1. Noushad v. State of Kerala
Division Bench (Raja Vijayaraghavan V. & K.V. Jayakumar JJ.) | 1 September 2026
Facts: Noushad, the second accused, was found engaging in sexual intercourse at a brothel and sought quashing of the proceedings, contending that as a mere customer he fell outside the Act. A Single Bench referred the question because Single Bench decisions conflicted.
Issue: Whether a customer who visits a brothel can be prosecuted under Sections 5 and 7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956.
Decision: Yes. A customer who knowingly visits a brothel and pays for the services of a sex worker is an active participant in the prohibited commercial transaction and sustains the exploitation by creating demand. The sex worker is the victim, and excluding customers would defeat the Act’s objective. Mathew, Abhijit and Sarath Chandran were held to state the correct law.
Also Read – Most Important Patna High Court Judgments of September 2026
2. Roopa P. Joy v. Union of India
Division Bench (K. Natarajan & Johnson John JJ.) | 1 September 2026 | W.A. No. 1318 of 2026 | 2026: KER:66329
Facts: The couple’s embryos were cryopreserved on 30.08.2022. Their application for an eligibility certificate on 27.05.2025 was rejected because the husband had crossed 55 years. They challenged Section 4(iii)(c)(I) of the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021 under Articles 14 and 21.
Issue: Whether the upper age limit is constitutionally valid, and whether age is reckoned at embryo creation or on the date of certification.
Decision: Appeal dismissed. The provision fixes age “on the day of certification”, which is therefore decisive. The procedure began after the Act commenced on 25.01.2022, so the relaxation in Vijaya Kumari v. Union of India did not apply. The age restriction is a reasonable classification and does not violate Article 14.
Also Read – Most Important Bombay High Court Judgments of September 2026
3. X v. Union of India (Widow’s Use of Preserved Embryos)
Harisankar V. Menon J. | 1 September 2026 | W.P.(C) No. 22457 of 2025
Facts: A 43-year-old widow was refused use of embryos preserved with her husband during his lifetime. The hospital insisted on specific written consent under Section 22(1)(a) of the Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021.
Issue: Whether a widow may use preserved embryos when no consent in the prescribed form covers use after her husband’s death.
Decision: Allowed. The hospital had used a consent format other than the statutory Form 9, and its lapse could not be held against the widow. Read together, the forms showed that the husband intended the embryos to be used, not destroyed. The hospital was directed to permit her to use them for assisted reproduction.
4. Rakhul Krishnan v. Union of India
Division Bench (A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar & Preeta A.K. JJ.) | 8 September 2026 | W.A. No. 350 of 2021 | 2026: KER:68857
Facts: Dubai authorities issued an international arrest warrant (16.05.2018) against a man convicted in Dubai, transmitted through Interpol to the CBI-NCB. India took no action as no formal extradition request had been made through diplomatic channels, and a Single Judge upheld this position.
Issue: Whether the nodal agency may ignore an Interpol-routed arrest warrant from a treaty State absent a formal extradition request.
Decision: No. Though the appeal was infructuous, the Bench laid down the procedure. The agency must inform the Ministry of External Affairs, which may seek a provisional warrant under Section 34-B of the Extradition Act, 1962, and simultaneously alert the jurisdictional Magistrate, who may issue a warrant under Section 9. The routes run in parallel, and the agency cannot arrest without a Magistrate’s intervention.
5. Jose M.P. v. State of Kerala
A. Badharudeen J. | 11 September 2026 | Bail Appl. No. 4885 of 2026 | 2026:KER:69467
Facts: Jose M.P., the sole accused in a Vigilance case registered in Idukki and in custody since 27 July, sought bail under Section 483 BNSS. The Court noted that accused were frequently being freed for non-compliance with arrest formalities such as prior notice and grounds of arrest, with courts granting bail.
Issue: What is the correct procedure when an arrest is found illegal for non-compliance with arrest formalities?
Decision: The accused must be released without bail. An illegal arrest is no arrest or custody in law, and the accused reverts to the pre-arrest stage. The release order must permit the Investigating Officer to re-arrest the same day after completing the formalities. All criminal courts in Kerala were directed to follow this procedure.
6. Sagesh v. State of Kerala
Kauser Edappagath J. | September 2026 | B.A. No. 4931 of 2026
Facts: The accused was arrested on 08.06.2026 in an NDPS case (11.78 g methamphetamine). The final report, filed on 21.07.2026, was returned for defects and re-submitted on 17.08.2026. He claimed default bail on the ground that the 60-day period had expired.
Issue: Whether delay in re-submitting a final report after curing formal defects entitles the accused to default bail under Section 187(2) BNSS.
Decision: No. Re-submission after curing formal defects relates back to the original filing date, even if made after the statutory period. Entitlement turns on completion of investigation, not merely filing. Had the report been filed without completing investigation and returned for further investigation, default bail would arise if the completed report was not re-submitted in time.
7. In Re Exorbitant Pricing of Life Saving Patented Medicines
Harisankar V. Menon J. | 28 September 2026 | Suo Motu
Facts: A woman petitioned in 2022 for affordable life-saving breast cancer drugs. She died during the pendency of the case, and the Court continued it suo motu with an amicus curiae.
Issue: Whether the Centre may use Section 100 of the Patents Act, 1970 to manufacture patented medicines and supply needy patients, and whether it must do so where drugs are exorbitantly priced.
Decision: Section 100 includes the Government’s entitlement to use the patented invention to manufacture the medicine and sell it on a non-commercial basis to needy patients. It is to be invoked where a patented medicine is sold at an exorbitant price. The Court issued no mandamus for Ribociclib, holding this a policy decision for the Centre, which must collate affordability data and proceed under Section 100 if found necessary.
8. Kerala Police Association v. State of Kerala
Bechu Kurian Thomas J. | 29 September 2026
Facts: A Government Order dated 27 July 2026 abolished the Kerala Police Officers Association (KPOA), reorganised the membership of the other two police associations and divided the KPOA’s assets 60:40 between them. Ad hoc committees were constituted to administer the associations.
Issue: Whether the State could abolish or restructure a recognised police association consistently with Articles 19(1)(c) and 33 of the Constitution.
Decision: The orders were quashed. The freedom to form an association and the freedom to continue it are both facets of Article 19(1)(c). Abolishing the KPOA and altering its membership without consulting its members contravened its bye-laws and intruded on rights under Articles 19(1)(c) and 33. Article 33 could not justify the interference.
Join our WhatsApp Groups ( Click Here) and Telegram Channel ( Click Here) and get instant notifications