Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others,2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
V.T. Jinu & another v. State of Kerala & others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
Prakash Sankar v. BSNL and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
Syamlal v State of Kerala and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others , 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
Judgments/ Orders This Week
Case Title: Muhammed Rafsal v Union of India and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 269
The Kerala High Court recently ordered the re-issuance or renewal of passport against a person against whom red corner notice issued by the Interpol was pending. The submitted before the court that for the past more than 4 years, no steps have been taken by the Qatar authorities for his extradition from India.
Justice Gopinath P. relied on Bhavesh Jayanti Lakhani v State of Maharashtra (2009) where it was held that mere issuance of red corner notice is not sufficient for the arrest of a person in India. In the case it was held that unless the proceedings under Extradition Act, 1962 is initiated, a person cannot be extradited from India. The High Court held that there was no need to deny passport to the petitioner merely because a red corner notice is pending against him. The Court taking into account that Supreme Court through various cases has laid down that right to travel abroad was a part of personal liberty under Article 21, held that denial of passport services to the petitioner would be a deprivation of personal liberty.
Case Title: Vinson M. Paul v State of Kerala and Another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 270
The Kerala High Court quashed State Government’s letter to the former State Chief Information Commissioner (SCIC) informing him that he cannot be given pensionary benefits equivalent to a retired Supreme Court Judge.
Justice Harisankar V. Menon said that even after the amendment of the RTI Act, the pensionary benefits of the petitioner are unchanged on account of the 2 provisos in Section 16(5).
Case Title: V.T. Jinu & another v. State of Kerala & others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 271
The Kerala High Court refused to entertain a revision petition filed by a public servant seeking to quash a Special Court order framing charges against him under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for want of prosecution.
The complaint against the petitioner was that he, along with the deceased first accused, abused the de facto complainant while she was in official duty by calling her caste name with an intention to humiliate her in public and that they also forged documents to hold that she misappropriated some amount under 9 CB Bills, which resulted in her suspension.
The judgment was passed by Justice A. Badharudeen relying on the position of law laid down by the Apex Court in Indira Devi v. State of Rajasthan and Another, wherein it was held that the alleged acts of the officers engaged in cheating, fabrication of records, or misappropriation are not acts in discharge of their official duties.
Case Title: Prakash Sankar v. BSNL and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 272
While hearing a Writ Petition before it, the Kerala High Court held that Section 22D of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 does not grant the power of review on merits to Permanent Lok Adalats established under the Act.
Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. refused to concur with the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Estate Officer v. Charan Kaur and Others, which held that the review procedure under the Legal Services Act is more liberal than the one provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.
Case Title: P. Sankaran Namboothiri v. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. and another
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 273
The Kerala High Court recently held that it is not permissible to hold a departmental enquiry on vague charges that use words like ‘on many occasions’ and ‘in almost all’ in the memo of charge that is not brief, pointed or in clear terms.
While hearing a Writ Petition challenging the departmental enquiry and dismissal of an employee of the KSFE, Justice P. M. Manoj held that charges should always follow logically from the nature of allegations made and that if it does not, this amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
Case Title: Syamlal v State of Kerala and Others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 274
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition filed by a devotee of Oachira Parabhrama Temple seeking Court direct the Travancore Devaswom Temple to assume administration of the temple.
The Bench of Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Muralee Krishna S. said that by the order of the Civil Court, the administration of the temple has to be governed by the existing by-laws until a scheme for the administration of the temple and its institutions is made. This order was not interfered by the High Court when it was challenged in an appeal. The Court said that therefore, the petitioner could not file a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the Devaswom Board to enquire into the administration of the temple, call for periodical accounts and take over its administration.
Case Title: K. C. Sivasankara Panicker v. K. C. Vasanthakumari @ K. C. Vasanthi and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 275
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that a subsequent or second application seeking to deliver interrogatories to a party is not barred when there is a subsequent cause of action or changed circumstances.
Justice K Babu dismissed the Original Petition challenging the order of the Trial Court that permitted the respondent (plaintiff) to deliver interrogatories to the petitioner (defendant), and refused to interfere with the trial court’s order.
Case Title: Dr. Muhammed Thaha v. The Director of Collegiate Education and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 276
The Kerala High Court in a recent decision held that the Public Information Officer does not have any power or duty under section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to open up an investigation while processing and disposing RTI Applications.
The judgment was passed by Justice N. Nagaresh while hearing a Writ Petition seeking a direction against the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal of the respondent College.
Case Title: Rashida K. and others v. N. Sidrathul Munthaha and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 277
The Kerala High Court recently found that the appointment of a manager by the owner after receiving title of property of an aided school was void under S. 6 of the Kerala Education Act since no previous permission was obtained from the government before obtaining the title.
In a Writ Appeal preferred by the teachers of the said aided school, the Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaqueand Justice P. Krishna Kumar considered the challenge to the appointment of the manager of the school by the current owner in the light of S. 6 of the KEA.
Case Title: P.D. Parameswaran Pillai and others v. T.N. Ramachandran Nair and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 278
The Kerala High Court has held that the aiding provision of Section 70 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or the corresponding Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot be resorted to by the propounder of a Will by diluting the mandatory provisions under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
Justice M.A. Abdul Hakim clarified the position of law while hearing a second appeal and observed that:
“When one of the attesting witnesses is examined, and he denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, the second attesting witness is to be examined if he is alive and capable of giving evidence. If the second attesting witness also denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, the propounder can resort to the aid of Section 70 of the BSA. If the attesting witness deposes that he has seen the testator signing the document, but his evidence is deficient to prove compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, such deficiency could not be filled up by resorting to Section 70 of the BSA.”
