Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225NOMINAL INDEXM/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, BZU 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v. The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2Sri Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
NOMINAL INDEX
M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, BZU 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v. The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
Sri Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal v/s Union of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
Parisons Foods Private Limited v/sThe Commissioner of Customs 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
M/S DRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
Asha G v/s State of Karnataka & ANR. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
Abuzar Ahmed & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
Amol Chandra Das v/s NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
Chandrika v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer-I & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
Sujith Sudhakaran v/s Lalu Jacob Mammen 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
K Keshava v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
M/s Shri Venkateshwara Minerals v State of Karnataka and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
XXXX v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Sri Natesh Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
ANI Technologies Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
Veeramarannasamy Devarajeerrnoddara Kattada Seva Samithi and Anr. v/s State of Karnataka and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
Rudresh @ Rudraiah v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
Shahid Khan v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v/s NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
Shri Rukmanna v/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
Dyamappa v/s Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
Rajanna D @ Raju v/s State and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
The State by Sub-Inspector of Police v/s Sri Nagesh SV and connected petition 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Sri Sirajuddin v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
Prof Niranjana v/s State & Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
Dr. BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
X v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
Shri Jayant Jadhav Anr. v/s Principal Secretary & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
State of Karnataka v/s Manikanta @ Manu & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
Zo Pvt Ltd/. v/s Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
Hindu Sammelana Samithi v/s The Commissioner of Police Belagavi and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
X & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
C Muniraju v/s SN Subbareddy & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
Case title: Lakshmidevi S R v/s State of Karnataka and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
Rahul Gandhi v/s BJP 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
Abdul Hameed v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
Sridutta S v/s Poojitha O 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
Renuka Yallamma Temple Trust & Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
State of Karnataka v/s Raghuveer & Anr. and connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
T N Jagadeesh v/s Chairman/Deputy Commissioner The District Caste and Income Verification Committee & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
Sri K. Balajee @ Balaji Sha v/s State of Karnataka and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
X & Anr. v/s Child Welfare Committee 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
Nanjunda v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
Sri K Arun Kumar v/s State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
Winzo Games Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
Bhimsingh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Abdul Khavee v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Asif v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v/s M/s Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
Naveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
Mohammed Haris Nalapad v/s State By SGWF Post P.S. (RPF) 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
D A Srinivas v/s CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
State of Karnataka v/s Pavithra Gowda & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
X v/s State 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
X & Anr. v/s Chief Registrar Births and Deaths Bengaluru & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
State of Karnataka v/s Deepak Haldar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
Naseer Ahmed v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Mohammed Mujashsim v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
X v. State & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
M/S. ND Developers Private Ltd & Ors. v. Ritesh Raushan, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
Binoj P J v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
K. Ganesh & Anr. v. Govind Reddy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
Nishchay Babu Arkalgud & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Smt. Sarbhanu Khatoon v. State of Karnataka., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
Chethan. S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
M/S. Reward360 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Smt. Laxmi Nagappa Kittur v. The Registrar General & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
U v. V, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
Sri Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Sri Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
Smt. Sumithra & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
Mohan Naik & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Ors. v. Sri Pavanesh D & Ors. and conn.matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
Shyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 136
Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And Others, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 137
Committee For Public Accountability (Regd) v. Kannada Univeristy Hampi & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 138
Management Of Bosch Ltd v. Andrew C. Shekharan Kp & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 139
Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Sri Abhishek Choudhari & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 140
Somashehar Rajavamshi V. Union Of India And Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
M/S. New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Omisha Mara v. Passport Authority of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Chandana H N v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
S.B. Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt vs. Shabir Ahamed and Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Mr Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
Sri Krishnareddy Rep. by LRs & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Smt. Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 150
Govinda v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 151
Tabrez Pasha v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 152
State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sri Guruswamy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The International School Bangalore (TISB) v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
Sahana R. Naik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
Shri G. Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust (R) v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 157
Sri M.V. Narasimha Prasad v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka), 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 158
Sharan A. v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 159
Karnataka Road Transport Employees League v. Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
Sri. Ramesh N v. Smt. Raksha M @ Shruthi, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
X v. Z & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
Mohammed Ashiq v. Union of India & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 167
H.D.Revanna V. State Of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Mr. Santosh Kumar .R.S. V. Mr. Aditya Dhar & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 169
Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
X v. Y & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 174
Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
S v. R & Anr..,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 176
Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)180
Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 184
Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Shri Sheenappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
Mr. Riyaz Ahmed v. Karnataka State By North Traffic P.S., Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
M.B. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 189
Cristian Soporuchukwu v. State of Karnataka ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
Mahesh Shetty Thimarody v. State of Karnataka , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
Sri Manjunatha N. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Sri Pradeepkumar v. State by Vidhana Soudha Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 193
Mr. Nixon v. State by Banaswadi Police Station & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Arnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 196
Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Girish M Anchan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 200
Padmavathi T B v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
Sri P.A. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Smt. S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Sharada Purya Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Mr. Dinesh Malpani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Sri. Madhu v. The IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Mangalappa Hullikeri v. State of Karnataka. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
Deepak Singh v. Enforcement Directorate & connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
Krishnamurthy M v. State of Karnataka & Ors and Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
K.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State and Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 212
M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Bhuvan M v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Judgments/Orders
1. No GST On Liquidated Damages For Breach Of Contract: Karnataka High Court Quashes SCN
Case Title: M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s Additional Director, DGGI, BZU
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16471 OF 2024 (T-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1
The Karnataka High Court held that liquidated damages recovered for breach or delay in contractual obligations are compensatory in nature and do not constitute consideration for any supply under GST.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined whether the amount paid as compensation by the Lending Service Provider (LSP) to the assessee constituted 'liquidated damages' and whether such amount was taxable under the provisions of the CGST Act.
Case Title: M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v/s The Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 21566 OF 2025 (T-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2
The Karnataka High Court held that flavoured milk qualifies as a dairy product under Tariff Heading 0402 and not as a 'beverage' under Tariff Heading 2202. Consequently, GST at 5% will be applicable on flavoured milk instead of 12%.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined the classification of the flavoured milk under the GST, considering whether it falls under Tariff Heading 2202 (beverages containing milk) or under Tariff Heading 0402 (milk and cream, containing added sugar or sweetening matter).
Case Title: Sri Akram Pasha v/s Senior Intelligence Officer
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.15066/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3
The Karnataka High Court held that custodial interrogation is not mandatory in GST offences punishable with imprisonment up to five years, even though such offences are economic in nature. The bench further stated that the prescribed punishment under the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act must be considered while determining the gravity of the offence.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar stated that one of the most prominent criminal sanctions imposed with regard to economic offences is that of arrest. It is widely acknowledged that arrests result in deprivation of liberty of a person. Thus, while it is imperative to maintain law and order in society, the power to arrest must also always be subject to necessary safeguards.
Case Title: M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I)
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.25598 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4
The Karnataka High Court held that marketing and technical support services provided by the assessee to its foreign parent qualify as export of services under the IGST Act (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) and do not constitute intermediary services.
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the place of supply of these services is outside India, satisfying all conditions for export of services, and the assessee is eligible for a refund of IGST paid.
Case Title: Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal v/s Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27013 OF 2025
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Union of India to examine and consider, at the appropriate administrative level, the feasibility and phased implementation of a cashless medical treatment mechanism under the Central Government Health Scheme, particularly for emergency and critical care.
A single judge, Suraj Govindaraj said, “A cashless treatment mechanism, particularly for emergency and life-saving procedures, would significantly mitigate these hardships and align the administration of the CGHS with constitutional values. Such a system would give meaningful effect to the right to health under Article 21, ensure non arbitrary access to medical care under Article 14, and reinforce the State's obligation as a welfare employer.”
Case Title: Parisons Foods Private Limited v/s The Commissioner of Customs
Case Number: Writ Petition No13082 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 6
The Karnataka High Court has held that the mandatory pre-deposit required to pursue a customs appeal cannot be waived for a financially sound appellant/importer.
In a recently uploaded order pronounced on November 7, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act does not deny access to justice.
“It is a statutory discipline that applies uniformly to all appellants. The statute's mandate endures, subsists and is unyielding, until constitutional courts deem fit to restrain its march,” the court observed.
Case Title: M/S DRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31939 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31808 OF 2025
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 7
The Karnataka High Court has suggested some measures for the Union Ministry of Finance to take into consideration while evolving a comprehensive and standardised system for verification of bank guarantees furnished during the tendering process or otherwise, so as to prevent frauds.
The court was informed by the Government that it has taken cognisance of the issue of wider systemic vulnerability in the existing processes governing the submission, acceptance, and verification of bank guarantees, particularly in the context of public procurement and large-scale contractual engagements.
8. Neighbour Can't Be Booked For Matrimonial Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Asha G v/s State of Karnataka & ANR.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2023
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a stranger/neighbour cannot be drawn into cruelty proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC amid matrimonial dispute between the husband, wife or other family members.
Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Asha G, neighbour of the complainant's husband, who was booked under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Case Title: Abuzar Ahmed & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7053 OF 2024
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 9
While quashing a 498-A IPC case registered by a woman against her husband and in-laws the Karnataka High Court said “The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills.”
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that “It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. This is the purport of the provision - 498A.”
Case Title: Amol Chandra Das v/s NIA
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2025
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 10
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to grant bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national accused by the NIA in a Human trafficking case, noting that he had travelled to Bangladesh five times using a passport obtained using a fake Aadhaar card.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the appeal filed by Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib who is charged under Sections 370(3) and 120B of IPC along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B) and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.
Case Title: Chandrika v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer-I & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17839 OF 2010
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 11
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to re-look implementation of Bangalore Mysore Expressway and Infrastructure Corridor project and directed it to take appropriate steps in this regard observing that the project aimed at decongesting the city has remained only on papers.
A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T referred to a Supreme Court's decision in Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority & Anr. Vs. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited & Ors. (2021) wherein the apex court had upheld the planning and construction of the project.
Case Title: Sujith Sudhakaran v/s Lalu Jacob Mammen
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10408 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12
The Karnataka High Court quashed a cheque dishonour complaint lodged against a man who was the Director of an infrastructure company, after referring to records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and noting that when the cheques were issued to the complainant the petitioner was not a director.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sujith Sudhakaran, Director of M/S Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd, and quashed the complaint registered against him by Lalu Jacob Mammen, registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
Case Title: K Keshava v/s State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2013
Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 13
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a conviction order passed by a Sessions Court, which had held the accused guilty of causing death by negligence. The High Court found that the State Government had wrongly filed an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, even though the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.
The appellant, K. Keshava, had challenged the Sessions Court's order that allowed the State's appeal against the trial court's acquittal. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Title: M/s Shri Venkateshwara Minerals v State of Karnataka and Anr
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 23583 of 2024 (GM-MM-S)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 14
The Karnataka High Court has held that a mining lease granted in violation of the minimum area requirement under Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is void under Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).
Consequently, the Court ruled that such a void lease cannot be the subject of a 'deemed extension' under Section 8A(3) of the Act.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.02.2023 rejecting the petitioner's application for deemed extension under Section 8A(3) of the MMDR Act.
Case title: XXXX v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1225 OF 2025 C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2826 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 15
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a FIR lodged against an advocate for raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, noting that the complaint appeared to be a manipulation, questioning how the woman could make allegations when she appeared to be in a "subsisting marital relationship or the very least in a continuing domestic association".
Justice M Nagaprasanna perused the complaint and noted that the petitioner and complainant came to know each other in connection with a case concerning Negotiable Instruments Act as she needed legal assistance. It was alleged that in 2022 the advocate sent her a request on Instagram and also made phone calls requesting her to accept his request; thereafter they became friends.
