July 28 – August 03, 2025
Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
Angels Nair v The Principal Secretary and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
Aryadan Shouketh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
Anila and Ors v Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and Anr, 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 462
Daleel Ahmmed and Ors. v. National Medical Commission, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
Advocate Boris Paul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
Noorudheen v State of Kerala and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Pradeep Kumar P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee v State of Kerala and Ors
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 458
The Kerala High Court quashed an order passed by Kannur University, which reviewed its own earlier order, and thereafter vested the ownership of Sharaf Arts and Science College Padne with the ‘Khidmath Organisation of Padne’, which was earlier vested with Sharaf Arts and Science College Committee.
Justice D K Singh delivered the judgment while dealing with the question whether a statutory authority such as a University can review its own decision in the absence of express statutory authorisation to do so.
Case Title: Angels Nair v The Principal Secretary and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 459
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) held that the government order, which permitted shooting of commercial films and TV serials in forest areas, national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and tiger reserves, did not have the force of law.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji disposed of the writ appeal filed against the Single Bench order which had directed the Central and State governments, and the top forest department officials to consider whether any further additional conditions need be imposed in the matter while granting permission to use the forest for non-forest activities so that no damage is caused to the forest and wildlife.
Case Title: Aryadan Shouketh and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 460
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) disposed of a PIL filed by Nilambur MLA Aryadan Shouketh for the betterment of tribal persons residing in the Nilambur Taluk with the observation that the MLA himself should take steps to address the issues raised in his petition.
Case Title: Domestic On-Grid Solar Power Prosumers Forum Kerala v. Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 461
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) ordered the Kerala State Electricity Regulatory Commission to conduct hybrid public hearings instead of online hearings alone while considering the revision of the Renewable Energy Regulations.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji observed that physical hearings may be held at Kozhikode, Palakkad, Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram and left it open to the Commission to decide the venue and timings of the hearing
Case Title – Anila and Ors v Maintenance Tribunal and Sub Divisional Magistrate and Anr
Citation – 2025 Livelaw (Ker) 462
Dismissing a woman’s plea against an order permitting her mother-in-law to reside in a portion of the shared family house, the Kerala High Court observed that a purposive interpretation should be given to the term “children” under Senior Citizens Act to also include “daughter-in-law”, depending on the facts and circumstances.
Justice Viju Abraham, delivered the judgment while dealing with the question whether a senior citizen could invoke the Senior Citizen Act against a daughter-in-law, and does such an order come in conflict with the rights granted under the Domestic Violence Act.
Case Title: Daleel Ahmmed and Ors. v. National Medical Commission
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 463
The Kerala High Court recently directed the Kerala State Medical Councils and the Director of Medical Education to process the registration applications of certain foreign medical graduates (FMGs) to join CMRI internship without mandating them to undergo a compulsory 2 year “Clinical Clerkship Program”.
Justice N Nagaresh, held the “Clinical Clerkship” is not required for the petitioner foreign medical graduates as they have compensated their online classes with physical classes in their parent institutions.
Case Title: S.P. Faizal v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 464
The Kerala High Court, overruling its earlier decision in C.P. Rasheed v. State of Kerala, has held that input tax credit can be availed under the Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003 if the purchaser has genuine tax invoices even if the seller fails to remit tax.
Justices Devan Ramachandran, Gopinath P. and Mohammed Nias C.P. was addressing the issue of whether a purchasing dealer, who has otherwise complied with all statutory requirements, can legitimately be denied the benefit of input tax credit solely on the ground that the selling dealer failed to remit the tax collected.
Case Title: Advocate Boris Paul and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 465
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday (July 29) directed the State government and the State Wetland Authority to constitute a specific unit for the conservation of Ashtamudi Wetland, namely, Ashtamudi Wetland Management Unit.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a plea by Advocate Boris Paul, former President of the Kollam Bar Association, against waste dumping and illegal encroachments in the Ashtamudi lake causing water pollution and destruction of mangrove forests.
Case Title: Susan Thomas v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 466
In a case concerning prosecution of a dissolved company accused of cheating various nursing aspirants of over Rs 100 crore, the Kerala High Court recommended to the Parliament to amend the criminal procedural law and if need be special statutes, for effective prosecution of dissolved companies.
