The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 21) issued notice to the Director of the State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB) on a petition challenging the Government's decision declining, at this stage, to initiate a vigilance investigation into corruption allegations against DGP S. Sreejith, IPS.

Justice A. Badharudeen issued notice on the petition moved by an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector.

The petitioner has challenged the Government order dated August 19, which found that a vigilance investigation against Sreejith was not warranted “as of now”. The petition alleges that the order was passed without proper application of mind despite material requiring further inquiry.

The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court with allegations that Sreejith had visited Dubai while on casual leave without obtaining permission to travel abroad and participated in the inauguration of a private enterprise allegedly connected to him. Allegations concerning benami transactions and other irregularities were also raised.

The Court had earlier directed an enquiry into the complaint. However, the petitioner objected to a notice issued for a joint hearing in the presence of Sreejith, against whom the allegations had been made.

The High Court subsequently directed the Additional Chief Secretary to afford the petitioner an independent personal hearing in Sreejith's absence, observing that requiring a complainant to participate in a hearing in the presence of the person against whom allegations are made cannot be recognised as a fair procedure.

Following the hearing, the Additional Chief Secretary appeared before the Court on Thursday and submitted that the directions had been complied with. He informed the Court that an order had been passed finding that a vigilance investigation against Sreejith was not warranted at present.

Challenging the August 19 order, the petitioner has also raised allegations regarding Sreejith's tenure as Kerala Transport Commissioner between April 2022 and August 2024. It is alleged that an unofficial “Transport Commissioner's Squad” was formed during this period and was used to victimise subordinate personnel and facilitate illicit transactions.

The petitioner contends that his complaint concerning the alleged benami transaction and foreign business activity does not relate to a decision taken by Sreejith in the discharge of official functions and, therefore, the statutory requirement of prior approval does not bar an inquiry.

The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 21) allowed the petition filed by a breast cancer patient who sought to be impleaded as an additional respondent in a suo motu plea raising issue of exorbitant pricing of patented breast cancer drugs.

The plea was originally filed by a breast cancer patient, who was being treated with patented Ribociclib, seeking an intervention by the Central government invoking the provisions of the Patent Act, particularly Sections 83 and 92 or Section 100. After she passed during pendency of the case, the Court had decided to convert the case into a suo motu petition.

Section 92 provides for compulsory license. Section 83 deals with general principles applicable to working of patented inventions. Section 100 authorises the government to requisition life-saving medicines in cases of extreme necessity "for the purposes of the government".

Last month, after hearing the amicus curiae as well as the counsels for the Union and the drug-manufacturing companies, the Court had sought expert opinion on whether Palbociclib, a cheaper drug that is no longer under patent and is also locally manufactured, can be used as a substitute to patented Ribociclib and Abemaciclib, for treating breast cancer.

It had then suo motu impleaded the National Cancer Institute (Jhajjar), Chittaranjan National Cancer Institute (Kolkata), the Regional Cancer Centre (Thiruvananthapuram) and the Drugs Controller General of India as additional respondents in the plea.

Subsequently, an impleading petition was filed by a breast cancer patient, who is presently taking Ribociclib to treat her condition.

When the matter came up today, Justice Harisankar V. Menon allowed the impleadment and posted the case to September 3 for final hearing, taking note of the Apex Court's request to expeditiously hear the matter.

Since affidavit was filed only on behalf of the Drugs Controller General, the Court directed the Additional Solicitor General of India P. Sreekumar to liaison with the suo motu impleaded respondents to ensure that they place their affidavits on record by the next posting date.

"In view of the urgency pointed by amicus curiae Smt. Maitreyi as well as in view of the impleadment of an affected party...post the matter for final consideration on 03.09.2026...The ASGI Sri. P. Sreeekumar is directed to liaison with Additional respondents nos. 11, 12 and 13 and ensure that a statement/affidavit is placed on record positively by the next posting. This is especially so, in view of the orders passed by the Apex Court dated 17.7.2026 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 19 of 2026 as per which the Apex Court has requested this Court to dispose of the matter expeditiously," the Court recorded in the order passed.

The Court also orally said: "We will find a solution…The only question is whether this is a substitute or not. Suppose it is not a substitute, I may, perhaps, issue a direction to the central government."

The Court further recorded a point raised by the amicus curiae that even as per the affidavit filed on behalf by the Drugs Controller, it has not been stated conclusively as to whether "Palbociclib" was a substitute for "Ribociclib". In the affidavit, among other averments, it was stated that opinion on the therapeutical interchangeability of the two drugs for a particular patient is to be rendered by the treating doctor or oncologist. 

Last month, the co-convenors of the Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment had written a letter to the Chief Justice seeking intervention for expeditious final hearing of the plea. A copy of the same was addressed to the Chief Justice of India as well.