Case title: Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 108512 OF 2025
Click Here To Read/Download Order
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 16
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has held that amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permitted even after commencement of trial despite non fulfilment of due diligence test, adding that the test does not have universal application and in appropriate cases such amendment is permitted.
Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde was hearing a plea challenging the petitioners (plaintiffs) application seeking amendment of the plaint, filed 10 years after the presentation of the plaint and also after commencement of trial.
Case title: Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v/s State of Karnataka
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 17
Refusing to quash an FIR against Congress leader Rajeev Gowda BV accused of abusing a woman municipal commissioner over removal of "unauthorized" banners, observing that lawmakers while making speeches are expected to be circumspect specially while addressing a woman, that too a public servant.
For context, a film promotion programme for 'Cult' movie was to be conducted on 13-01-2026 at Nehru Stadium, Shidlaghatta Town which is stated to be under the leadership of the petitioner. Banners with petitioner's portrait were installed all over the city Fort area, wherein certain banners fell down and had hit certain vehicles. Against this a complaint was made to Municipal Commissioner who had cleared the banners as it was disturbing the public.
Case Title: Sri Natesh Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 18
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case relating to the death of a person, a daily wager from Kerala, who was allegedly assaulted by a group after he raised the slogan “Pakistan Pakistan Zindabad” during a local cricket match in Mangaluru.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar granted bail to Natesh Kumar, who was one of the accused, and directed his release in an FIR registered last year.
Case title: ANI Technologies Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka and batch
WRIT APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2025 and connected appeals
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 19
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 23) upheld taxi aggregators' right to business of plying bike taxis observing that it is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, adding that a blanket-ban by the State is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).
In doing so the court set aside a single judge's order which held that bike taxis cannot operate in the State unless the government issues relevant guidelines and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act.
Against this taxi aggregators like Uber, OLA, Rapido, motorcycle owners and welfare associations had moved the division bench in appeal.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi in its 111 page order held:
"...it cannot be disputed that the business of plying taxis is a legitimate business, and the right to engage in such activity is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said business is not inherently dangerous, illegal or immoral...However, engaging in such business maybe subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides that Article 19(1)(g) does not prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public...In our view, a blanket prohibition on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India for several reasons".
Case title: Veeramarannasamy Devarajeerrnoddara Kattada Seva Samithi and Anr. v/s State of Karnataka and Others
WP 1450/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 20
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 23) directed the concerned police inspector and administration of Chithradurga district to convene a meeting with the organizers of a traditional fair in the area so as to ensure that it is conducted peacefully.
In doing so the court observed that the administration cannot give into the conduct of a few persons who may try to create a law and order situation but at the same time said that the organizers must also assist the administration.
The court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the tahsildar and the police officer to forthwith consider the petitioner's representation of 27-11-2025 and grant permission to conduct the Veeramarannaswamy Jatra/Fair between 28.01.2026 to 03.02.2026.
Case title: Rudresh @ Rudraiah v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 21
The Karnataka High Court recently modified a sessions court order convicting a man for murder of a child and sentencing him to life imprisonment until his natural death, holding that sessions court have not been conferred with the power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission.
The appellant had challenged a trial court order convicting him for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment "until his natural death".
Case title: Shahid Khan v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1475 OF 2025 [21(NIA)]
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 22
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of being a member of banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) of allegedly conspiring to radicalise Muslim youth to carry out terrorist acts, as well as raising funds for the commission of terrorist activities.
The court was hearing an appeal by Shahid Khan, one of nineteen accused, challenging dismissal of his bail plea by NIA court. The nineteen accused have been booked for offences under Sections 153A and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC. They have been further booked under Sections 13(Punishment for unlawful activities), 17(Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18(Punishment for conspiracy, etc.), 18A(Punishment for organising of terrorist camps), 18B (Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) and 22B (Offences by societies or trusts) UAPA.
Case title: Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v/s NIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1548 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 23
The Karnataka High Court dismissed the bail plea of a man accused of being an ISIS member who was allegedly radicalized and recruited by his college mate, was involved in reconnaissance and arson activities with an intention to wage war against the government and engaging in transfer of terror funds through cryptocurrency.
Case title: Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRL.P 865/2026 IA 1/26 FOR STAY
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 24
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (January 27) refused to entertain a plea for quashing an FIR lodged against a man accused of clicking photographs of a woman while she was in the trial room of a clothing shop in Bengaluru.
The petitioner had moved a plea seeking quashing of a 2024 FIR registered by the police for offence of voyeurism under Section 77 BNS. In the interim the petition sought a stay on the investigation.
Case title: Shri Rukmanna v/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others
WRIT PETITION NO.100504 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has suggested empowering the Civil Court to pass interim measures staying mutation orders passed by revenue authorities under the State Land Revenue Act concerning properties involving possession or title disputes.
This the court said would help avoid multiplicity of parallel proceedings and aide litigants, since a title dispute can only be adjudicated by civil courts.
The court was hearing a petition challenging a 2020 of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, cancelling mutation of land based on a disputed Will, and directed that entry be made in the record in the names of the natural heirs.
Case title: Dyamappa v/s Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar and Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 103885 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has held that married sisters' claim for maintenance from their brother is not maintainable in a partition suit.
However, it said, if a prima facie case is made out that a co-owner (plaintiff) is being exclusively deprived of income from joint family property by another co-owner (brother) even though former is in constructive possession, the court may direct interim sharing of such income pending final adjudication of the suit.
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in his order said:
"If a prima facie case is made out to take a view that the plaintiff has share in the property, and the defendant is deriving the income from the suit property to the deprivation of the plaintiff, then in such cases, the Court as an interim measure, can direct the defendant in the suit, either to share or deposit the profits derived from the suit property, subject to the result of the suit. Such an application seeking interim mesne profits or profits gets more credence in appeals against the decree for partition or in final decree proceedings where the plaintiff established that the property is joint family property and defendant is exclusively deriving the income from the suit property though the plaintiff is in constructive joint possession of the same"
Case title: The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.812 OF 2025 (A)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court rejected the State's appeal challenging a man's acquittal accused of rape on false promise of marriage, after noting that the complainant–who met the accused on a matrimonial site–had herself stated that she was unwilling to marry to him.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing the State's appeal challenging sessions court order which had acquitted accused for offences under Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 376(rape), 420(cheating), 504 and 506(criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC.
Taking note of the trial court order which had considered the complainant's (PW1) statement the bench said:
"Having considered all the materials available on record, and in particular the statement of PW1 that she was not willing to marry accused No.1, and taking note of all these factors, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed".
Case title: Rajanna D @ Raju v/s State and Another
CRL.P 16751/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
he Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 30) upheld a sessions court order cancelling a man's bail, who is accused of raping a minor in 2024, after he allegedly threatened the survivor and her family while out on bail.
In doing so, the high court said that the offence was "heinous and horrendous" and the trial court order warranted no interference. The petitioner had moved the high court against cancellation of bail on the ground that he had threatened the survivor and her family.
After hearing the matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:
"Copious evidence is placed before the concerned court for filing application seeking cancellation of bail. The concerned court by a detailed order rendering cogent reasons cancelled the bail of the petitioner. The offence is horrendous, heinous. Therefore the cancellation of the bail, on the score that the petitioner has threatened the witness would not warrant any interference".
Case title: The State by Sub-Inspector of Police v/s Sri Nagesh SV and connected petition
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
The Karnataka High Court overturned a trial court order which had acquitted a husband for offence of attempt to murder his wife by attacking her with a razor blade and a chopper/machete, holding that the court had failed to note the nature of injuries on vital parts of the wife's neck.
It further said that the trial court had instead invoked Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc) while loosing sight of the "intention and knowledge" of the accused, specially when the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature.
Case title: Sri Sirajuddin v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION No.3258 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a 2021 FIR lodged against a man who was stated to be member of a WhatsApp Group allegedly circulating 'obscene depiction' of Hindu Deities, observing that a "prima facie" case was made out wherein the material on its face could disturb communal harmony.
The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs)
Case title: Prof Niranjana v/s State & Another
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7806 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against former Vice Chancellor of Bangalore North University Professor Niranjana, registered based on an order passed by a trial court directing investigation into a criminal defamation private complaint.
In doing so the court observed that if defamation is an amalgam of all other offences the trial court could not have directed investigation by the police as defamation is a lis between two persons.
The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 356(2) (defamation) BNS.
Case title: Dr. BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v/s Union of India
WRIT PETITION NO. 8485 OF 2024 (GM-RES-PIL)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a PIL against construction of a compound wall around a passport office claimed to be constructed on a land used as a playground by children and public in Bengaluru, after noting that the land in question was allotted to the government.
In doing so the court noted that while there is concern that open lands in the city are shrinking, however the government cannot be interdicted to use lands allotted to it specially when no zonal plan was produced to show that the land was a playground.
The court was hearing a PIL by Dr BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust seeking directions to Passport Seva Kendra, a Government of India undertaking to immediately demolish and remove the structures that have been raised on a property, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas falling in Survey No.12 of Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru.
33. FIR Against Juvenile For Petty Offence Unsustainable Under JJ Act: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case
Case title: X v/s State of Karnataka
CRL.P 6143/2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 03) quashed an FIR against an accused who was stated to be a juvenile at the time of registration of the crime, noting that offence alleged against him was a petty offence under Juvenile Justice Act and thus FIR could not have been registered against him.
Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the petitioner's plea who had challenged the registration of a 2023 FIR under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint),323 (punishment for voluntarily causing simple hurt), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354(B) (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 34 (common intention) registered against various accused including petitioner, and consequent filing of chargesheet.
Case title: Shri Jayant Jadhav Anr. v/s Principal Secretary & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 19069 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 34
The Karnataka High Court overturned the disqualification of two Belagavi Municipal Corporation Councillors who were disqualified on the ground that they had failed to disclose that their wives had succeeded in an auction of leasehold rights in respect of properties constructed by Public Works Department.
In doing so the court observed that the leasehold auction had happened prior to when the petitioners were elected as Councillors, and thus the alleged benefit was not derived after the petitioners were elected as Councillors.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Manikanta @ Manu & Others
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.800 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 35
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order acquitting two men accused of sexually assaulting a girl who was stated to be a minor, observing that the victim's evidence was inconsistent and not trustworthy.
The trial court had acquitted the two accused who were earlier booked under Sections 4(Punishment for penetrative sexual assault), 7(Sexual assault), 8(punishment for sexual assault), 11(iii)(sexual harassment of child by showing any object in any form or media for pornographic purposes), 12 (punishment for sexual harassment)POCSO Act and Sections 366(A)(Procuration of minor girl), 376(1) (rape) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) (sexual harassment) and (D) (stalking) of IPC.
Case title: Zo Pvt Ltd/. v/s Directorate of Enforcement
WRIT PETITION NO.962/2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 36
The Karnataka High Court has asked Gaming company WinZo's subsidiary Zo Private Limited to approach the ED with a list of its employees to whom salaries are to be paid, directing the agency to verify the same and communicate it to the concerned bank enabling the company to make payments.
The petitioner company, whose account was frozen by the ED, had sought for a declaring that the agency's search and seizure at the office of M/s FinAdvantage Consulting [P] Limited–the petitioner's outsource accounting firm, is illegal and void.
