Kerala High Court Quashes Mohanlal's Ivory Certificates, Tackles Temple Priest Lineage, and Interprets New BNSS

Kochi, Kerala – In a week marked by high-profile verdicts and significant statutory interpretations, the Kerala High Court delivered a series of impactful judgments, reinforcing principles of administrative accountability, constitutional equality, and procedural fairness. The court quashed the government-issued ownership certificates for ivory possessed by actor Mohanlal, dismissed a challenge to the appointment of temple priests from non-traditional lineages, and provided crucial guidance on the application of the new Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

These rulings, among a host of others from October 20 to October 25, 2025, have far-reaching implications for criminal law practitioners, constitutional experts, and administrative bodies.

Landmark Verdicts Shake Administrative and Religious Spheres

Mohanlal's Ivory Ownership Certificates Declared "Illegal and Unenforceable"

In a major setback for Malayalam superstar Mohanlal, a Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian struck down the ownership certificates granted to him by the state government for possessing ivory. The court, in its judgment in James Mathew v. State of Kerala , held the government orders sanctioning the certificates to be "void" and the subsequent certificates "illegal and unenforceable in law." This decision brings to a close a long-standing legal battle over the actor's possession of elephant tusks, a matter that has drawn significant public and media attention. The verdict underscores the judiciary's role in scrutinizing executive actions, particularly in matters of environmental and wildlife protection laws, and affirms that procedural lapses in granting such permissions cannot be overlooked.

Court Upholds Merit Over Lineage in Temple Priest Appointments

In a socially significant ruling with deep constitutional undertones, the High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam, which challenged the recognition of 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' and the qualifications they provide for appointing temple priests ( Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam and Anr. v. State of Kerala ). The petitioners argued that appointments must adhere to traditional practices.

However, the Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan and Justice K.V. Jayakumar firmly held that "there was no essential religious practice that a temple priest must be from a particular caste or lineage." The court rejected the argument that traditional practices could not be regulated by subordinate legislation, thereby paving the way for qualified individuals from any background to be appointed as priests, provided they have the requisite training from recognized institutions. This judgment reinforces the constitutional mandate of equality and challenges age-old customs that restrict roles based on birth, aligning religious appointments with principles of merit and non-discrimination.

Navigating the New Criminal Code: BNSS Interpretations

As the legal fraternity adapts to the new criminal justice framework, the Kerala High Court has begun to lay down important precedents interpreting the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

• Virtual Examination of Accused: In Rameshan v State of Kerala , Justice C.S. Dias ruled that an accused person who has been exempted from personal appearance can answer questions under Section 351 of the BNSS (equivalent to Section 313 CrPC) either through a written statement or via video conferencing. This pragmatic interpretation facilitates the smooth functioning of trials while accommodating accused persons who are unable to be physically present, leveraging technology to ensure procedural compliance without causing undue hardship.

• Interim Bail Period Excluded from Statutory Bail Calculation: Justice K. Babu, in Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala , clarified a critical aspect of default bail under Section 187 of the BNSS. The court held that any period during which an accused is released on interim bail cannot be counted as part of the 'detention period' for the purpose of granting statutory bail. The ruling emphasizes that only the actual period of physical custody counts, preventing accused individuals from leveraging interim releases to claim a right to default bail.

• Limits on Executive Magistrates' Powers: Justice V.G. Arun clarified the scope of Section 130 of the BNSS in M.V. Nithamol v State of Kerala , holding that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke preventive powers in purely private disputes like cheating unless there is a tangible threat to public peace. This decision acts as a crucial check on the powers of the executive, ensuring that provisions meant to maintain public order are not misused to settle private civil or commercial grievances.

Key Rulings on Evidence, Taxation, and Debt Recovery

The High Court also delivered several other judgments this week with significant implications for legal practice.

Evidence and Criminal Procedure

In a ruling that will aid defence lawyers, the court in Anu C.R. v. State of Kerala held that photographs and site plans of a crime scene are relevant documents that can be used to confront a prosecution witness during cross-examination under the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), even if the documents did not originate from the witness. This clarifies the scope of cross-examination and the materials that can be permissibly used to test the veracity of a witness's testimony.

Further, in Selvan v. State of Kerala , the court reiterated a fundamental principle of evidence law, clarifying that information leading to a discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, if given by one accused, cannot be used to connect all accused persons to the offence. Justice P.V. Balakrishnan remarked that "it is impossible to believe that all accused persons spoke simultaneously and in one voice," underscoring the need for precise and separate recording of confessional statements.

Taxation and Finance

• Reopening Tax Assessments: A Division Bench held in Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax that the non-production of Form 3CL is not "material suppression" and cannot be a ground to reopen an assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act beyond the four-year limitation period. This provides relief to assessees by curtailing the power of tax authorities to reopen assessments on procedural grounds.

• Debt Recovery under SARFAESI: Justice Mohammed Nias C.P., in Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited , interpreted the term "debt due" under Section 18(1) of the SARFAESI Act. The court held that the mandatory pre-deposit for filing an appeal includes not just the amount in the demand notice but also the interest that has accrued up to the date of filing the appeal, a clarification that will impact litigants before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal.

Other Notable Developments

• Ex-CISF Personnel Entitled to Liquor from CAPF Canteens: Finding the denial to be a violation of Article 14, Justice N. Nagaresh directed that retired personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) be allowed to purchase liquor from Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) canteens, ending what the court termed "hostile discrimination."

• Environmental Clearance for NHAI Projects: In a significant environmental law matter, a Division Bench ruled that NHAI concessionaires with work orders issued before March 21, 2024, do not require separate Environmental Clearance for extracting earth for linear projects, providing clarity and expediting infrastructure development.

• Order for Transgender Seats in Law Colleges: In a progressive move, Justice V.G. Arun passed an interim order directing the Bar Council of India to approve the Kerala government's request to create two supernumerary seats for transgender students in all law colleges in the state, stating, "Can't Wait Endlessly."

This week's proceedings at the Kerala High Court reflect a judiciary actively engaged in interpreting new laws, safeguarding constitutional principles, and ensuring accountability across administrative, religious, and commercial domains. The judgments collectively contribute to a growing body of jurisprudence that will guide legal practitioners and shape public policy in the state and beyond.