Case Title: In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines

Amicus curiae: Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde

Counsel for the respondents: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Joseph Kodianthra (Sr.), Hemant Singh (Sr.), P. Sreekumar - ASGI, O.M. Shalina - DSGI

The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 21) directed the State to establish three new NDPS courts at Thrissur, Palakkad, and Manjeri by September 10.

It has also directed the State to engage permanent staff for the newly established NDPS courts in Ernakulam and Thiruvananthapuram by the said date.

The Bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice C. Jayachandran today expressed concern over the delay on the part of the State government in establishing the new courts, taking note of the fact that the direction to do so was made in March:

"We express our concern with regards to the steps taken by the State government for the establishment of three NDPS courts. The matter has been pending before the government for long."

The Bench was seized of a suo motu petition initiated to curb drug menace in the State. During the last hearing, the Court had pulled up the State over the delay in implementing its order to establish and operationalise new NDPS courts in Kerala owing to large pendency of cases.

The Court recorded the submission of Advocate General K. Jaju Babu that both the issues of new courts and appointment of permanent staff would be resolved by September 10. It then adjourned the matter to September 17 (Thursday).

It has asked the State to file a compliance affidavit in the meantime. It added:

"The direction to the engagement of the permanent staff for the existing two NDPS court and establishment of the three NDPS courts earlier should be complied with by that time."

During the last hearing, the Court had also asked about the status of central funds for establishing the new courts. Today, the Deputy Solicitor General of India O.M. Shalina told informed that a meeting was held on July 7 with representatives of the State and the High Court wherein the Union Home Secretary had emphasised for utilisation of the scheme of department of Justice for establishment of special NDPS courts by the State.

Considering the submission, an additional direction was made to the State to take steps and coordinate with the Centre for utilisation of the fund under "development of judicial infrastructure for special NDPS courts". The State's affidavit must disclose the steps taken in this regard, the Court added.

Case No: WP(C) 29179/ 2025

Case Title: Suo Motu Proceedings Initiated by the High Court v. State of Kerala and Ors.

Counsels: K. Jaju Babu - Advocate General, O.M. Shalina - Deputy Solicitor General of India, Leo Lukose – High Court Administration

The Kerala High Court has suggested a joint meeting between the Central and State Governments to formulate a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the care, rehabilitation and palliative support of children with chronic neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Click Here To Read/ Download Order

The Kerala High Court on Friday (August 21) suspended the sentences of four persons convicted in connection with the 2003 Muthanga land struggle case, involving a violent clash between police and Adivasi protesters during an eviction drive at the Muthanga Wildlife Sanctuary in Wayanad.

Justice A. Badharudeen passed the order in the criminal appeals fiiled by convicts, challenging their conviction and sentence. The Court had earlier orally expressed concern over the manner in which the Sessions Court recorded its finding while convicting four persons in the 2003 Muthanga land struggle case, observing that the judgment would require "thorough scrutiny".

"Going through the judgment and the period of sentence imposed, at par with the arguments advanced pointing out the innocence of the appellants, the appellants have an arguable case. Since it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the appellants have criminal antecedents, there is no reason to disallow the application and therefore, the petition to suspend the sentence is allowed .." the order reads. 

The appellants are directed to deposit the entire fine amount imposed by the Special Court and execute a bail bond for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with solvent sureties before the Special Court as conditions to the suspension of sentence and grant of bail. 

The 2003 confrontation followed the occupation of forest land by Adivasi protesters under the banner of the Adivasi Gothra Maha Sabha (AGMS). During the police eviction operation, violence broke out, leading to police firing. Eighteen rounds were fired, resulting in the immediate deaths of two protesters, with the overall death toll among the protesters later rising to five. Police constable K.V. Vinod was also killed during the incident.

The appellants include social activist M. Geethanandan, along with Binu, Ramesan and Anilkumar. They were among the 57 persons prosecuted in connection with the violence.

By its judgment dated July 31, 2026, the Sessions Court had convicted the four appellants of offences including unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt to public servants, criminal intimidation, kidnapping, voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons and attempt to murder.

The appellants were convicted, among other offences, for attempting to murder Senior Civil Police Officer Abdul Salam and for abducting Forest Range Officer P.K. Sasidharan. They were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of up to five years and directed to pay fines aggregating ₹36,000 each.

Case Title: M. Geethanandan and Ors. v State of Kerala and Anr.

Case No: Crl.A 1057/ 2026

Counsel for Appellants: Madhusoodanan K.S, M.M. Vinod Kumar, P.K. Rakesh Kumar, K.S. Mizver

Click Here To Read/ Download Order