This is an anticipatory bail petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. before the Kerala High Court, Kozhikode, concerning three petitioners in Crime No.117/2023 of Thamarassery Police Station. The prosecution alleges that on 18 February 2023, petitioners 1 and 2, in furtherance of a common intention, assaulted the defacto complainant and caused injuries with an intention to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder; the victim sustained serious injuries but survived. Petitioners 1 and 2 challenge arrest on grounds of innocence and claim the complaint is false—a vendetta linked to a civil suit over land in which the petitioners’ brother is involved. The 2nd petitioner is said to suffer from leukemia, and the 3rd petitioner is not arrayed as an accused in this crime. The defacto complainant’s medical records, CT scan findings, and wound certificates are relied upon by the prosecution to justify police custody and interrogation. The Public Prosecutor contends the injuries are grave and corroborated by medical evidence, necessitating arrest and custodial interrogation. After hearing, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea of the 1st petitioner and granted bail to petitioners 2 and 3 on specific conditions including surrender within ten days, bond and sureties, cooperation with investigation, and non-interference with witnesses.
Jabir, the appellant, challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award in O.P.(M.V.) No.1087/2009 (Manjeri) which held the KSRTC bus driver negligent and awarded Rs.3,60,000 with 25% contributory negligence by the claimant, directing the insurer to pay 75% of the award. The appeal hinges on quantum and the basis for notional income, disability, and future prospects. The appellant argues that the Tribunal erred in fixing monthly income at Rs.3,000 instead of Rs.7,000 (notional income for a coolie in 2009 as per Ramachandrappa), and that the disability percentage (32% shown in Ext. C1) was downscaled to 25% without cogent reasons; the appellant also challenges the treatment of heads such as loss of earning during treatment and loss of amenities. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (Ramachandrappa; Pranay Sethi; Sarla Verma) and Kerala decisions (Manikantan G.; Sasidharan Namboothiri; Sasidharan Namboothiri v. Kesavan), the court re-evaluates the compensation, applying age, future prospects, and disability with greater notional income, and re-allocates amounts across heads. The High Court ultimately allows the appeal in part, enhancing total compensation to Rs.10,84,876, holds the insurer fully liable (no contributory negligence) and directs deposit with interest, within two months, for disbursement to Jabir.
Sumayya, the tenant of a Kollam shop, challenged an eviction order under sections 11(2)(b) and 11(4)(ii) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965, after the Rent Control Court found arrears in rent and held that alterations to the petition schedule room reduced its value and utility permanently. The Rent Control Appellate Authority confirmed eviction. In Revision under Section 20 of the Act, the High Court examined whether the alleged alterations — raising the roof, installation of a new door in the southern wall of room XVII/1122, removal of another door, a glass partition and glass door on the front, and tiling/face-lifting – amounted to a material alteration that would impair the building’s value or utility. The court considered evidence of PW1 to PW3 and Ext. A9 (commissioner’s report) and Ext. A10 (partition/deed) and compared these with precedents such as Shanmugam v. Rao Saheb and Hajee PV v. Mundoli Muhammed, Mohanan v. Muhiyudheen and Sajith Bhaliga v. Paul. It concluded that on the facts before it the alterations were material and the concurrent findings were not liable to be interfered with. However, it vacated the eviction under Section 11(2)(b) and granted Sumayya five months to surrender possession subject to conditions, including affidavit, payment of arrears, and compliance with licensing requirements. The revision petition was dismissed.
This is a criminal appeal under Section 14A(1) & (2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, challenging the Special Court’s dismissal of anticipatory bail in Crl.M.C. No. 1922/2022 in Crime No. 331/2022 of Kanjiramkulam Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The appellant, Ajith Kumar.K, is the third accused in the alleged offences under IPC Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506, 341 and 307 with Section 34, and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The incident occurred on 23.04.2022 when accused Nos. 1 to 3, in an autorickshaw at Kuzhivilakkonam junction, allegedly assaulted the defacto complainant, causing injuries and using abusive words, with the appellant claimed to be merely a traveler present at the scene. The prosecution contends a prima facie case under the SC/ST (POA) Act exists and invokes the bar under Sections 18 and 18A against anticipatory bail. The appellant contends there are no serious overt acts attributable to him, no weapon used, and FI statements do not establish knowledge that the defacto complainant belongs to SC/ST. Relying on Prithi Raj v. Union of India, the court notes that bail can be granted where no prima facie case exists even post-18A. The court ultimately allows the appeal, sets aside the impugned order, and grants pre-arrest bail with conditions.