Case title: Hindu Sammelana Samithi v/s The Commissioner of Police Belagavi and Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 100782, 100783 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 37
The Karnataka High Court quashed notices issued by the State Police prohibiting two Speakers from addressing a programme–'Hindu Sammelana' schedule for February 6 and 8, holding that police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting based on their whims and fancies.
In doing so the court said that State's curtailment of citizens' fundamental rights must be based on some reasons.
Justice Lalita Kanneganti in her order said:
"Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assemble peacefully. It is settled law that freedom of speech includes right to express view in public meeting. However, the State has the power to impose reasonable restriction in the interest of public order, security of State, sovereignty and integrity of India, decency or morality and prevention of incitement to office. The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 permits the police to regulate the public assemblies and processions. They can prohibit the assembly, if there is apprehension of disturbance threat to public peace and tranquility and if there is any risk of violence. The police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting basing on their whims and fancies. When the State is curtailing the citizens' fundamental rights, it shall be based on reasoning and based on some material".
Case title: Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch
WRIT PETITION NO. 107749 OF 2025 (CS –RES) and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38
The Karnataka High Court has held that even though State Cooperative Societies Act, State Souharda Sahakari Act and The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act are cognate laws, delegation for voting under the Acts would not be hit by bar of repeat voting under Section 21 State Cooperative Societies Act.
The petitions raised a challenge to the nomination of delegates by certain cooperative societies to participate in elections of Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent, under different statutory enactments has already exercised its right of delegation on two prior occasions and that the present nomination constitutes a third delegation, thereby infringing the statutory embargo engrafted in Section 21 of the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act.
Case title: Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order denying bail to a man accused of being member of a terrorist gang and being part of criminal conspiracy to wage war against Government of Syria, observing that the mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest as per Supreme Court's Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively.
In doing so the court said that the accused who was arrested in 2020, prior to Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot seek this ground to claim that the arrest was illegal.
Case title: The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch
Crl. A. Nos. 2216/2024 & 2246/2024, Crl.R.C.No.2/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court upheld a 2024 trial court order imposing death penalty on three men convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor girl, observing that the offence was barbaric and such acts must be curbed with iron hands.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its 176 page order observed:
"Having considered all these factors into consideration and materials available on record, even this Court has to strike balance between mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. No doubt, the accused persons are young aged and the same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that they could be imprisoned for life and age is not a determinative factor by itself and except this circumstance, there is no other mitigating circumstances. The accused persons inhumanely in a brutal manner subjected the victim girl, who is aged about 7 years and 7 months for continuous sexual act one by one, without caring the life of the victim and the same is nothing but a barbaric act of gang rape..."
Case title: X v/s Y
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201037 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court rejected a man's plea seeking DNA test of the child born to his wife suspecting the child's paternity on the ground that they did not cohabit for a long time.
In doing so the court said that DNA test on paternity of a child can't be ordered as a matter of course, finding that the petitioner did not dispute that he had cohabited with the wife and also not disputed their marital status.
The marriage between petitioner husband and respondent wife was solemnized on 25.05.2022; a child was born who is around 1 years old. Subsequently, due to matrimonial dispute, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.
Case title: Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO.13313 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court has held that a gift deed through which a senior citizen transfers his property to the transferee need not contain an "express recital" of maintenance of the senior citizen, to claim that such transfer is void under Section 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.
In doing so the court held that maintenance of senior citizen under Section 23 is implicit wherein the provision seeks to protect the trusting nature of senior citizens, who may be financially dependent on children and rely on trust and moral expectations.
43. Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Of 7 Booked For Radicalizing Youth In Ballari ISIS Module Case
Case title: NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1023, 858, 927 & 932 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court cancelled bail granted to seven men accused of being involved with the Ballari ISIS module, charged under the UAPA for allegedly recruiting and radicalization of vulnerable youth to carry out terrorist activities in India, remarking that the alleged procedural lapse was raised belatedly.
The court was hearing four criminal appeals filed by NIA challenging Special Court's orders dated 08.04.2025, 11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025 granting bail to respondent/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 observing that grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused in writing who arrested in 2023.
Case title: Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1994/2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1918/2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
Upholding the murder conviction and life sentence of 4 men, the Karnataka High Court rejected their contention that the deceased's wife–an eye witness to the incident, had already seen the photographs of the accused persons purportedly published in newspapers prior to Test Identification Parade.
In doing so the court said that there was no specific question put to the wife during the cross examination that prior to TIP the photos of the accused were published in the media.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order said:
"Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that she has narrated how an incident has taken place and she is an eye witness to the incident and immediately after the death of her husband, she gave the statement between 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. and narrated each of overt act of the accused persons and also categorically given the description of accused Nos.1 to 3 that two were tall and one was short and the person who was short itself assaulted her and the fact that she also sustained injury is not in dispute and wound certificate is also produced.Hence, it is clear that she is an eye witness to the incident".
Case title: Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201252 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45
The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi bench) refused to quash an FIR against Congress leader Mukram Khan accused of making a speech, which had outraged the religious feelings of Hindu community, by allegedly stating that "he will cut them into pieces" in respect of the 2022 Hijab incident.
The court was hearing a plea by Khan and his son Dr. Soyab Khan seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 298 (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 295(A) (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 212(harbouring offender) r/w Section 34 (common intention).
Case title: IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 31057 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
The Karnataka High Court has observed that a financial company offering loan based on pledged stolen gold cannot defeat the lawful title of the owner whose gold is stolen or impede investigation into FIR pertaining to such alleged acts.
The court was hearing a plea by IIFL Finance Limited seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 94 (Summons to produce document or other thing) BNSS by the police in relation to theft of gold which had been pledged by the accused to the petitioner for securing a loan.
Case title: Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka
CRL.P 8070/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 12) quashed charge of Bigamy (Section 494 IPC) against the alleged second wife of a man, in a complaint filed by the first wife of the husband reiterating that such a spouse cannot be dragged into the case specially where the allegations stems from a suspicion.
The court was hearing a petition moved by a husband and his family as well as his alleged second wife, seeking quashing of an FIR filed on the complaint of the complainant stated to be the first wife of the petitioner. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498A(cruelty), 323(voluntarily causing simple hurt), 494(bigamy), 417(punishment for cheating), 506(criminal intimidation), 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In June last year the court had stayed the probe.
Case title: Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2100 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea making allegations of corruption against Chief Minister Siddaramiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar and seeking registration of criminal proceedings observing that the petitioner had added every person holding office and if the plea is permitted it would be abuse of law.
The court was hearing a petition moved by National president of Bhrastachar Virodha Party and a former employee of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, against Chief Minister Siddaramiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar and various MLAs making allegations of corruption against them.
Case title: Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION No.7711/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a Bangladeshi national accused of forging an Indian passport by using a fake Aadhar Card after noting that the grounds of arrest had not been provided to the petitioner.
The court was hearing the bail plea by a Bangladeshi national accused of offences under Section 319(Cheating by personation), 336(3)(Forgery), 340(Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine) BNS; Section 12-1A(a)(b) (foreign national obtaining passport by suppressing information of his nationality or holds a forged passport or any travel document) Passport Act and Section 14-A (Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc) and 14-B (Penalty for using forged passport) of Foreigners Act.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court modified a woman's conviction from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous, after noting that a quarrel had suddenly arisen between her and her female neighbour over drying of clothes which was a "trivial issue".
The court modified the conviction to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means) which is punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. In contrast to this, punishment for offence under Section 325 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and fine.
Case title: Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3127 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51
The Karnataka High Court has held where a son dies intestate leaving behind wife and children–being direct lineal descendants, his mother would not have a right to estate/inheritance under the Indian Succession Act.
The court was hearing an appeal challenging a trial court order which had dismissed a family's plea seeking issuance of succession certificate of the deceased member. The trial court had dismissed the plea of the deceased's wife and children taking note of the claim of the deceased's mother.
Justice Jyoti M in her order observed that the deceased died died intestate, and he is survived by his wife and children as his lineal descendants, whereas the Trial Court refused the succession certificate on the mistaken premise that the deceased's mother's status as a legal heir precluded the applicant's claim.
Case title: Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India
WRIT PETITION NO. 26412 OF 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the 'Leave India' notice issued to an Australian national who was residing on an Employment Visa, noting that the visa was obtained via misrepresentation as no process for recruiting local talent for the post was conducted.
It held that the Leave India notice was not vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner, as a foreign national residing on a contractual visa obtained through misrepresentation, does not enjoy the same degree of procedural protection as a citizen or a long-term resident seeking citizenship.
53. Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL To Disband Tatkal, Emergency Quota Schemes For Rail Tickets
Case title: Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India
WP 3787/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 13) dismissed a PIL seeking to disband tatkal and emergency quota schemes for railway tickets, stated to be implemented without legislative backing.
When the matter was called, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
The PIL prayed for disbanding existing Tatkal and Emergency Quota schemes implemented through executive orders without any legislative backing. In lieu of these schemes the petition sought direction to the Union of India to table schemes before the Parliament in accordance with Section 60 and 199 of Railways Act in order to ensure proper legislative compliance.
Case title: X & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7331 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54
The Karnataka High Court quashed a dowry demand FIR registered against the husband and his kin, finding that the allegations were baseless specially in view of the fact that the wife's family belonged to economically weaker section wherein no financial sources were shown to prove how the alleged demand was paid.
The charge sheet alleged that husband and his kin demanded Rs.10 Lakh, 1 kg of gold, 2 kgs of silver as dowry, out of which the complainant's family allegedly paid Rs.5 Lakh in cash, 500 grams of gold and silver articles.
Case title: C Muniraju v/s SN Subbareddy & Others
ELECTION PETITION No.4 OF 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 55
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the election of Congress MLA SN Subbareddy elected from the Bagepalli constituency in the 2023 legislative assembly polls, over allegations of malpractice raised by the BJP's C Muniraju.
The court however partly allowed Muniraju's election petition while refusing to declare him as the winning candidate.
After examining various issues raised in the petition, Justice MGS Kamal in his order held:
"Election of Respondent No.1 to the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140- Bagepalli Assembly Constituency is set aside. Relief of Declaration sought by the petitioner to declare him as duly elected to fill the seat of 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140- Bagepalli Assembly Constituency is rejected. Registry shall communicate this order to the Speaker of the State Legislature and shall also forward certified copy to the Election Commissioner as required under Section 103 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Rule 19 of Election Petitions Procedure Rules, Karnataka"
Case title: Lakshmidevi S R v/s State of Karnataka and Others
WP 3071/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 56
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 17) refused to interfere in a woman's plea seeking police action on her complaint alleging financial fraud of Rs. 1.45 Lakh by a religious person, granting her liberty to avail alternative remedy of approaching senior police officers and the magistrate court.
The petitioner contended that she was duped of certain money by a "religious person". She sought that the police be directed to take suitable action on her complaint dated 17-11-2025. The plea further seeks a direction to the police to give her proper protection from one Prasanna Guruji and Shailaja of Shakti Nageshwara Temple, Bengaluru and to take suitable action against them for duping her of Rs. 1,45,000.
Case title: Rahul Gandhi v/s BJP
CRL.P 14473/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 57
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 17) quashed proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case filed by State BJP over an alleged defamatory advertisement and related social media posts, holding that the party was not the aggrieved person.
In doing so the court further held that except for the use of his photo, Gandhi had no nexus with the alleged defamatory advertisement. The case arises out of the Congress party's “Corruption Rate Card” advertisement which claimed that various posts and transfers under the then-BJP government carried fixed “rates” and “commissions”.
Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav in his order observed that the complainant before the trial Court is "Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its State Secretary, BJP Karnataka, S.Keshava Prasad".