Justice A. Badharudeen in his order observed that Section 70 of PMLA Act does not distinguish a company as existing company or non existing company; at the same time, the “procedure law is silent” on how a company or corporation or society is prosecuted
Case Title: Anju C.S. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 467
The Kerala High Court has declined the plea for emergency leave preferred by the wife of Sijith @ Annan Sijith, who is presently undergoing life imprisonment in the T.P. Chandrasekharan murder case for attending the ‘choroonu’ ceremony of his child.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan noted that Sijith was already granted emergency leave for 10 days at the time of delivery of the child, around 6 months back and observed that paroles can be granted only in extraordinary situations and declined parole for the present ceremony.
Case Title: Saji John and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 468
The Kerala High Court recently held that a magistrate must give an opportunity of hearing to the accused person before taking cognizance of an offence based on a complaint. The Court found that this is a mandate under the proviso to Section 233 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023.
Justice Badharudeen observed:
“Thus, the crucial aspect of Section 223(1) is the first proviso, which mandates that the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence without first giving the accused an opportunity to be heard. This is a significant departure from the provisions of the Cr.P.C, which did not mandate this pre-cognizance hearing for the accused.”
Case Title – Noorudheen v State of Kerala and Anr
Citation – 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 469
The Kerala High Court has reiterated that the service of notice on relative of accused, raising demand on dishonour of cheque, is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unless it is shown that the accused had knowledge of such notice.
Justice P V Kunhikrishnan, reaffirmed the law on service of notice under section 138 as laid down by the high court in Saju v Shalimar Hardware (2025).
Case Title – K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr
Citation – 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 470
Kerala High Court held that mere publication of a news item in a newspaper regarding a worker’s dismissal does not amount to formal service of the dismissal order and hence does not trigger the limitation under section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Justice K Babu, clarified the legal interpretation of the limitation period under the Industrial Disputes Act while setting aside a Labour Court decision that dismissed a challenge to dismissal as time-barred.
Case Title: Pradeep Kumar P. and Ors. v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 471
The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (July 30) disposed of a PIL which sought a direction to the NHAI (National Highways Authority of India), MoEF (Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change) and other authorities, to stop the unscientific and excessive soil extraction done in Chelannoor Village of Kozhikode in connection with the construction of National Highway from Kasargod to Thiruvananthapuram.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji looked into Rule 10(i) of the Kerala Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2015 and considered how this mandate can be implemented when quarrying is conducted along the stretch of a road.
Case Title: Shiju Krishnan v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 472
The Kerala High Court has recently held that the powers under Section 311 CrPC or corresponding Section 348 BNSS cannot be invoked to recall a POCSO or rape victim for further cross-examination for changing the evidence given during trial.
Justice G. Girish reiterated the settled-position that the powers under Section 311 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked in a routine manner, and can only be exercised if there are valid and sufficient grounds. The judge opined that the petitioner’s attempt to compel the victim to state that the incident of rape did not occur amounted to degrading the sanctity and credibility of judicial proceedings.
Case Title: Unnikrishna Pillai v. Janaki Amma @ Janamma Amma and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 473
The Kerala High Court recently held that presence of other children is not a valid defence against a mother’s plea seeking maintenance from her son.
Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan dismissed a revision petition filed by the son challenging maintenance of Rs. 2000 granted by the Family Court to the 100-year-old mother.
It refused to accept the argument of the petitioner that the mother (respondent 1) was living with one of her other sons and that there were old children capable of maintaining her.
Case Title: Jaju Babu v. NCLT & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 474
The present writ petition was filed seeking the quashing of an order passed by the NCLT, Kochi Bench. By that impugned order, the adjudicating authority has directed the resolution professional to reject the claim filed by the home buyers, including the petitioner.
Justice T.R. Ravi observed that in the present case the final hearing was concluded and then the order was passed, based upon the affidavit of the respondent. The bench noted that it is evident from the admitted facts that the adjudicating authority has accepted and recorded the affidavit that was filed after the hearing, and the order itself has been issued relying on the contents of the said affidavit. The bench noted the adjudicating authority should have heard the petitioner and like persons on the contents of the affidavit.