This High Court of Kerala, in OP(C) No.2607/2019, filed by the defendant in O.S.109/2009, challenges the common order in CMA Nos.180/181/2019 (Ext.P8) rendered by the II Additional Sub Judge, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit had been filed by the respondent in 2009 and decreed ex parte in 2017 after the petitioner_defaulted_ appearances; the petitioner moved to set aside the ex parte decree (I.A.s 7620/2009, 573/2014) and later sought condonation of delay in filing Exts P2 and P3. Despite mediation and attempts to obtain proceedings, a warrant of arrest was issued and executions followed (E.P.311/2017). The Trial Court dismissed Exts P2 and P3 for willful neglect; the Appellate CMA confirmed. The petitioner contends there is illegality in Ext.P8, that Exts P2–P3 were not properly considered, and that the delay from 12.02.2018 to 17.01.2019 was not willful but caused by circumstances including change of counsel and delayed access to records. The High Court relies on Supreme Court precedents establishing that condonation of delay requires a genuine, sufficient cause; routine explanations are insufficient and delays are viewed against the maxim "Delay defeats equity." Ultimately, the court refuses to interfere under Article 227, dismissing the original petition and upholding the lower court"s orders.
This is a Criminal Appeal (NDPS) arising from the judgment of the Special Judge for NDPS Act cases, Thodupuzha, which convicted Appellants No.2 and No.3 (Basil and Subramani) under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) NDPS Act and, for A3, also under Section 25 NDPS Act, following a seizure of 267 kilograms of ganja from a Tamil Nadu–registered lorry (TN-51-8069) on 17 May 2011. The recovery occurred from a secret chamber behind the driver’s cabin during routine vehicle checking at Kumily Check Post, a public place. Appellants 4–8 were acquitted. The core issues concern compliance with Section 42 NDPS Act (entry/search without warrant) and whether the seizure was a “chance recovery” in a public place/in transit, triggering Section 43 rather than Section 42; whether Section 50 (search of a person) and Section 57 (report of arrest/seizure) were complied with; and the proof of ownership of the vehicle to support Section 25. The High Court held that the seizure occurred in a public place and in transit, thus Section 43 applied and Section 42 compliance was not required; however, the ownership issue under Section 25 was not proved for A3, leading to his acquittal on that count. The appeal was allowed in part: A2 and A3’s conviction under 20(b)(ii)(C) was upheld, while A3’s conviction under Section 25 was set aside.
Petitioner Nishad @ Nisar, accused No.12 in Crime No.1989/2021 of Palakkad Town South Police Station, sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case involving Sri Sanjith, an active RSS worker. The prosecution alleges that on 15-11-2021 accused 1–5 formed an unlawful assembly, armed with weapons, rammed a motorcycle rider, and hacked him to death in front of his wife. The petitioner is alleged to have been part of the conspiracy by harbouring co-accused and assisting their escape, but his counsel argued that there is no direct evidence tying him to the plan or to the crime; he is said to have joined the conspiracy only on 17-11-2021 to pick up accused persons and harbor them. The petitioner has no antecedents and has been in custody since 02-12-2021, and his continued detention is argued to be punitive, especially since trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The State countered that the 26.07.2020 murder was a pre-planned political killing, part of a broader conspiracy, and that the petitioner’s involvement was significant. It was argued that Haroon, a witness, is a co-accused, and there is material to connect the petitioner to the conspiracy. The court, while acknowledging the seriousness of the accusations, finds that custodial detention is not indispensable in this case given the volume of evidence and the possibility of securing trial with appropriate conditions, and so grants bail on specified conditions.
