Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 1644
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
STATE OF KERALA – Appellant
Versus
PRITHVIK K J – Respondent
RP NO. 1511 OF 2025 | WP(Crl.) NO.1032 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: ADV GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For the Respondents: ADV.SRI.P.NARAYANAN-SPL PP
The court emphasized the necessity of considering multiple apex court decisions when reviewing police actions related to legal directives.
Headnote:This review petition is presented to revisit the judgment dated 10.10.2025 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1032/2025 concerning the State Police Chief’s direction to reconsider the petitioner’s request. The Court addressed the Public Prosecutor's claim that other apex court judgments were not consulted. The Court concluded that a review is unnecessary but requires the State Police Chief to apply additional relevant precedents in resolving the matter with promptness. The judgment mandates timely compliance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review petition presented to reconsider previous judgment. (Para 1) |
| 2. contention raised regarding non-consideration of other judgments. (Para 2) |
| 3. court's decision to not review the judgment but instruct additional considerations. (Para 3) |
ORDER
This review petition is filed to review the judgment dated 10.10.2025 in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1032/2025. This Court as per the judgment directed the State Police Chief to reconsider a request made by the writ petitioner, in the light of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Ravinder Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab [ 2025 (4) KHC 345 ].
2. The Public Prosecutor submitted that there are other judgments also by the Apex Court and the same is not considered by this Court and that is why the review petition is filed.
3. Heard the learned Public Prosecutor and the counsel appearing for the writ petitioner.
After hearing both sides, I am of the considered opinion that the judgment need not be reviewed by this Court. But, the 2nd respondent in the writ petition will consider the dictum laid down by the Apex Court inAnubhav Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh [ 2022 KHC 8024 ] andNarinderjit Singh Sahni and anr. v.Union of India & others [ 2002 (2) SCC 210 ] and also the judgment inState (NCT) of Delhi v. Khimji Bhai Jadeja [SLP(Crl.) No. 9198/2019]. The dictum laid down in these judgments also will be considered by the 2nd respondent in the writ petition while deciding the matter in the light of the principle laid down inRavinder Singh Sidhu's case (Supra). Necessary orders shall be passed by the State Police Chief, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the above observation, this review petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