Case Title: Adv. George Pulikuthiyil v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 475
The Kerala High Court recently passed a judgment directing the State government to constitute a committee to look into the independence of the Social Audit Society under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee (MGNREGA) Scheme.
The Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was considering a PIL filed by Adv. George Pulikuthiyil, former ombudsman of the MGNREGA Kerala State Mission.
Case Title: Margret @ Thankam v. Joseph Mathew Chettupuzha
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 476
The Kerala High Court recently held that in the absence of a notification recognizing a foreign country as a reciprocating country, an Indian court cannot recognize a power-of-attorney executed by a foreign notary public.
Justice K. Babu observed, “I am of the considered view that the mandate of Section 57(6) of the Indian Evidence Act that the Court shall take judicial notice of the seals of notaries public can be made applicable to a power of attorney executed before a notary public in a foreign country only if the foreign country is a reciprocating country. In the absence of proof of reciprocation of the foreign country where the power of attorney was executed before the notary public the presumption regarding identification and authentication as provided in Section 85 of the Evidence Act would not arise.”
Other Important Developments This Week
Case Title: Keerthana Sarin v State of Kerala and Connected Cases
Case No: WP(C) 21206/ 2025 and connected cases
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) accepted State government’s suggestion for the formation of an interim committee by the high court to look into and curb stray dog attacks in the State.
The court further directed the State government to file an affidavit on the number of stray dog attacks in the State for the last year including the compensation paid to the victims.
Justice C S Dias was hearing the matter relating to Stray dog attacks in the State.
Case Title: Kulathoor Jaisingh v State of Kerala and Ors
Case No: WP(C) 32493/2019
The Kerala High Court on Monday (July 28) granted time to the state government to finalize comprehensive guidelines to tackle snake bites and its treatment.
The division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, were hearing a petition on the issue of basic health care in relation to snake bites, which arose after an incident involving snake bite to a student in 2019.
Case Title: Navas A. v. State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) No. 45335/ 2024
The Advocate General (AG) K. Gopalakrishna Kurup on Monday (July 28) told the Kerala High Court that the state government can consider passing a simplicitor order ratifying the appointment of the Ex-Officio Secretary who had signed the government order appointing former Finance Minister Dr. Thomas Isaac as advisor to the Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM).
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was hearing a public interest litigation challenging an order passed by the Ex-Officio Secretary, Department of Planning and Economic Affairs (Development & Innovation), appointing Respondent No.5 Dr Thomas Isaac as an advisor to coordinate the activities of the Vinjana Keralam a part of the Kerala Knowledge Economy Mission (KKEM).
Case Title: C P Ajithkumar v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 32680/ 2008
The Kerala High Court has come down heavily on government authorities over the deteriorating condition of roads and the increasing number of accidents in the State, particularly those involving heavy vehicles and reckless driving.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing the matter, which was taken up following a mention by the amicus curiae last week, highlighting a “spate of accidents” owing to poor road maintenance and rampant traffic violations. Reports presented by the amicus curiae substantiated these concerns, prompting the court to initiate urgent judicial scrutiny.
Plea In Kerala High Court Challenges Mandate Of GPS/ Tracking Devices In Heavy Vehicles
Case Title: T.K. Radhamani and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) No. 27611 of 2025
The partners of A2Z Motor Driving School have approached the Kerala High Court challenging Rule 151A of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules (KMV Rules), 1989 which mandates certain categories of vehicles with the exception of two-wheelers, e-rickshaws, three-wheelers, vehicles that do not require permit under under the Act, to be equipped with vehicle location tracking device (VLTD) and emergency buttons.
When the case came up for admission on Monday (July 28) before Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., the judge ordered notice in the case. The DSGI took notice for the 1st respondent, Union of India and the Government Pleader took notice for respondents 2 to 5.
Case Title: Keerthana Sarin v State of Kerala and Connected Cases
Case Number: WP(C) 21206/ 2025 and connected cases
The Kerala High Court has deferred the Government of Kerala’s decision to implement euthanasia of stray dogs under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Animal Husbandary Practice and Procedures) Rules, 2023.
Justice C.S Dias, hearing a batch of writ petitions addressing the growing number of stray dog attacks in Kerala, issued a common order, staying clause 9 of the Government Order, which cited Rule 8 of the 2023 Rules allowing euthanasia under specific conditions.
Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) 87/2025
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 31) directed the District Collector, Deputy Director of Education, Principal Agricultural officers, Tahsildars, Panchayat, Padasekhara Samithi and the Executive Engineer to take immediate action for resolving the issue of waterlogging in SNDP Higher Secondary School in Kuttanad district of Alappuzha.
A division bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji were considering a suo motu PIL initiated after receipt of a letter from the teachers and students of the aforesaid school regarding flooding and interruption of classes.
Case Title: Prof. Dr. K S Anilkumar v The University of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 28246/ 2025
Prof. Dr. K.S. Anilkumar, the Registrar of the University of Kerala, has approached the High Court challenging his continued suspension despite a formal revocation of the same by the University Syndicate.
The writ petition was filed seeking to quash several orders issued by the Vice Chancellor that prevented him from rejoining duty.
Justice T R Ravi, admitted the matter and issued notice to the respondents..
Case Title: St. Stephen’s Malankara Catholic Church v State of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 22750/ 2018
The Kerala High Court on Thursday expressed dissatisfaction over the audit report submitted in connection with public complaints registered through the K Smart platform, observing that the current submission fails to meet the standards previously set by the Court.
Justice Devan Ramachandran was hearing matters concerning unauthorised bill boards and banners in public places.
Case Title: Vadavathi Rajeevan and Ors. v. K. Vanaja and Ors.
Case Number: ICR (OP (RC) ) 12/2025 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Thursday (July 31) constituted a Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar, Justice Gopinath P. and Justice G. Girish to consider the question whether a further Notification under Section 1(3) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease And Rent Control) Act, 1965 would be required if a Panchayat becomes a Municipality, to make the Act applicable to the area.
The present petition was filed by the tenants of a building seeking to stay the execution proceedings in EP No.402/2023 before the Munsiff Court, Kuthuparamba, including the delivery of possession of the building. They also prayed for a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive step based on the eviction order passed in the suit, and thereafter, confirmed in appeal and revision.
Case Title: Tellmy Jolly v. Union of India and Ors.
Case No: WP(PIL) No. 91/2025
A law graduate and public policy professional has moved the Kerala High Court seeking a direction to the State to bring in accountability regarding the complaints made pursuant to Rule 5 of the Kerala Dowry Prohibition Rules, 2004 and the action taken on the same.
When the matter came up before the Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji, the Court thought it appropriate to consider only the prayer regarding publication of data on complaints and actions taken for the time being.
Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case
Case No: DBP No. 30 of 2024 and connected case
The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 1) asked the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) to clarify its stand regarding the proposed ropeway from Hilltop to Sannidhanam (Sabarimala) via Pamba, Neelimala, Charalmedu and Marakoottam.
The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar was considering a suo motu petition regarding the construction of the said ropeway based on the reports submitted by the Advocate Commissioner.
Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala and Ors.
Case No: WP(C) 36780/ 2017
The Kerala High Court on Friday granted time to the State government for developing a database on the legal heirs of prison inmates, after it was informed that directions had been issued to concerned district collectors to collect the requisite information.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji was hearing an ongoing suo motu case concerning custodial deaths and compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased inmates.
Case Title: Hiran Das Murali v. State of Kerala and Anr.
Case No: Bail Appl. No. 9377/2025
Rapper Vedan, officially known as Hiran Das, has moved the Kerala High Court on Friday (August 1) after a case was registered against him by the Thrikkakkara Police on the basis of a complaint made by a young doctor alleging that he had raped her on the false promise of marriage.
FIR was registered against him under Sections 376 [Punishment for rape] and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: In Re: Prevention and Management of Natural Disasters in Kerala v. State Of Kerala
Case No: WP(C) 28509/ 2024 & Connected Cases
The Additional Secretary, Disaster Management department of the State government has submitted an affidavit before the Kerala High Court upon its direction to file a report regarding the manner of utilisation of the amount of Rs. 120 crores, which was permitted to be utilised in connection with the rehabilitation works in Wayanad.
The Division Bench of Dr. Justice Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian was considering a suo motu case initiated by the High Court to prevent and manage natural disasters in Kerala after the Wayanad landslides.