Kerala High Court's October Rulings: Mohanlal's Ivory Certificates Quashed, Court Fee Hike Upheld, and Key BNSS Interpretations

Kochi, Kerala – The Kerala High Court delivered a series of impactful judgments in October 2025, shaping legal discourse across criminal, constitutional, and civil law. The month was marked by high-profile decisions, including the quashing of ivory ownership certificates issued to actor Mohanlal, the upholding of a controversial court fee hike, and crucial early interpretations of the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court also reinforced fundamental rights, particularly in the context of insurance claims, and addressed sensitive issues of religious practice and evidence admissibility.

---

High-Profile Cases: Celebrity Ivory and Cricket Corruption

In a significant verdict with implications for wildlife law enforcement, the High Court invalidated the ownership certificates granted to Malayalam actor Mohanlal for possessing ivory. The Division Bench of Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian , in James Mathew v. State of Kerala , held that the government orders and certificates issued in 2016 were "void," "illegal and unenforceable." This decision scrutinizes the executive's power to grant exemptions under wildlife protection statutes and re-emphasizes the stringent regulations surrounding the possession of animal articles.

The Court also revisited a major corruption case, setting aside a 2015 Single Bench judgment that had quashed a vigilance case against office bearers of the Kerala Cricket Association (KCA). In Harish V. v. T.C. Mathew , the bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Jobin Sebastian allowed the appeals, effectively reviving the investigation and dismissing the writ petitions that had previously shielded KCA officials from scrutiny. The ruling re-asserts the accountability of sports bodies and their officials under anti-corruption laws.

Interpreting New Criminal Codes: The BNSS in Focus

October saw the High Court delivering some of the first key interpretations of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In a ruling that clarifies the limits of executive magisterial power, Justice V.G. Arun held that Executive Magistrates cannot invoke Section 130 of the BNSS in purely private disputes. The case, M.V. Nithamol v. State of Kerala , establishes that powers intended to maintain public peace and tranquility cannot be applied to civil matters like cheating or breach of trust unless a demonstrable threat to public order exists.

The Court also addressed procedural nuances under the new code. In Rameshan v. State of Kerala , Justice C.S. Dias clarified that an accused who has been exempted from personal appearance can answer questions under Section 351 BNSS (akin to Section 313 CrPC) through a written statement or via video conferencing, enhancing procedural flexibility.

Furthermore, in Fisal P.J. v. State of Kerala , Justice K. Babu ruled on the calculation for statutory bail under Section 187 BNSS. The Court held that any period an accused is released on interim bail cannot be counted as part of the "detention period," a crucial clarification for determining eligibility for default bail.

Constitutional Principles and Individual Rights

The judiciary’s role as a protector of fundamental rights was prominently displayed in several judgments. In a landmark decision, the Court linked the denial of medical insurance to the right to life under Article 21. In Dr. A M Muraleedharan v. The Senior Divisional Manager, LIC , Justice P.M. Manoj observed:

"Denial of insurance claim for medical treatment amounts to violation of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution... 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 same case saw the Court express concern over insurers like LIC denying claims on trivial grounds, stating that such arbitrary repudiations "defeat the very object of insurance."

The Court also reinforced principles of equality, holding in CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v. Union of India that retired CISF personnel are entitled to purchase liquor from Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) canteens. Justice N. Nagaresh found that denying them this facility, while extending it to retirees of other CAPFs, amounted to hostile discrimination and a violation of Article 14.

Major Rulings on Religious Practice and Justice Administration

In a socially significant judgment, the High Court dismissed a plea by the Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam challenging the recognition of 'Thanthra Vidyalayas' for training temple priests. The Division Bench in Akhila Kerala Thanthri Samajam v. State of Kerala held that there is "no essential religious practice that a temple priest must be from a particular caste or lineage," thereby upholding the appointment of qualified priests irrespective of their caste background and approving modern institutions that impart such training.

In a decision directly impacting the legal fraternity, the Court upheld the state's recent amendment to the Kerala Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act, which significantly increased court fees. Dismissing the PIL filed by the Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA), the Chief Justice-led bench stated that the legislature possessed the competence to enact the law and that a revision was overdue. The judgment noted:

"A broad correlation between collection of court fee and expenditure of administration of justice is all that is necessary. Mathematical exactitude not required…."

Key Directives on Evidence, Procedure, and Taxation

The High Court also issued several important clarifications on procedural law and evidence.

• Digital Evidence: In Shinoj v. State of Kerala , Justice Gopinath P. made a crucial observation regarding electronic evidence, stating that an electronic document must be produced in its entirety to be admissible, even if supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. Redacted or incomplete records were deemed inadmissible.
• Family Law: The Court, in Dhanya Vijayan v. Rajeshkumar K.R. , guided Family Courts to evaluate oral evidence against the backdrop of "normal human behaviour without generalisation or stereotyping," particularly in cases with limited documentary evidence.
• SARFAESI Act: In multiple rulings, the Court reiterated that the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked to interfere in commercial matters where an effective remedy exists before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT) under the SARFAESI Act.
• Income Tax: The Court delivered several nuanced rulings on the Income Tax Act. It held that non-production of Form 3CL is not grounds to reopen an assessment ( Apollo Tyres Ltd. v. ACIT ), that Section 263 can be invoked when an Assessing Officer fails to address a core issue ( Sterling Farm Research v. CIT ), and that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for claiming a bad debt deduction ( Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT ).
• GST: In M/s Stark Photo Book v. The Assistant Commissioner , the Court ruled that printing digital images on paper constitutes a service attracting 18% GST, not the 12% applicable to goods, clarifying a common point of contention for printing businesses.

October 2025 has proven to be a dynamic month for the Kerala High Court, with its pronouncements touching upon cutting-edge legal issues, reinforcing constitutional values, and providing much-needed clarity on new statutes, ensuring its jurisprudence remains vital and relevant to legal professionals across the state and the country.