Crl A (V) 17/19 & Crl.MA 1/2020 & ZCRA 11658/2020 This is a Kerala High Court criminal appeal (Division Bench) by Alli Noushad, wife of the deceased Noushad, challenging the acquittal of Rasheed for offences under sections 302 and 506(1) of the IPC, in a murder case arising from an incident on 7 May 2015 at Kayyanippadi, Ernakulam. The Additional Sessions Court, Moovattupuzha, SC No. 821/2015, acquitted the accused. The High Court, while hearing the Proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C. and in exercise of powers analogous to a second appellate review, reappraises the evidence, including the solitary eyewitness PW1, and corroborative testimony of PW2 and PW3, the FIR (Ext.P2), and the recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (MO1 knife; MO2 shirt; MO3 dhothi) with blood matching the deceased. The court addresses the legal framework for appeals against acquittal, including the standard of review, the weight of evidence, and the principle that a court may adopt a different view if supported by admissible material. The judgment scrutinizes the conduct of PW1, the admissibility of PW17’s testimony (wife of the accused) under Section 122 E.A., and the motive evidence. It ultimately holds that the prosecution’s evidence yields a probable view of guilt and sets aside the acquittal, convicting Rasheed under Section 300 IPC with a life sentence and Rs 2,00,000 as compensation to the family, with other dispositions to follow.
WA 676/2020 (lead) and connected cases This is a batch writ appeal arising from Kerala KVAT Act retrospective amendments, principally challenging Kerala Finance Act 2016 and Section 42(3) of the KVAT Act which permit reopening of time‑barred assessments. The Kerala High Court, sitting as a Division Bench, addressed WA Nos.676/2020 and related matters challenging the retrospective operation of a provision that allows reassessment for periods as old as 2005‑06, notwithstanding Section 25(1) time limits. The petitioners argued that retrospective legislation must be reasonable, bounded by a defined period, and harmonized with existing timelines, particularly five or six years for reopening, as well as the obligation to preserve records. They relied on authorities on statutory interpretation and retrospective legislation (Ghanshyam Das, Ramdas Laxmidas, Taj Mahal Hotel Secunderabad, Vatika Township, Maruti Suzuki) to contend that “treated as pending” would erase finality and undermine certainty. The State respondents contended that the Legislature can enact retrospective law and that Section 42(3) is a valid instrument to reopen assessments, with Rule 58(20) providing guidance on a reasonable period. The court, while acknowledging retrospective legislative power, preferred a harmonized reading that confines reopening to a reasonable window and aligns with Sections 21‑25 of the KVAT Act, rejecting broad application. The appeals are disposed of with the writ petitions dismissed, upholding the impugned judgment.
Shan, the first accused in Crime No.114/2025 of Ochira Police Station, Kollam, moves a bail application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The prosecution alleges that on 17.01.2025, at around 9:40 PM at Clappana Othalathum Moodu Junction, Shan along with accused Nos.2 to 4 intercepted the scooter carrying the defacto complainant and his friend Suhail, took the scooter key, hurled abuses, and questioned whether the complainant was the brother of “Al Meen.” He allegedly attempted to strike the complainant with a nunchaku, but the blow landed on the right shoulder as the complainant moved. The 2nd accused kicked the complainant’s leg, while the 4th accused struck Suhail with an iron rod; Shan and the others allegedly assaulted the complainant on the head with the nunchaku. The attackers allegedly forcefully took possession of the scooter and fled, allegedly arising from enmity with the brother of the complainant. The accused face offences under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), including 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 126(2), 296(b), 351(2), 115(2), 118(1), 117(2), 110 and 309(4). Shan has been in custody since 05.02.2025 (about 65 days). His counsel argued pregnancy of his wife and necessity of his presence; he is willing to comply with stringent conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail, citing serious charges and several prior cases between 2017 and 2021. While the court acknowledged gravity, it emphasized bail as a rule and granted bail with conditions after citing authorities like Chidambaram P v. D.E. and Jalaluddin Khan, and Manish Sisodia. The final order imposes bond Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, regular IO appearances, restrictions on travel, and Mondays 10 AM appearances until final report. The order also records that the observations are for the bail application and cites Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala for applicability. The bail is granted with stringent conditions.