The court noted that the complaint appeared to indicate that the BJP's state unit, the government formed by the BJP in the stat earlier and the BJP political party have bee defamed by the advertisement.
It however said that if the aggrieved party is a "national party"–BJP then he complaint ought to have been filed by the "duly authorized representative of the National Party".
"However, the letter of authorisation is issued by the President of the State Unit to its Secretary of the State Unit as made out by Ex.C.1. Such authorisation of the President of the Sate Unit cannot be accepted as legal authorisation to represent the BJP as a National Party," the court said.
Case title: X v/s Y
MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 58
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order denying divorce to a husband claiming desertion, observing that mere accusation of the wife having an extra-marital affair amounts to mental cruelty and would be a cogent reason for her to live apart.
The court was hearing the husband's appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his plea for divorce under Section 13(1(b) of Hindu Marriage Act sought on the ground of desertion.
A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice TM Nadaf in its order observed that merely living separately for considerable period of time may not amount to desertion, but what is to be proved is the animus for separate living attributable on the party/spouse living apart.
"Though the respondent has been placed ex-parte, there is no cogent evidence placed by petitioner to substantiate his claim of desertion by the respondent. The trial Court in paragraph No.17 has clearly stated that despite taking the contention that the respondent is having extra marital relationship, but the petitioner has failed to prove the same by leading substantial evidence and by producing substantial proof in line with such statement and further observed that the allegation of extra marital relationship without proof would operate as mental cruelty and perhaps this may be the reason for the wife to live apart," the court said.
59. Marriage Hall Owner Not Liable For Child Marriage Without Knowledge Or Intent: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Abdul Hameed v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201493 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 59
The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi bench) quashed criminal proceedings lodged against the owner of a marriage hall wherein a minor pregnant girl was allegedly married, holding that there was no hard and fast rule that the owner must verify the age proof of the bride and bride-groom while renting the premises.
Justice Rajesh Rai K in his order said:
"The allegation against this petitioner is that he is the owner of Hussain Hall, Vijayapura, where the marriage of victim and accused No.1 was performed. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage hall was booked by the parents of accused No.1 and the victim with the employees of petitioner. In such circumstance, there is no such hard and fast rule that the owner of the marriage hall should verify the age proof of the bride and bride-groom while renting out the wedding hall. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has the knowledge and intention along with the other accused persons to perform the marriage of the minor victim with accused No.1. Hence the offences charge sheeted against the petitioner do not attract against him".
Case title: Sridutta S v/s Poojitha O
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4556 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 60
Refusing to transfer a maintenance case on the husband's request, the Karnataka High Court observed that merely because his mother is a widowed aged lady would not be a ground for seeking transfer of the case from Chikkamagaluru to Bengaluru where he is residing.
The court was hearing the husband's plea seeking transfer maintenance case pending before family court in Chikkamagaluru to the family court in Bengaluru.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar was informed that there is no any order of interim maintenance by the Family Court, Chikkamagaluru and husband's counsel said that no such prayer had been made by the wife seeking interim maintenance.
"The respondent is not having any avocation and she is claiming maintenance from her husband. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be looked into whenever transfer of the cases is sought. If the case is transferred as sought for by the petitioner as well, it will cause inconvenience to the respondent - wife as she has to travel from Chikkamgaluru to Bengaluru as she is not having any avocation and no interim maintenance is ordered by the Family Court, Chikkamagaluru. Mainly because the petitioner's mother is widowed aged lady is not a ground for seeking transfer of the case from Chikkamagaluru to Bengaluru where the petitioner is residing. Considering the above aspect, there are no grounds made out for transfer of the maintenance case as sought for," the court said.
Case title: Renuka Yallamma Temple Trust & Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 2923 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 61
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a PIL seeking change of name of Beereshwaranagara Ward to Chunchaghatta, observing that no public interest had arisen in the matter nor were any fundamental rights of the petitioners violated.
The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation petition challenging a notification dated 19.11.2025 passed by respondent No.3–Under Secretary of State's Urban Development Department with regard to Ward No.43 known as 'Beereshwaranagara' Ward in Bengaluru. The petitioners, who were residents of the area, had sought that the ward be renamed as 'Chunchaghatta'.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha observed that no fundamental rights of the petitioners or anybody was violated in naming the ward as Beereshwaranagara, and petitioners' opinion or a though that they may have cannot be termed as public interest litigation.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Raghuveer & Anr. and connected appeal
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695/2025, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 62
The Karnataka High Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of raping a girl claimed to be a minor, holding that in cases where the victim does not support the prosecution and where medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations, such cases have a high chance of resulting in acquittal.
In doing so the court noted that the victim had herself eloped with the accused.
Case title: T N Jagadeesh v/s Chairman/Deputy Commissioner The District Caste and Income Verification Committee & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 24836 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 63
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Lingayat religious community and Ganiga–which is a distinct occupational caste–are not mutually exclusive, wherein a person may profess Lingayat community faith yet belong to Ganiga caste within the broader community fold.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj was considering whether in law, "Lingayat" (religious community) and "Ganiga" (oil pressers) are mutually exclusive identities, or whether Ganiga may subsist as a distinct caste group within the broader Lingayat fold.
Case title: Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100019 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 64
The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) recently modified the jail sentence of two men convicted for theft of ATM cards from the original card holders and duplicating the same and for drawing money from the accounts of the victims.
The court was hearing a plea challenging conviction for offence under Section 66(c) IT Act and Sections 380 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.) read with Section 34 IPC, and sentence of 3 years and 2 years imprisonment respectively.
Case title: Sri K. Balajee @ Balaji Sha v/s State of Karnataka and Anr
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5539 OF 2024 and connected petitions
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 65
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a cheating and cybercrime FIR against four persons accused of duping a businessman of over Rs. 200 Crore by allegedly creating a fake State Bank of India website, hacking the actual bank website and obtaining OTPs terming the case akin to a "crime thriller".
The court was hearing petitions filed by four accused persons challenging FIR registered for various offences including those under Sections 419(cheating by personation), 420(cheating), 465(forgery), 120B(criminal conspiracy), 34(common intention) IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.
66. Karnataka High Court Allows Abandoned Child To Continue With Caregivers Who Raised Him For 10 Yrs
Case title: X & Anr. v/s Child Welfare Committee
WRIT PETITION NO. 18481 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 66
The Karnataka High Court has asked the Central Adoption Resource Authority to consider the plea of a married couple in their 50s seeking adoption of a child they took in 10 years ago after he was found abandoned in a Mutt, pursuant to inquiry by the Child Welfare Committee under the relevant rules.
Justice DK Singh in his order noted that Rule 18 and 19 of the Juvenile justice (care and protection of children) Model Rules states that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) has been given a responsibility to conduct an inquiry in relation to children who are in need of care and protection.
Case title: Nanjunda v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION No.16200/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 67
The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man accused of murder after noting that grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him by the investigating officer who had produced the accused before the magistrate.
The court was hearing a plea by accused No.2 seeking bail booked for offences punishable under Section 103(1)(murder), 115(2)(voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1)(voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 351(2)(criminal intimidation, 351(3) read with 3(5) (common intention) of BNS.
Justice Shivashankar Amarannavaar referred to Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra (2025) and said:
"In the case on hand also, the investigating officer who has arrested the petitioner produced him before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate has not furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Therefore, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of arrestee.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has also observed as under: 60. ……However, the prosecution may move an application for remand or custody, if required, along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, before the magistrate if the case has not been committed for trial and in case the trial having commenced before the Trial Court as the case may be".
Case title: Sri K Arun Kumar v/s State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 35777 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 68
Issuing guidelines on posting of state government officials, the Karnataka High Court has said that if an officer is relieved from his previous post without providing him with the next posting then his salary for the waiting period shall recovered from the officer empowered to order such transfer.
The court was hearing an Excise officer's plea challenging an order passed by the the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which rejected his plea to quash a Notification dated 29.01.2025 posting another officer in the petitioner's place without providing the petitioner any posting.
Case title: Winzo Games Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka
CRL.P 10707/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 69
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (February 21) quashed a 2024 FIR registered against online gaming company WinZo Games Private Limited booked in an FIR wherein a woman has alleged that her Pan Card details were stolen and misused on WinZo's gaming app.
While pronouncing the order Justice M Nagaprasanna said:
"Allowed, quashed. It is made clear that the quashment of proceedings in impugned crime will not come in the way of any other accused nor any other crime pending".
Case title: Bhimsingh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200201 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against a panchayat official booked for erroneously hoisting the National Flag upside down during independence day function, observing that it was an unintentional mistake by the official.
Justice Rajesh K Rai in his order said:
"As could be gathered from records, the contents of the complaint reveals that, the petitioner was deputed as Officer for the Flag hoisting ceremony on 15.08.2021. However, he negligently without taking any such proper precautions, displayed the Flag upside down and same was unfurled erroneously. 8. Further, on careful scrutiny of the charge sheet materials, all the witnesses have stated that the said incident was caused only due to the negligent act of the petitioner and the same was not with an intention or with an ulterior motive to insult the National Flag".
Case title: Abdul Khavee v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202013 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against a man booked in obscenity FIR for sending WhatsApp message to the complainant stating that he and his brother should not have invited Hindu priests to inauguration of a function hall, as "they treated Muslims very badly".
Case title: Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5163 OF 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that both demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant to perform a public duty are a pre-requisite to invoke offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.
In doing so the court quashed an FIR registered against a police Sub-Inspector for allegedly demanding Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant to close a case registered against the latter.
Case title: Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
The Karnataka High Court set aside proceedings before the sessions court against Editor-in-Chief of Kannada Prabha newspaper Ravi Hegde in a criminal defamation case lodged against him by Minister K J George with respect to certain newspaper articles.
The legislator had in 2020 filed a defamation case against Ravi Krishna Reddy and N R Ramesh, president and general secretary of the Karnataka Rashtra Samithi, and Hegde for allegedly making “baseless, deliberate, reckless, malicious and false allegations” against him.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing Hegde's plea–who is accused no.4 before the trial court–seeking setting aside of an order dated 17.01.2020 whereby cognizance was taken against Hegde.
Case title: Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11694 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against a school principal over a picture circulated on WhatsApp which showed him standing on the National Flag, noting the picture of the petitioner had been edited by his student and thus no mens rea was attributable to the former.
The petitioner, principal of a Government High School, had challenged an FIR registered for offences punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honors Act.
Case title: Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil
WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri challenging a trial court order taking cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint lodged by IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil, observing that it was well reasoned passed with due application of mind.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order noted that when Sindhuri had lodged criminal defamation proceedings against Moudgil, then the latter's plea challenging the same before the high court was dismissed on the ground that Moudgil had made the alleged statements in good faith. The court thus said:
"It bears emphasis that this very plea was urged by the respondent (Moudgil) in the earlier proceedings and was repelled by a coordinate bench of this Court, which held in unambiguous terms that question of good faith is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated in the crucible of a full fledged trial. The order is quoted hereinabove. The law does not countenance a differential application of principle. What was held to be triable issue for one party cannot metamorphose into a shield for the other at the threshold stage. The adage “what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander” becomes apposite, in the circumstances obtaining in the case at hand".
Case title: Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6805 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a man for intimidating a woman, after noting that the FIR was registered on the basis of the second complaint and not on the basis of a Non Cognizable Report registered earlier.
