A long-shelved petition has returned to the Kerala High Court docket—and this time, the Court wants answers. The issue? A long-promised law to stamp out black magic, sorcery, and brutal ritual practices still floating in legislative limbo.
Taking up the matter once again, a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Basant Balaji has asked the State to clarify its position—formally. The order, issued on June 3, instructs the Senior Secretary of the relevant department to file an affidavit outlining whether legislation to curb such practices is still under active consideration.
This revived interest comes after the Court previously dismissed the case last year due to the petitioner’s absence during multiple hearings. The case had been filed by Kerala Yukthi Vadi Sanghom following a horrific human sacrifice incident that shocked the state and stirred public outrage.
When the matter had last appeared before the Court in October 2022, the State Attorney had indicated that a legislative framework was in the works. The judges now want to know: was that just talk, or is action finally on the horizon?
“Let an affidavit be filed by the Senior Secretary of the concerned department as to the stand of the State in respect of the above position,” the Court directed, scheduling the next hearing for June 24.
The petitioner is pushing for a Kerala version of the anti-superstition laws already in place in Maharashtra and Karnataka. Back in 2019, the Kerala Law Reforms Commission—then chaired by former Supreme Court judge KT Thomas—had drafted a proposed law titled The Kerala Prevention of Eradication of Inhuman Evil Practices, Sorcery and Black Magic Bill. Despite the urgency of its recommendations, the bill never made it to the assembly floor.
Beyond legislation, the plea asks for a deeper clean-up: probes into decades-old missing persons cases, regulation of black magic “centres,” restrictions on superstition-heavy content in media, and strict enforcement of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954.
Legal representation for the petitioner includes PV Jeevesh and D Sreekanth. The Kerala government is being represented by State Attorney N Manoj Kumar, while Suvin R Menon is appearing on behalf of the Union government.
As the June 24 hearing approaches, the ball is squarely in the State’s court. Will it act—or stall yet again?