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5143 OF 2025 This Bail Application (Bail Appl. No. 5143 of 2025) arises from Crime No. 202/2025 of Chevayur Police Station, Kozhikode, under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The petitioner, Alfan E, aged 34, is accused and contends that bail should be granted under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The alleged facts concern the suicide of Mousa Maharis (21), a llb student, who reportedly faced harassment from the petitioner after their relationship, with the prosecution alleging harassment and possible abetment. The case had previously been heard as BA No.3830/2025, where bail was not granted, and liberty to renew after ten days was granted. The learned judge emphasized the long-standing principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement (2019 SCALE 870), Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024 KHC 6431), and Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024 KHC 6426). The court also acknowledged the Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala (2025 SCC OnLine KER 1260) principle as applicable. Ultimately, the court allowed bail subject to stringent conditions, including bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the IO, travel restrictions, surrender of passport, no re-offence, regular Monday appearances, and continued applicability of the Anzar doctrine, with a warning that breach may cancel bail.
This is a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita by the petitioners Sentu Sekh and Kajol Sekh, accused in Crime No. 498/2025 of the West Circle Police Station, Thrissur, for alleged offences under Section 20(b)(ii)B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act). The prosecution contends that the petitioners were found in possession of 1.890 kg of ganja; the quantity is described as an intermediate quantity, and there is no criminal antecedent reported, though the petitioners are from West Bengal. The petitioners argue they have been in custody since 04.03.2025, are ready to abide by stringent conditions, and have offered local Thrissur sureties. The Public Prosecutor opposes bail but concedes the absence of antecedents and suggests that the petitioners’ origin from another state could be addressed by local sureties. The High Court reiterates the well-settled principle that bail is the rule and jail is the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala decisions, including Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement, Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India, Manish Sisodia v. Directorate of Enforcement, and Anzar Azeez v. State of Kerala. In light of the facts—no antecedents, intermediate quantity, custodial period—the Court allows bail with strict conditions. The order emphasizes that non-compliance can lead to cancellation of bail and clarifies that the observations are for deciding this petition only.
This Motor Accident Claims Appeal arises from an accident on 18.12.2012 on Pathanamthitta-Erumeli public road, where Marimuthu (the Respondent/Petitioner) claimed compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal held the driver negligent and awarded Rs. 3,62,378 as total compensation payable by the insurer. The insurer challenged the quantum, contending that the addition of 30% for future prospects was excessive and that the claimant had not established his actual income; it invoked the Ramachandrappa principle to fix notional income at Rs. 8,500. The petitioner argued that his income was higher (alleged tailoring business earning Rs. 40,000 per month) and that future prospects should be applied as per Pranay Sethi and the multiplier as per Sarla Verma. The court, after considering these authorities, held the notional income at Rs. 8,500, added 25% for future prospects, and applied a multiplier of 14. It revisited several heads of loss (earning, disability, pain and suffering, loss of amenities, extra nourishment) and enhanced them, resulting in a total revised compensation of Rs. 4,40,928. The appeal is allowed in part; the insurer is to deposit Rs. 4,40,928 with interest at 8% from the petition date, within two months, and costs on proportionate basis. The Tribunal will disburse the amount timely.