The petitioner had challenged an FIR for the offences punishable under IPC Sections 341(wrongful restraint), 427(mischief causing damage to property amounting to ₹50) , 504(intention insult with intent to provoke) and 506(criminal intimidation).
The complainant alleged that the petitioner being the Junior Wireless Officer entered her chamber shouting against her. Immediately she called her other colleagues while the petitioner lifted a chair and threatened to smash her head.
Case title: Asif v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2072 OF 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order convicting a husband for murder who poured petrol and set ablaze a man over suspicion of affair with his wife, observing that he had the intention to commit the offence.
In doing so the court affirmed the dying declaration of the deceased as well as the evidence of the eye-witnesses, finding it credible and without any material contradiction.
Case title: Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16636 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
The Karnataka High Court has observed that there is no mandate to take signature of the accused on the record of the test identification parade conducted in respect of an offence.
The Court was hearing a man's bail plea booked for offence under Section 311 (robbery, dacoity with attempt to cause grievous hurt) BNS. The prosecution had alleged that when the complainant was walking on a road, an unknown person came on a scooter, stopped the complainant and threatened him with a machete-like long chopper to hand over money.
Case title: Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings lodged against a man accused in a rioting and murder case, after noting that his co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court as the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
The court was hearing a plea wherein the petitioner–accused No.14, challenging the continuance of criminal case proceedings against him for offences including IPC Sections 147(rioting), 302(murder), 120B(criminal conspiracy), read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. He sought quashing of the proceedings arguing that his co-accused by acquitted by the sessions court in 2025 and he is entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity.
Case title: Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1774 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Granting relief to a murder accused, the Karnataka High Court held that merely because the accused furnished surety for release on the last day on which it could have been furnished as directed in the order, would not disentitle him from the benefit of the release order.
The court was hearing a man's plea challenging a sessions court order which had rejected his application for furnishing of bonds and sureties.The petitioner is accused No.1 in an FIR registered for offences punishable under various provisions of the Arms Act, and under Sections 103(1)(murder), 238 (causing disappearing of evidence) read with Section 3(5) (common intention) BNS.
Case Title: Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.
WRIT PETITION NO. 101353 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
The Karnataka High Court has held that termination of a punitive or stigmatic nature cannot be made without providing an effective opportunity of hearing or conducting a departmental inquiry. The Court observed that once an employee has entered service, even an order styled as termination cannot be sustained if it is founded on allegations of misconduct and passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice.
Justice K.S. Hemalekha was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 issued by the North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the petitioner's services as a KSRTC Security Guard were terminated. The petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while in service. While in service, a show-cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had produced false educational documents. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the Corporation terminated his services on the premise that he had not appeared for the concerned semester examination and had secured appointment by misrepresentation. The petitioner contended that the order was stigmatic and punitive in nature and had been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry or furnishing the alleged verification report.
Case Title: Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
The Karnataka High Court has held that before dismissing a suit under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for want of appropriate consequential relief, the Court must afford the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint or, in deserving cases, mould the relief. The Court observed that the proviso is intended to avoid multiplicity of litigation and not to defeat substantive rights on technical grounds, and recommended that Parliament revisit the Law Commission's suggestion to amend the provision to resolve continuing interpretational controversy.
Case Title: Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors.
W.P. No. 3784 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
The Karnataka High Court has held that the Labour Courts, Tribunals and other statutory authorities functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will continue to exercise jurisdiction till the Tribunals are constituted and become functional under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The Court observed that in view of the amendment to Section 104 of the Code on 16.02.2026, the repeal of the 1947 Act does not create a vacuum, and the existing adjudicatory forums will continue to function in terms of the saving clause.
Case title: Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2898 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Karnataka High Court has directed release of a man sent to judicial custody by the trial court for allegedly kidnapping his wife, after noting that admittedly his major wife had voluntarily gone with him and thus the offence was wrongly invoked.
Noting that the offences invoked were bailable, the court said that the trial court had erred in sending the petitioner to judicial custody.
Case title: Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO.100194 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
The Karnataka High Court has directed the North West Road Transport Corporation (NWRTC) to frame within three months guidelines governing transfer of employees, adding that till such guidelines are issued the transfer orders made on administrative grounds shall be speaking orders containing reasons.
The court passed the order while setting aside the transfer of a driver, transferred from one division to another on administrative grounds, noting that the Corporation had no guidelines in place and the same could lead to arbitrariness.
Case title: Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12427 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Granting bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court observed that the 15-year-old survivor had a love affair with the accused and she is of an age where she could understand the consequences of her actions.
The court was hearing the man's bail plea booked under BNS Sections 137(2)(kidnapping), 75(sexual harassment), 96(procuration of child), 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 64(rape) and Section 6(aggravated penetrative sexual assault) POCSO Act.
Case title: The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v/s M/s Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd.
WRIT PETITION NO. 23372 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 87
The Karnataka High Court has held that the penalty imposed on an establishment under the Employees Provident Fund Act for delaying payment of employees' provident fund contribution cannot be reduced below 25% of the arrears.
In doing so the court modified an order which had reduced a company's penalty from over Rs. 3 Lakh to Rs. 25,000.
Case title: High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 16530 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 88
The Karnataka High Court recently closed a suo-motu PIL concerning the Chinnaswamy stadium stampede which occurred ahead of an event to celebrate Royal Challenger Bangalore's (RCB) victory at the 2025 IPL Final, after it was informed that a bill overseeing crowd control had been sent by the State Assembly for consultation.
For context, the high court had last year taken suo-motu cognizance of the incident and had asked the Karnataka Government to ascertain cause of the tragedy and how to prevent it in future. Reportedly 11 people lost their lives in the stampede which had occurred in Bengaluru while over 30 people are stated to have suffered injuries. RCB won the 2025 IPL Final defeating Punjab Kings on June 3, winning the coveted trophy for the first time, since the inception of the IPL in 2008.
Case title: Naveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4513 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the police to permit a trade union to use loudspeakers for creating awareness about the organisation of a protest subject to certain conditions, observing that an awareness campaign is a facet of democratic process which cannot be restricted unreasonably.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Centre for Indian Trade Unions and its President challenging a 04.02.2026 endorsement by the police rejecting the Union's application to use loudspeakers on two autorickshaws to create awareness amongst the residents of Malleshwaram, Bengaluru about a protest organised by the Union.
Case title: Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6405 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 27) granted parole 3-day emergency parole to a visually disabled man–convicted for various offences including kidnapping and sentenced to life, to enable him to attend his sister's wedding functions.
The plea moved by the convict's mother stated that her son has 77% permanent visual disability (blindness) which has been certified by a hospital and he has also been issued a Unique Disability Identity Card by Government of India. The plea further stated that the convict's sister has locomotor disability and that various customary and matrimonial ceremonies connected with her marriage are scheduled to be conducted from 25.02.2026 to 01.03.2026.
Case title: Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.968 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that mere delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant cannot be a ground to acquit the accused in a murder case, as the immediate concern of the victim's family would be save the injured instead of approaching the police.
In doing so the court upheld a trial court order convicting a man for murder and sentencing him to life, who had been booked for assaulting the deceased with with a wooden log on his, pursuant to which he succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the hospital.
Case title: State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2017, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.420 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a trial court order which had acquitted eight men accused of rioting and attempt to murder persons inside a mosque who were offering prayers, observing that there was no material available against the accused persons.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order noted:
"Though PWs.1 and 2 have deposed regarding intention to take away their life, but they have sustained only one injury. If accused No.1 really had intended to commit the murder, he would have inflicted more number of injuries, but PWs.1 and 2 have sustained only one injury. It is also important to note that the Court has to take note of material contradictions in the evidence of other eyewitnesses and they have also spoken that others have also assaulted with stones, however, there are no stone injuries either on PWs.1 and 2.
Hence, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be believed with regard to the injuries caused by others with stones and also it is clear that stones were found outside the Masjid and not inside the Masjid. In order to connect accused Nos.2 and 3, specific allegation is made that both of them have conspired, but there is no direct evidence with regard to conspiracy and conspiracy would be proved only by placing on record the circumstantial evidence. In order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court either oral evidence, or documentary evidence. Hence, the trial Court, having taken note of the fact that there is no material available against accused Nos.2 to 9, rightly acquitted them".
Case title: Mohammed Haris Nalapad v/s State By SGWF Post P.S. (RPF)
WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings lodged against Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad who was booked in 2022 for squatting infront of a train at a station in Bengaluru resulting in its detention, noting that none of the ingredients alleged were made out.
The petitioner had approached the high court against a trial court order taking cognizance of offences in an FIR registered under Sections 145(c)(If any person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway wilfully or without excuse interferes with any amenity provided by the railway administration so as to affect the comfortable travel of any passenger he may be imprisoned for a term extendable to six months), 147(Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass), 154 (Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by rash or negligent act or omission) and 174(a) (Obstructing running of train, etc) of the Railways Act.
Case title: D A Srinivas v/s CBI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 961 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to DA Srinivas, son of late former MP D.K. Adikesavulu, who has been booked in a case registered by the CBI over alleged counterfeiting and forgery of government stamps and documents.
The case was lodged after a complaint was filed by Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar alleging that he came to know through a newspaper report that forged documents were prepared using a machine which belongs to his office and 08 documents of Yelahanka Sub-Registrar Office, 09 documents of Shivajinagar Sub-Registrar Office and 05 documents of Kengeri Sub-Registrar Office were prepared while using forged seal and signature of his office officials.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Pavithra Gowda & Others
WP 1421/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 4) laid down guidelines on providing home-cooked food to undertrials and prisoners observing that protection of human dignity does not cease at the gates of prison.
The court passed the order while setting aside a trial court order which had permitted home-cooked food for actress Pavithra Gowda, Nagaraju R and Lakshman M–presently facing trial in the Renukaswamy Murder case, after finding that before granting such permission, prior medical examination of the accused persons had not been conducted.
Case title: X v/s State
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17299 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant the custody of a girl to her mother after noting that there were "prima facie" allegations against the mother of forcing her into prostitution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:
"The issue in the lis does not concern the merit of the crime or the charge sheet so filed by the State. The statement of the victim and the statement of others would prima facie indicate that the mother had forced the daughter to prostitution. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is right in contending that when a child is rescued from a prostitution racket and is in the custody of the State or the Child Welfare Home, but when there are allegations against the mother that she is indulging in the act of using her daughter for the purpose of prostitution, the girl should not be handed over to the custody of the mother.
It is un-understandable as to how the mother is left while filing the charge sheet, notwithstanding the fact that there is a lurking suspicion that she has indulged in forcing her daughter for prostitution albeit, prima facie, and how could the mother be left off while filing the charge sheet".
Case title: X & Anr. v/s Chief Registrar Births and Deaths Bengaluru & Anr.
WRIT PETITION NO. 33465 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has held that alteration of child's surname to reflect the mother's lineage/family name does not substantially affect the father's rights specially when the mother is the sole caregiver and where the father is not involved in the child's life.
The court was hearing plea by a minor girl whose parents were in a live-in relationship, seeking a direction to the state authorities to change her name which reflected her father's surname, to her mother's surname in her birth certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the case did not involve deletion of the father's name as the father and that the statutory acknowledgment of paternity remains untouched as his name continues to be reflected in the birth certificate.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Deepak Haldar & Ors.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State government to issue guidelines concerning background verification, identity confirmation or registration of inter-state migrant workers, while hearing a case wherein five persons stated to be migrant workers were accused of a triple murder.
