Kerala High Court’s October Rulings: From Mohanlal’s Ivory Case to Landmark Judgments on BNSS and Insurance Rights - 2025-11-02

Kerala High Court’s October Rulings: From Mohanlal’s Ivory Case to Landmark Judgments on BNSS and Insurance Rights

Kochi, India – The Kerala High Court delivered a series of significant judgments in October 2025, shaping legal discourse across a spectrum of issues including criminal procedure under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the fundamental right to health in insurance disputes, and high-profile cases involving public figures. The month’s rulings provided crucial clarifications on tax law, family law, and administrative accountability, reinforcing the court's role in interpreting statutes and safeguarding constitutional rights.

Among the most notable decisions, the court quashed the ownership certificates issued to actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory, reversed the acquittal in the tragic Adhithi murder case, and held that the denial of medical insurance claims can amount to a violation of the right to life under Article 21.

Constitutional and Administrative Law Highlights

The court's docket was replete with matters touching upon fundamental rights and the exercise of state power. In a landmark ruling, the court upheld the 2025 hike in court fees, dismissing a PIL by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association. The bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji held that the state legislature possessed the competence to amend the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, noting that a broad correlation between the fees collected and the cost of administering justice is sufficient, without needing mathematical exactitude ( Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others ).

In a decision with significant implications for insurance policyholders, Justice P.M. Manoj declared that the arbitrary denial of medical insurance claims infringes upon the right to life and health guaranteed by Article 21. Quashing LIC's repudiation of a claim, the court observed, "once an insured person has undergone treatment or surgery based on the expert opinion of a qualified medical professional, the insurer cannot arbitrarily reject the claim." The court stressed that such arbitrary repudiations defeat the very object of insurance ( Dr. A M Muraleedharan v The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC .

The principle of equality under Article 14 was affirmed in a case concerning ex-servicemen. Justice N. Nagaresh held that retired personnel of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) are entitled to purchase liquor from canteens of other Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), ruling that denying them this facility, while extending it to retirees of other CAPFs, constituted hostile discrimination ( CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India & Ors. ).

High-Profile Cases and Criminal Law Jurisprudence

October saw the resolution of several closely watched cases. A Division Bench comprising Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian quashed the ownership certificates granted to actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory, declaring the government orders sanctioning them as "void" and the certificates "illegal and unenforceable" ( James Mathew v. State of Kerala ).

In a poignant reversal of justice, the court overturned the acquittal of a father and step-mother in the 2013 murder of six-year-old Adhithi. The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar found the Sessions Court's decision flawed, convicted the duo under Section 302 IPC, and sentenced them to life imprisonment, bringing a long-awaited conclusion to the case ( State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri and Anr. ).

The court also interpreted provisions of the new criminal codes. In Rameshan v State of Kerala , Justice C.S. Dias held that under Section 351 of the BNSS, an accused exempted from personal appearance can answer questions through a written statement or via video linkage. Further, in a crucial ruling on statutory bail, Justice K. Babu clarified that the period an accused is on interim bail cannot be computed as part of the 'detention period' for granting default bail under Section 187 of the BNSS ( Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala and Anr. .

Rulings on Civil, Commercial, and Tax Law

The court provided significant guidance on commercial and financial laws. Reaffirming the primacy of statutory remedies, a Division Bench reiterated that High Courts should not interfere in commercial matters under Article 226 when an effective remedy is available before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act ( Kerala Bank and Anr v Jishith Kumar . In another SARFAESI-related matter, Justice Mohammed Nias C.P. clarified that the term "debt due" for the purpose of pre-deposit under Section 18(1) includes future interest accrued up to the date of filing the appeal, not just the amount in the initial demand notice ( Mini Zakir v M/S Phoenix Arc Private Limited .

In the realm of tax law, the court delivered several key interpretations:

- GST: Printing digital images on paper was classified as a service attracting 18% GST, not a supply of goods at 12% ( M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner .

- Income Tax: A Division Bench held that voluntarily filed returns cannot be revised by submitting additional evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules ( Sravan Kumar Neela v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax ). It also ruled that Section 263 can be invoked to revise an assessment when the Assessing Officer fails to address a core issue in the order ( Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax ).

Family and Personal Law

The court continued to address complex and sensitive family law issues. In a significant pronouncement on mental cruelty, the Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar held that the ill-treatment of children by one spouse constitutes mental cruelty towards the other, serving as a valid ground for divorce under the Divorce Act, 1869 ( Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v Varghese P Kuriakose .

Another bench, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha , observed that an unfounded suspicion of infidelity by a husband can turn matrimonial life into a "living hell" and is a serious form of cruelty, granting divorce to the wife ( XXX v YYY ). The same bench also clarified that in cases of divorce by 'khula', the return of 'mahar' can be ascertained from the statements of the parties and is not solely dependent on its mention in the 'Khula Nama' ( Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K. ).

The month of October 2025 demonstrated the Kerala High Court's continued engagement with a diverse array of legal challenges, providing clarity for litigants and the legal fraternity while reinforcing foundational principles of justice, fairness, and constitutionalism.