WP(C) Nos.23186 of 2022 & connected cases These writ petitions, filed by managers of private aided higher secondary schools in Kerala, challenge Government orders and the Plus One admission prospectus for 2022-23. The core issues are (i) the contention that G.O.(MS.) No.121/2022/G.Edn. dated 07/07/2022 reducing the management quota in private aided higher secondary schools to 20% is a policy decision not to be interfered with by the court; and (ii) the provision requiring managers to declare the community to which the school belongs and to allot 10% of management quota seats to students of that community, on merit, and the rider that failure to declare would convert those seats into merit seats. The court traces the historical evolution of management quotas since 1991, the 2005 reforms, and the sequence of government orders including the CAP (Centralized Allotment Process). It concludes that while the 20% management quota policy is within the government’s executive domain and should stand, the 10% community quota is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution. It directs that such 10% seats be treated as open merit seats and allocated through CAP; the 20% quota remains in force. ”
ROHAN SEKH, the petitioner, is an accused in Crime No.185/2025 of Thrikkakara Police Station, Ernakulam, facing alleged offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)B and 29 NDPS Act, for possession of 4.966 kg of ganja. He was arrested on 18.03.2025 and has remained in custody. The bail application, filed under Section 483 BNSS, 2023, is opposed by the State on grounds of trial fairness and his origin from West Bengal. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits willingness to abide by stringent conditions and to furnish local Kerala sureties as recorded by the court. The court notes that the contraband is intermediate quantity and that Section 37 NDPS is not attracted, given the detention already suffered. After hearing, the court finds that bail can be granted with stringent conditions, including a bond of Rs 2,00,000 with two solvent sureties, appearance before the Investigating Officer as required, prohibition on leaving India without court permission, and prohibition on involvement in similar offences pending trial. The court relies on leading bail jurisprudence: Chidambaram P v Directorate of Enforcement (bail is the rule); Jalaluddin Khan v Union of India (courts must grant bail when warranted); Manish Sisodia v D of Enforcement; and Anzar Azeez v State of Kerala. The order expressly records that violation may lead to cancellation and that the prosecution may move the court accordingly. The judge reiterates that bail as a rule secures fair trial.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5094 OF 2025 This Bail Application before the Kerala High Court concerns three accused—Mariyath (34), Praseetha T. (44), and Jaleel K.T. (38)—in Feroke Police Station Crime No.256/2025, under sections 126(2), 115(2) and 75(1)(i) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The prosecution alleges that between 15 February 2025 and 28 February 2025 the first accused restrained the complainant by a shawl and throttled her, the second beat her, and the third grabbed her breast. The petitioners contend the case is false, arguing the complainant misbehaved at Snehalayam, was expelled, and advised to resign; they describe her as a habitual litigator with prior FIRs, and express willingness to comply with stringent bail conditions. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail. The Court, while not commenting on the case’s merits, framed bail as a rule and jail as the exception, citing Chidambaram P. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh to emphasize personal liberty and fair trial. It grants bail with conditions: (i) appearance before the Investigating Officer within two weeks for interrogation, (ii) if arrest is proposed, release on bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties, (iii) cooperation and no inducement, (iv) no travel abroad without court permission, (v) no commission of similar offence, (vi) observations limited to bail, with applicability of Anzar Azeez and Sushila Aggarwal doctrines, (vii) officer’s power to investigate during bail, (viii) bail cancellation for violation of conditions. Sd/- P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.
BAIL APPL. NO. 5118 OF 2025 This Kerala High Court bail application concerns the accused Akhil, the 11th accused in Crime No. 531/2025 of Kilikolloor Police Station. He is charged under sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 194(2), 132, 121(2), 109 and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the petition is filed under Section 483 BNSS. The prosecution alleges that on 10.03.2025, during the Chamundi Temple festival at Irattakulangara, an unlawful assembly formed with a common object assaulted the defacto complainant and police officers; the first accused allegedly attacked the complainant with a brick, and others obstructed police from performing their duties. The petitioner contends there is no serious overt act against him and that he is only the 11th accused; he has been in custody since 16.03.2025. The Public Prosecutor opposed bail but conceded no criminal antecedents. The court recognized the long-standing principle that bail is the rule and jail the exception, citing Supreme Court and Kerala decisions, and found that indefinite incarceration was unnecessary, especially given the absence of antecedents. It granted bail with stringent conditions, stressing the right to a fair trial under Article 21, and referring to decisions like Chidambaram, Jalaluddin Khan, Manish Sisodia, and Anzar Azeez as guiding authorities.