In doing so the court also emphasized need for preventive safeguards through strict enforcement of existing labour and criminal regulatory mechanisms as well as a introduction of mandatory police verification mechanism before engaging workers who reside within private premises. The court however also emphasized while strengthening the mechanism migrant workers must not be stigmatized calling for a balanced approach.
Case title: Naseer Ahmed v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14932 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court quashed offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt lodged against Congress leader Naseer Ahmed accused of assaulting former MLA K Sudhakar in the Legislative Assembly in 2019.
It was alleged that by the complainant Amruthesh NP that on 10.07.2019 in front of the Office of Minister K.J. George and the Speaker of Vidhana Soudha, while MLA K Sudhakar was proceeding to submit his resignation to the Speaker, some Members of the Legislative Council dragged K Sudhakar to the Chambers of the Minister and had assaulted him.
Case title: Mohammed Mujashsim vs State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 6093/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
The Karnataka High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction upon the State to issue circulars to enforce the judgment of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, 2014(2) SCC 1.
When the plea came up for hearing before the principal bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, the court observed that it cannot give omnibus directions to State authorities in pursuance of the PIL.
The Court added that if an FIR is not registered, there is a recourse to other remedies in BNSS; there is no requirement to issue blanket orders in this regard. The Court also refused to comment on the cases mentioned in the writ petition since they are live cases not yet disposed of.
Case title: Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr v State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No.11347 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
In an NDPS case concerning two Nigerian nationals, the Karnataka High Court has said that Article 22 of the Constitution applies to Indian nationals and Foreign nationals alike, since the expression 'no person' has been used in the Article.
“….The constitutional guarantee does not evaporate at the border nor does it diminish by reason of nationality, except an enemy alien as defined under Article 22(3)(a) which expressly makes the provision inapplicable to an enemy alien, otherwise, a foreigner within the territory of India though, subject to the regulatory regime governing entry and stay is nevertheless, entitled to the procedural safeguards mandated by Article 22…”, the High Court observed.
The Nigerian nationals were accused of possessing narcotics worth Rs 50 lakhs meant to be sold to students and software professionals in Bengaluru. During the investigation, they were found to have multiple passports and expired visas.
Case title: X v/s State & Anr
Case No: WP No.35036 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
Observing that the criminal justice system cannot be made a remedy for the emotional turmoil of failed relationships, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR U/s 69 and 115(2) of BNS arising from a live-in relationship in Ireland.
“…. If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the Courts would transform into forums of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice…”, the court opined while absolving the petitioner male from the continuing criminal prosecution.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also observed that if the sexual intercourse did not stem from 'deceit from inception', it would be unjust to 'criminalise heartbreak'.
Case Title: M/S. ND Developers Private Ltd & Ors. v. Ritesh Raushan
Case No: Criminal Petition No.11207 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
When the drawer of the cheque could not have exercised real control or authority upon the relevant bank account on which a cheque is drawn, its dishonour would not warrant proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, held the Karnataka High Court.
The court clarified that, in order to attract S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused should have control over the account when the cheque becomes due for presentation. The drawer of the cheque can't be said to possess authority or control over an account if there is a live debit freeze on it.
Case Title: Binoj P J v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 17142 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
Iterating the precedents laid down by the apex court, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea to quash the criminal proceedings against a 38-year-old man who allegedly stored sexually exploitative content of children in his mobile phone.
“…it is not transmission alone, but even storage of child pornographic content which has the capacity of being transmitted, which would become an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act”, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted in the order after hearing the criminal petition.
When done with the intention of transmitting or disseminating the stored abusive content, such act falls within the ambit of an 'inchoate' offence and Section 15 of the POCSO Act would spring into action even without actual transmission or sharing of such content, the single judge bench noted by relying on apex court decision in Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728.
Case Title: K. Ganesh & Anr. vs. Govind Reddy & Ors.
Case Number: RP No. 587 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
Emphatically censuring a lawyer's attempt to 'browbeat' and 'threaten' the court to pass favourable orders on the guise of a review petition, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25000/- before dismissing the said petition as 'vexatious' and 'frivolous'.
“…The Court cannot satisfy both parties; one party obviously being dissatisfied and the Advocate - Sri.B.M.Arun could not have stepped into the shoes of the client to express his dissatisfaction as if it is a personal case and ought not to have addressed the Court in the conduct disrespecting the Court and harming dignity and decorum of the Court”, the bench sitting at Dharwad opined that the lawyer had crossed a line in the process of canvassing arguments for his clients.
Case Title: Nishchay Babu Arkalgud & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5968 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against the online gold platform Jar Gold and its directors for offences under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act).
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the application filed by Jar Gold Retail Private Limited and its Director Nishchay Babu Arkalgud, noted that the economic substance of a transaction, and not its 'cosmetic garb', will determine whether it contravenes the law.
"…Law is concerned not with the cosmetic garb in which a transaction is clothed, but with its intrinsic character and its economic substance," , the court reflected on the ever-changing landscape of modern financial crimes in the online realm.
Case Title: Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP No. 30006 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has called for the State's records to verify the implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure devised earlier this year to deal with the larger systemic issues in tracing the missing persons.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj addressed the bigger picture of untraceable disappearances while hearing the specific grievance about a missing person's FIR marked 'dormant' in 2022 without progress:
The court has now asked the State to submit a 'comprehensive compliance report' regarding the implementation of Standing Order 1054, which deals with a procedure to be followed on receipt of information about missing children/persons, by 10th April.
108. Entire Funds In Account Can't Be Presumed 'Proceeds Of Crime': Karnataka High Court In WinZO Case
Case Title: Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 492 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
Allowing the WinZO group to make the payments to its employees from the company account frozen after money laundering allegations, the Karnataka High Court has held that the entire amount in the accounts of WinZO and its subsidiaries cannot be deemed as 'proceeds of crime'.
“…Apex Court has clearly held that the proceeds of crime have to be linked to a predicate offence and it is only such property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as 'proceeds of crime”, the Division Bench observed while referring to Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case.
Case Title: X v. Z
Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a 73-year-old husband, his alleged second wife, and his own children, holding that mere living in an 'illegal relationship' does not constitute marriage for the purpose of Section 494 IPC (marrying again during the lifetime of spouse).
“…it was incumbent upon the complainant [wife] to plead and prove that accused No.1 had married accused No.4. Mere living in a relationship, does not amount to a marriage and therefore, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was not made out by the complainant…”, the bench sitting at Bengaluru also clarified that the trial court's order of taking cognisance against the accused was not legally sound.
Case Title: Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a Child Marriage case against the groom as well as the families of the groom and the minor girl, by underscoring that ignorance of law or factum of a cordial marital relationship would not legalise the wrong already committed.
“Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education and empowerment, instead bless them with premature matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an illusive aspiration…”, the court strongly remarked.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also warned that the liability for facilitating child marriages wouldn't be confined to the respective families or relatives alone. Even the temple and the officiating priests of such a marriage could be brought under the sweep of law. Similarly, even a marriage hall and its management may face the rigours of law for conducting child marriages, the court explained.
Case Title: Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma
Case No: RFA 1796/2012
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie only when the probate court ventures to examine beyond the testamentary rights and determines proprietary civil rights of the parties involved.
“…where the probate court travels beyond the statutory limits of testamentary jurisdiction and undertakes a comprehensive adjudication of civil proprietary rights by interpreting title documents, determining the effect of partition, adjudicating possession or declaring ownership of the property, the character of the adjudication changes….”, the court observed.
Case title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another
Case No: Writ Petition No.34625 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has recently issued uniform, gender neutral, guidelines to be followed in 'maintenance' cases to apply for the financial records of their spouse, instead of resorting to the RTI Act.
The court added that the guidelines issued will apply to all Magistrate Courts, Family Courts, Sessions Courts and Appellate Courts within the State of Karnataka adjudicating maintenance/alimony proceedings.
The guidelines would also apply squarely to all designated officers and authorities of the Income Tax Department within the court's jurisdiction.
Case title: Smt. Sarbhanu Khatoon v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P. 2317/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 25-year-old woman, a resident of West Bengal, who was arrested for shouting the slogan 'Jai Bangla' during a demolition drive in Bengaluru this January.
The single judge bench of Justice S.Rachaiah noted that the woman had uttered 'Jai Bharath Mata Ki Jai' thrice after uttering 'Jai Bangla' once. A person had instigated the woman to shout 'Jai Bharath Mata Ki Jai' at first, the court observed in the bail order pronounced on 11th March.
Case Title: Chethan. S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No.2 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) should not directly entertain or interfere in the transfer and posting of government and public undertaking employees, while remarking that the 'highest authority of the State' has more important duties to perform.
A division Bench of Justice D.K Singh and Justice T.M Nadaf held that the appellant employee's current posting should not be disturbed until the next transfer season in April. Even in the case of transfer, the authorities should comply with the applicable transfer rules and policy, the court added.
“We are therefore, of the opinion that no request for transfer and posting should be entertained by the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister directly. The matter should end at the level of the department itself. Hon'ble Chief Minister has better and more important work to perform than interfering with the transfers and postings of the employees of the State Government and Government undertakings”, the court remarked that a copy of the order should also be sent to the Chief Minister's Office.
Case title: M/S. Reward360 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.9356 Of 2025 C/W Criminal Petition No.9844 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Granting interim custody of seized items to the accused hacker in the Reward360 cyber fraud case, the Karnataka High Court has held that valuable articles cannot be kept idle in police custody for an unduly long period merely because there are 'rival claims' over their ownership.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz set aside a Magistrate Court order that had rejected applications for interim custody filed by both the accused[hacker] and the de facto complainant [Reward360].
Case Title: Smt. Laxmi Nagappa Kittur v. The Registrar General & Ors.
Case No: WA 100548/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which had held that a married daughter living in her husband's home cannot seek compassionate appointment on the ground of her father's death.
In doing so, the court said that compassionate appointment aims to provide relief for 'immediate financial distress' to a 'family in crisis' following the death of an employee.
The court was hearing a woman's appeal seeking compassionate appointment after father's death. Her writ petition had been rejected by the single judge who had held that appellant was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as she was a married daughter and had not made out grounds for appointment on compassionate ground.
Case title: U v. V
Case No: Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
In a child custody battle, the Karnataka High Court has recently held that the 'ordinary residence' of the child will be the determining factor to decide the applicable jurisdiction. The High Court underscored that though the father retains his right to seek custody, he must do so in the U.S. Courts where the child ordinarily resides.
Asking the father to return the custody of his minor son to the mother in the United States, the court opined that uprooting a child from their natural, social and academic environment would be against the 'welfare of the minor' by relying on Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, (2019) 7 SCC 311.
Case Title: Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India.
Case No: WP 8968/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, declined to issue directions to the government over the ongoing commercial LPG shortage with regard to the hotel industry. It reasoned that constitutional courts are not equipped to monitor evolving global energy crises or interfere in the executive's distribution policies.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that it can't venture into the executive domain when the issue at hand involves complex international conflicts, supply chain problems and diplomatic deadlocks.
Case Title: Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 40299 of 2014 (C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) between 2014 and 2019 for the removal of encroachments put up over storm water drains in the city's Gubbalala area in the guise of land development.
The petitions were filed by Mantri Developers, its Apartment Owners Association and Royal Palms Residents Welfare Association at Gubbalala who had sought a direction to the municipality not to interfere with their occupation and not to demolish the residential complex.
A Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj held that once a water body or drain is vested in the State under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, its status cannot be 'divested' merely because a planning authority like the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) failed to reflect it in a Master Plan.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj
Case No: CRL.A No. 1971 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)120
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State's Health and Home Secretaries to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Surgeon of Wenlock Hospital and a Police Circle Inspector for 'serious lapses' in reporting and investigating a murder that occurred within hospital premises in 2013.
