked through IRCTC website. Court further stated that the terms and conditions in the IRCTC website clearly mention that it can only be used for personal purposes and not for commercial purposes.
Case Title: Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd v Raphel & Co.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 147
The Kerala High Court, while explaining the scope of civil contempt jurisdiction, stated that it is intended to ensure compliance with judicial orders and not to supplement or modify earlier judicial orders. The Court emphasised that contempt proceedings cannot be used for the adjudication of new issues and for the issuance of fresh directions that are not contained in the judgement.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu stated that contempt jurisdiction is limited to determining whether there is wilful disobedience of a clear and self-evident order.
Case Title: Ashok Harry Pothen Vs. The Authorised Officer, M/S. Indian Bank
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 148
The Kerala High Court bench of Justice Gopinath P. has held that a bank can initiate proceedings under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) to recover outstanding dues if it was not a party to the resolution plan approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Court clarified that the bar against claims outside a resolution plan does not extend to third parties merely associated with the corporate debtor through agreements such as joint ventures.
Other Developments This Week
Case Title: Laly Vincent v State of Kerala
Case No: Bail Appl. 1789/2025
The Kerala High Court has allowed the anticipatory bail plea of Congress leader and lawyer Laly Vincent who is arrayed as an accused in the CSR scam case.
Ananthu Krishnan is the prime accused in the scam, who transferred ₹47,74,500 to Vincent's bank account over a period of four years.
Seeking bail, Vincent claimed that the amount was paid in exchange for her giving legal advice to Krishnan.
Justice PV Kunhikrishnan while granting her relief orally remarked, “when a lawyer says that it is my professional fees, can I say that it is not professional fees."
Case Title: Samyuktha Janakeeya Samithi v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) NO. 32407 OF 2024 & Connected Cases
Observing that it cannot remain passive to an issue which needs a lasting solution, the Kerala High Court directed the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) to co-ordinate with District Legal Services Authorities and Taluk Legal Services Authorities to conduct a survey of grievances and suggestions from people living in human-animal conflict areas.
It further directed KeLSA to inform the inhabitants of human-animal conflict areas about various compensation schemes of the Central and State governments.
The single judge bench of Justice C.S. Dias observed that inhabitants of high range and forest regions live in constant fear of fatal encounter with wild animals, which violates their fundamental rights. The Court stated that the legal heirs of deceased victims cannot be compensated by words or money and that immediate steps should be taken to find a long lasting solution to address this.
Case Title: Asha Verma v Director General of Police
Case No: WPC 7928/2025
The Kerala High Court ordered for police protection to an interfaith couple from Jharkhand who fled their home state due to threat from their families, came to Kerala and got married. The Court has also directed the police to ensure that the couples are not repatriated elsewhere during the pendency of the writ petition.
Justice C.S. Dias orally said, “Be there, if there is anything report to the 3rdrespondent (Station House Officer)”
Court further ordered thus: “On a consideration of facts and materials I am satisfied that the petitioners are entitled to an interim order. Hence, I direct the 3rd respondent (Station House Officer) to ensure to afford adequate police protection to the life of the petitioners. The 3rd respondent shall ensure that the petitioners are not repatriated to any other place during the pendency of the writ petition.”
Kerala High Court Stays Central Prison's Restriction That Jail Inmates Can Call Only BSNL Numbers
Case Title: Anas Ahmed v State of Kerala and Others
Case No: WP(C) 7918 of 2025
A Writ Petition has been filed in the Kerala High Court challenging a recent notice issued by the Superintendent of Viyyur Central Prison and Correctional Home which says that the 3 phone numbers which a prison inmate has registered for external contact should be BSNL numbers. A prison inmate is allowed to have external contact by phone with 3 registered numbers. By this notice, a restriction has been imposed which says that these numbers must be BSNL numbers. An additional restriction is also placed which says that the owners of those phone numbers should turn off call forwarding and call transferring facilities. The notice says that this restriction has been mandated based on a letter issued from the Jail Head Office.
Justice C. S. Dias on Friday (28th February) stayed the condition that the registered phone number should be BSNL number for a period of 10 days.