WP.(C)No.14342 of 2019 & con.cases The Kerala High Court dealt with a cluster of writ petitions concerning encroachments on the Thiruvabharana Patha, the traditional route from Pandalam to Sabarimala used during Makara sankramam to carry the Tiruvabharanam (sacred ornaments). The lead petition, WP(C) No.14342 of 2019, filed by the Thiruvabharana Patha Samrakshana Samithi, sought mandamus to implement the 2009 Ext.P1 decision to remove encroachments along the path and to measure and survey the path with a surveillance of an Advocate Commissioner, and to provide protection to the survey team. Over the years several connected petitions were tagged, including petitions by NSS Karayogam No.825 Kozhencherry, Leelamony M.P., Anandhakrishnan Potty and others, challenging notices and orders issued under the Land Conservancy Act, Panchayat Raj Rules and related survey proceedings. The Court found that, although encroachments were identified, eviction actions had not been completed and notices were issued without proper mahazars (survey encroachment marks) and without affording due process. It directed that all notices in the 14342 petitions be reissued with mahazar, after giving proper notice and a personal hearing, within two months; the eviction process along with time-bound compliance for all encroachers be completed; and it also addressed related petitions regarding encroachments on Panchayat and forest lands, safeguarding the interests of vulnerable groups. The judgment emphasizes natural justice, timely action, and a coordinated, law-based approach to evict encroachments along Thiruvabharana Patha.
This matrimonial appeal arises from O.P. No.173/2011 before the Family Court, Malappuram, challenging a 31 July 2013 judgment that dismissed the wife’s claim for patrimony and past maintenance. The appellant, Sajina, contends that at the time of her marriage to the first respondent on 26 April 2009, she received 20 sovereigns of gold and Rs 2,00,000 as patrimony — Rs 1,50,000 was entrusted on engagement and Rs 50,000 before marriage. According to the appellant, within two months the cash and gold were taken by respondents 1 and 2 to confer a family share on the third respondent, with the balance ornaments said to be misappropriated. She further asserts that she was subjected to ill‑treatment and abandonment, and that the patrimony and cash were not returned. The Family Court’s trial concluded with a dismissal of her petition. On appeal, the Kerala High Court, while noting RW1’s admission that Rs 2,00,000 was received, held that no further documentary evidence was necessary to prove entrustment. It found that six sovereigns of gold or its market value must be returned and granted past maintenance of Rs 3,000 per month for the period 13 December 2009 to 13 February 2011, along with interest at 6% per annum on the cash amount from the petition date. The court relied on Bexy Michael, Jubairiya M.K., and Shyamini S. Nair in articulating the appropriate relief.
W.A. Nos. 1051 & 1054 of 2021 The writ appeals (W.A. Nos. 1051 & 1054 of 2021) in the Kerala High Court challenge a common judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 31 March 2021 in W.P.(C) Nos. 36021 of 2019 and 21156 of 2018. The core issues concern the e-auction sale of sandalwood by the Range Forest Officer, Marayoor, Munnar, Idukki District, and the constitutional validity of Sections 47C and 47F of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, together with the Kerala Forest (Restriction on Cutting and Selling of Sandal Trees and Grant of Licence for Possession and Transport of Sandalwood and Sandalwood Oil) Rules, 2012. The appellant, a leading sandalwood trader, contends that the amendments in 2010 and the 2012 Rules create a de facto monopoly, prohibiting private trade in sandalwood and sandalwood oil, thereby violating Articles 301-305 and lacking prior Presidential assent under Article 304(b). The State defends the amendments as necessary for restricting illicit felling, smuggling and unlawful trade, citing directions in Godavarman Thirumalpad and related cases directing conservation and regulatory regimes; it asserts that assent from the President was obtained through a 2004 Ordinance and subsequent Act (2010) and that the provisions constitute reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6) and Article 304(b). The learned Single Judge dismissed the petitions; the Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly, dismisses the appeals, upholding the constitutional validity of the measures. The judgment emphasizes sandalwood’s endangered status, the doctrine of res extra commercium, and the State’s regulatory powers in public interest.