While upholding the acquittal of the accused by a Mangalore Sessions Court in 2017, a Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T expressed shock that despite a police outpost being present within the hospital and officers arriving at the scene shortly after the initial assault, no FIR was registered for over 13 hours.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 200277 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government, as the single largest litigant before constitutional courts, bears a 'corresponding responsibility' to conduct its legal affairs with institutional accountability. The court added that the government cannot expect preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation.
“…The Government cannot take advantage of bureaucratic procedures and routine file movement as a ground to seek condonation of delay...The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted strictly, and courts cannot condone delay merely on equitable considerations…”, the court observed, adding that the reasoning in the State's affidavit only reflected 'bureaucratic processing of the file at a leisurely administrative pace'.
122. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar In Alleged Land Encroachment Case
Case Title: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 143/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) quashed an FIR registered against spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar over alleged land encroachment in Bengaluru.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna however clarified that none of the observations made in the course of the order would be applicable to other accused or pending proceedings before any other forums.
The development comes in a plea moved by the spiritual guru challenging the FIR. On January 13, the Court had stayed the investigation against him.
Case Title: V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 8163/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) directed pubs and breweries in Bengaluru to initiate rigorous age verification protocols preferably at the entry of the premises.
In doing so the court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the licensee of a Brewery in the city wherein a teenager had allegedly consumed alcohol and later committed suicide.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while pronouncing the order said that the age verification can be carried out through Aadhar or any other valid identification 'at the threshold of entry'.
124. Karnataka High Court Slams Unlawful Seizure Of Lamborghini, Directs Action Against RTO Officer
Case Title: Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: Crl P.2309/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)124
While quashing an FIR in a high-profile fraud and forgery proceeding that revolves around the registration of a Lamborghini Evo with the RTO, the Karnataka High Court has taken strong exception to the conduct of a Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector who seized the said vehicle unlawfully.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while ordering the release of the vehicle in custody within a week, has asked the state to initiate a departmental enquiry against the erring motor vehicles inspector.
The court has quashed the FIR qua the petitioner while also taking note of some other aspects regarding the effacement of the car in RTO office. The plea was filed by Hi Car Care, represented by its Proprietor J. Ramakrishnaiah, who owns the luxury car.
125.'Procedural Harakiri': Karnataka High Court Criticizes Magistrate For Closing Private Complaint In Absence Of S.175(3) BNSS Order Directing FIR
Case Title: M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 14239/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (March 27) expressed its disapproval at a magistrate's order which closed a private complaint, after noting that the police had instead of filing a report as called for by the magistrate court had gone ahead and filed a cheating FIR pursuant to which the complaint was closed.
In doing so the court quashed the FIR and the trial court order, remarking that there was "procedural harakiri" which had occurred in the matter.
The high court set aside the trial court order noting that there was "no order for reference for registration of a crime" by the magistrate and without such an order for reference under Section 175(3) the crime was registered and accepted by magistrate and the private complaint was itself closed.
Case Title: Sri Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 28739 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the cheating case filed by the wife of a former JD(S) MLA against Gopal Joshi- the estranged brother of Union Minister Prahlad Joshi-and his son, holding that the ₹2 crore dispute over an election ticket was a civil matter of money recovery, not a criminal offence.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted in the order as follows:
“…The issue, in the case at hand, is a transaction which has gone wrong. Money allegedly changed hands. Therefore, it was purely for the purpose of recovery of money criminal proceedings are set into motion, which the Apex Court deprecated…”.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 36250 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Criticising the unlawful seizure of a Mercedes vehicle and subsequent cancellation of its registration during the pendency of a writ petition against the seizure, the Karnataka High Court has come down on the state's RTO Department for 'flagrant disregard for court proceedings'. The court has directed the authority to restore the registration of the Mercedes-AMG G 63 vehicle in question.
The single judge bench of Justice Jyoti M has quashed the Investigation Report of Vehicle's seizure and the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate as untenable in law. In June 2025, a special checking squad under the RTO had taken possession of the vehicle parked on the roadside, claiming non-payment of sufficient taxes as a reason.
Case Title: Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation filed to quash the appointment of several MLAs (Member of Legislative Assembly) and MLCs (Member of Legislative Council) to various Boards and Corporations with cabinet rank and pecuniary benefits similar to that of ministers.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that such appointees are not 'Ministers' within the meaning of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution.
The court held that the 15 per cent ceiling on the number of MLAs/MLCs that can be included in the council of ministers, though rigid, does not extend to statutory body/board appointments. The court clarified that such appointees, even if they receive similar salary and cabinet rank perks as those of the ministers, are not to be counted as a part of the council of ministers per se.
Case Title: Sri Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Petition No. 2783 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 129
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a government order refusing the sanction to investigate IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, former Mysuru Deputy Commissioner, in the alleged 'eco-friendly cloth bags procurement' scam.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna directed the state to provide approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to sanction preliminary investigation within four weeks. The court underscored that departmental exoneration cannot be utilised by the state to shield the accused officer from 'even the threshold scrutiny of criminal investigation'.
Case Title: Smt. Sumithra & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 12989 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 130
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws of a woman who had alleged dowry harassment, remarking that criminal law cannot be wielded as a weapon to ensnare entire families in the vortex of matrimonial discord.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna analysed the woman's complaint and opined that the case arose from 'minor skirmishes' not 'uncommon to joint families' which has been elevated to the 'pedestal of criminality'. The court added that the 'sine qua non' for a charge under Section 498A would be a grave cruelty connected to 'unlawful demands', and not merely 'marital discord'.
Case Title: Mohan Naik & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 131
While acquitting two rape-accused serving a 25-year sentence, the Karnataka High Court has underscored that the discretionary powers at the disposal of trial courts under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act [Section 168 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023] is not a shortcut to bolster the prosecution case or rectify evidence during cross examination.
The single judge bench of Justice G.Basavaraja noted that a judge has the power to put forward questions towards witnesses under Section 165 to 'discover the truth'. However, such discretionary power comes with a caveat against its utilisation for remedying material contradictions in witness statements. The court opined that such caution is necessary especially in Section 376[Rape cases] where the statement and evidence of the prosecutrix could be extra sensitive.
Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Ors. v. Sri Pavanesh D & Ors. and conn.matters
Case No: WA No. 1006/2023, WA No. 1162/2023, WA No. 1312/2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 132
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to formally notify the cadre strength of judicial officers within a fixed timeline while also enunciating the legal framework governing the seniority and cadre strength of District Judges. The court has also asked the state to implement the 4-point roster to structure promotions of judicial officers.
The Full Bench comprising Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, on Tuesday, refused to entertain a challenge made by Direct Recruit-District Judges to the 2016 and 2022 Seniority Lists [original and revised respectively] that placed Promotee District Judges above them. The full bench has hence set aside a 2023 single judge bench order which ruled in the favour of the Direct Recruits.
Case Title: Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Crl. Petition No. 981 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that Section 35(3) does not empower the Police to communicate by WhatsApp or Email the pre-arrest notice or copy of the FIR. The court clarified that the physical service of notice at the pre arrest stage is mandatory as intended by the legislature.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, relying on apex court decisions, held that electronic communication of notice under Section 35 BNSS [Section 41A of CrPC] is invalid as inferred from 'conscious omission' in the statute. The court iterated the apex court observation in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114, that it cannot introduce a procedure into Section 35 which is not intended by the legislature.
Case Title: Shyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Crl Petition No.100213 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the dispatch door of factory premises, though not a 'public place', due to its accessibility to other workers in the premises, can very well fall within the definition of 'public view' as contemplated under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court thus said that in such a case Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act was "prima facie" attracted. The offence states whoever not being a member of a SC or ST intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
Case Title: Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P 3146/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (April 06) refused to quash a criminal case registered against an airport staff accused of sexually harassing a south Korean national at the Kempegowda International Airport, and strongly disapproved of the officer's conduct.
“…She is a woman of another nation. She has described what all you did. Why did you take her to a gent's toilet?...”, Justice M Nagaprasanna orally asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner who had moved the high court challenging the proceedings.
The High Court noted that as per the complaint, the airport staff from a private firm took the south Korean woman to the washroom, made her stand in T position there, and touched her inappropriately without her consent.
“What kind of officer you are?.. Should you be spared? tell me...and the justification is that there was someone else in the ladies' washroom?”, the court orally remarked.
Case Title: Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 102733/2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Quashing a Lok Adalat award payable to the family of the deceased in a motor accident claims appeal, Karnataka High Court has clarified that the claimant not signing the joint memo of the award would render the award non-binding upon him, even claimant's' lawyer signs the memo.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, relying on various precedents, noted that the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations offer surety about the validity of an award arising from a settlement. The court noted that Regulation 17 explicitly talks about ensuring that the parties affix their signatures after fully understanding the terms of the settlement, for such an award to be valid.
“…It is clear from the joint memo that the claimants have not affixed their signatures….It is only the Advocates of both sides and the representative of the Insurance Company who have affixed their signatures…since the claimants have not signed the joint memo, I deem it appropriate to set aside the award of the Lok Adalat and restore the appeal to its file to be heard on its merits”, the bench sitting at Dharwad held.
Case Title: Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And Others
Case No: CRL.P 2753/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Refusing to quash a road rage case registered against a 23-year-old software engineer working at Whitefield, the Karnataka High Court emphasised that no one indulging in road rage would be pardoned by the court.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also orally observed that the accused should have patience and if he doesn't have such patience, the Bengaluru traffic is capable of teaching him the same.
“…If you have no patience, Bengaluru traffic would teach you patience. You should have it. No road ragers will be pardoned…”, the court orally remarked.
Case Title: Committee For Public Accountability (Regd) v. Kannada Univeristy Hampi & Anr.
Case No: WP 6414/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (April 07) refused to entertain a plea by Committee For Public Accountability against conferment of Nadoja honorary degree to state information commissioner HC Sathyan by Kannada University.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that the court cannot interfere in the independence of the university to confer award on anyone.
As per reports, on the 34th Annual Convocation of Kannada University in Hampi, Karnataka State Information Commissioner H.C Sathyan was conferred with the prestigious Nadoja honorary degree. The degree/award is usually presented to eminent personalities for their contributions to Kannada language, literature, culture, and social service etc.
Case Title: Management Of Bosch Ltd v. Andrew C. Shekharan Kp & Ors
Case No: Writ Petition No. 6976 Of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a workman is not required to file a separate delay condonation application under Section 33 C (1) [Recovery of money due from an employer] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde observed that 'sufficient cause' for delay if pleaded within the application for recovery of arrears under Section 33C (1), that would be enough to condone the delay.
“…merely because a separate application for condonation of delay-which is not mandated under the Act of 1947 is not filed, cannot be a ground to reject the claims on the ground of delay. Such an objection pertains to form rather than substance. It is well settled that, in case of conflict between form and substance, substance must prevail, unless the law expressly mandates strict adherence to the form as well….”, the court held.
Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Sri Abhishek Choudhari & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that service bonds can be enforced on medical students who avail subsidised education, noting that the same cannot be termed as "bonded labour" as it was common for students to avail study loans to defer the cost of education.
In doing so the court allowed an appeal by Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on mandatory service in its medical colleges, and set aside a 2020 single-judge's order that had done away with the compulsory service bonds for medical students.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha held that the 5-year bond, later converted into a 1-year mandate prospectively from 2020, wouldn't violate the rights of MBBS students under Article 19(1)(g) [Right to practise a profession of choice] or Article 23 [prohibition against bonded labour].
Case Title: Somashehar Rajavamshi V. Union Of India And Others
Case No: WP 5925/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court today refused to entertain a PIL challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs' circular advising singing of all six stanzas of the national song 'Vande Mataram' in all schools.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M Poonacha noted that the MHA circular mentions "may" and is thus, not mandatory.
"....The petitioner claims that the same violates the secular basic structure of the constitution.The national song is not covered under any statutory framework. ASG points out that MHA order mention 'may' and it is not mandatory...," it observed.
Case Title: M/S. New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3862 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a criminal case against a drone research company based in Bengaluru over a test drone flying across the company's premises and entering a private property, thereby allegedly constituting the offence of criminal trespass.
M/s NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited filed the petition for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 125 [Act endangering life or personal safety of others] and 329[Criminal Trespass] of BNS, 2023.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that 'criminal jurisprudence… rests on the bedrock of mensrea'. No intentional human entry or ingredients of mens rea have been met in the current case, the court opined.
Case Title: Omisha Mara v. Passport Authority of India
Case No: WP No. 8072/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the insistence by the passport authorities on the signature of a minor sportsperson's estranged father for the renewal of her passport cannot be condoned when she is all set to participate in an international sports event.
The writ petition was filed by a 16-year-old minor who is a class X student at a private school in Bengaluru, seeking the renewal of her passport for an International Taekwondo Competition in China in April 2026.
“…The insistence on the father's signature, in the peculiar facts of the present case, would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach, which would defeat the larger interest of the minor child….", the court held.
Case Title: Chandana H N v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 10676/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court today imposed ₹1 lakh costs on a PIL litigant for wrongly claiming that the State Education Minister, through a policy prescribing grading system for third language SSLC exam (including Hindi), was "doing away" with Hindi language.
Pointing towards sensitivity of the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha orally said,
"...The statement that Hindi should be done away with…no such statement is seen in the newspaper article...The present petition is not motivated by public interest…it may be to seek publicity.”
Case Title: Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl. P. 3020/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a woman booked in an NDPS case concerning a raid conducted at a birthday party in Ellavoma Farm last May.
In doing so the court noted that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful and thus conduct of medical exam under Section 51 BNSS was vitiated.
For context, Section 51 BNSS prescribes the procedure for examination of an accused by a medical practitioner, at the request of police officer.
Case title: X v/s Y
CRL.RP No. 1600 of 2016 and another petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to enhance the maintenance amount awarded to a wife in her plea under the Domestic Violence Act, noting that the husband claimed that he was 'jobless' and the wife is getting a handsome salary.
A bench of Justice V Srishananda, however, also denied relief to the husband who sought the setting aside of the 2015 order of the Family Court directing him to pay Rs. 9K to the wife. With this, the bench dismissed the criminal revision petitions filed by both parties challenging the common judgment.
Briefly put, the parties got married in April 2009 and it is the claim of the wife that there was repeated demand for additional dowry from her husband and she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment.
Case Title: S.B. Shivamurthy Shivachary Hiremutt vs. Shabir Ahamed and Ors.
Case No.: MFA No. 200322 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Observing that a religious mutt can claim compensation for the motor accident death of its head priest (mathadipathi), the Karnataka High Court underscored that 'institutional dependency' would be made applicable, similar to the concept of 'familial dependency' normally applicable in road accidents.
A Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice Tyagaraja N.Inavally allowed the mutt's prayer against the Tribunal denying them compensation under the head of 'Loss of Dependency'. The court permitted such compensation payable by pointing out that the restitution for death would accrue upon the mutt for which the 'matadipathi' was a spiritual head.
“The death of a Mathadipati results not merely in the cessation of an individual life, but in a tangible institutional loss, including: loss of spiritual leadership, disruption of administrative continuity, diminution in institutional efficacy, and potential impact on offerings and institutional income…”, the division bench observed that such loss borne by the mutt is directly attributable to the death of their leader due to the motor accident.
Case Title: Mr Antony Samy K v. The State of Karnataka & Another
Case No: Writ Petition No. 6910 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that if a party produces a certified copy of the jurisdictional court's decree and judgment before the registering authority, the latter would be duty-bound to act upon it for cancelling registered deeds even without a formal communication of the order [contemplated under Section 31(2) of the Specific Relief Act] from the court.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum issued the following directions to the sub-registrars across the state:
“…Even in cases where no formal communication is received from the Court, if a party produces a certified copy of the judgment and decree declaring the registered instrument as cancelled or void, the Sub-Registrar shall not refuse to act upon the decree….In such cases, the Sub-Registrar shall verify the authenticity of the certified copy and thereafter record the cancellation in the relevant registers and indexes…”
Case Title: Sri Krishnareddy Rep. by LRs & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. & Connected Matters
Case Nos: WA No. 99/2013, WA No. 95/2013, WA No. 97/2013, WA No. 2103/2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
Terming the acquisition of 53 acre of land parcels near Bengaluru's Hebbal flyover in favour of a non-existent private entity as a 'monumental fraud', the Karnataka High Court has directed a CBI investigation into the discrepancies surrounding the process that took place over two decades ago.
“…The entire exercise of acquiring the land for a non-existent entity was nothing but a monumental fraud committed by the authorities in a criminal conspiracy with the applicant and the Directors of Lakeview Development Corporation Private Limited... This was a fraud on statute to deprive the landowners of their valuable property for pittance on behest of a non-existent entity”, a division bench of Justices D.K. Singh and Tara Vitasta Ganju observed in its order.
The court quashed the 'fraudulent' land acquisition process, noting that the officials of state machinery had colluded with private individuals in the name of land development, to deprive the lawful land owners of their assets.
Case Title:Smt. Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 109734 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Upholding the recognition of 'right to menstrual leave' as a facet of Article 21, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 15) directed the state government to implement its 'menstrual leave policy' notification across all establishments including the unorganised sector, pending formal enactment of proposed legislation.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, sitting at Dharwad bench, in his order noted that menstrual leave "is not a plea for privilege, but an assertion of dignity, fairness and humane understanding within the spaces women inhabit.'
“The significance of menstrual leave policy is not merely administrative, but deeply rooted in the Constitutional promise of equality that embraces all citizens, beneath its expansive canopy. While the law proclaims men and women as equals, nature, in its intricate design, has bestowed upon women, certain biological experiences that set them apart - menstruation being one such profound reality. Menstruation, often referred to as periods, is not an aberration, but a natural and indispensable facet of women's reproductive cycle…”, the court held.
Case Title: Govinda v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.5248 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court has held that an accused cannot seek reprieve of default bail by citing the 60-day investigation timeline mandated under Section 193(2) BNSS (applicable for offences like POCSO and Rape).
Terming the provision as 'victim-centric', not intended 'to furnish an escape route' for the accused, the Court underscored that Section187(3) BNSS [90-day timeline for investigation in offences punishable with imprisonment of 10 years or more] remains the 'sole fountainhead' from which a right to default bail accrues.
Case Title:Tabrez Pasha v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: CRL.RP No.826 of 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the conviction of an auto-rickshaw driver who orchestrated the robbery of a gold chain from a female passenger back in 2012, has asked the convict to pay an enhanced compensation of Rs 4 lakhs to the victim woman.
The single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda, however, reduced the driver's sentence to the 15 months already undergone in judicial custody. The court leaned towards adopting the 'reformative theory' and underscored the principle of 'hate the crime, and not the criminal' while doing so.
“This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that every sinner has a future and there is a scope of reformation in everybody's life. Court is also expected to keep in mind the celebrated principles in the criminal jurisprudence that the Courts are required to hate the crime and not the criminal”, the single judge observed.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. Sri Guruswamy & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 541 of 2026 (EXCISE)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the government policy to conduct E-auctions for liquor licenses and to set reservation norms is constitutionally valid, since the applicants (expired licensees) have no 'vested right' to license renewal.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice CM Poonacha, while setting aside a single bench judge's interim stay order from November 2025, also permitted the continued operation of amended Rules 5 & 5A of the Karnataka Excise (Sale of Indian & Foreign Liquors) Second Amendment Rules, 2025.
“…There is no dispute that the licence granted is for a term of one year commencing 1st of July. Thus, the right to deal in liquor under the licence is for a fixed term. There is no indefeasible right to continue to enjoy the licence beyond its terms. The licence, in the prescribed form, also expressly states the period for which it is granted…”, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held.
Case Title: The International School Bangalore (TISB) v. Standard Chartered Bank & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 9430 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 154
The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to an International School in Bengaluru by ordering defreezing of its bank Account, and by quashing a final notice issued against it by the Varanasi Police over a five-lakh fee payment made by a student's parent, allegedly linked to a cybercrime probe.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum stated that the freezing of the entire bank account of the school was a 'drastic and disproportionate measure'. According to the Varanasi Police, the parent who made the 5 lakh fee payment is involved in a cybercrime, and the subsequent fund recipient's (school's) account was also blocked in its entirety after the said transaction.
“…the action of respondent No.2[Varanasi Cyber Crime PS] in directing the freezing of the petitioner's bank account merely on account of an alleged involvement of a parent of a student in a cybercrime registered in the State of Uttar Pradesh appears to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable. The petitioner–institution cannot be penalised for having received bona fide fee payments in the ordinary course of its functioning”, the court noted in the order about the arbitrariness in freezing the entire proceeds in the school's account.
Case Title: Sahana R. Naik & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11717 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 155
The Karnataka High Court on April 15 (Wednesday) directed the Karnataka School Examination and Assessment Board (KSEAB) to evaluate the March 2026 SSLC exams in line with the rules applicable at the time of issuing the exam notification.
This development takes on prominence in light of the recent statement by the Karnataka Education Minister that a grading system will be implemented instead of the marking system for third languages such as Hindi, Urdu, and Arabic.
The single judge bench of Justice E.S. Indiresh observed that the State would not be justified in changing the valuation procedure contrary to the circular applicable at the time of issuance of the examination notification.
“…It is well settled principle in law that, there shall not be any change in the rules of the game in the midway and implies stability or a strict adherence to the guidelines or rules issued at the time of starting of the game”, the court opined by relying on Naveen Kumar N. And Others Vs. Kptcl And Others, (2025).
Case Title: Shri G. Manjunatha v. The State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 435 of 2024 (GM-CC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 156
Dismissing an appeal by Congress MLA G Manjunatha in an alleged case of "false caste certification", the Karnataka High Court termed the allegation as "serious" and left it open for the State to consider initiating appropriate proceedings against him.
It has been alleged that the MLA, using the disputed Scheduled Caste certificate, contested and won the elections from the Mulbagal reserved constituency back in 2012 as an independent candidate.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha in its order observed that there were sufficient grounds and material on record supporting the DCVC's conclusion that the appellant belongs to the Byragi community which falls under OBC category and not the Budga Jangam community which falls under SC category.
Case Title: Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust (R) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 10181 of 2026 (LB-BMP)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 157
Underscoring that the greatness of Indian civilisation is intertwined with its dharmic and cultural activities, the Karnataka High Court has set aside Bengaluru West City Corporation's order refusing the use of the Yoga Auditorium at Sankey Park for Sri Shankaracharya Jayanti celebrations to be conducted by a Trust.
The single judge bench of Justice M.I Arun observed in the order that the celebration of Indian culture, which is intertwined with Dharma, can never be considered as illegal or unconstitutional.
The request for using the auditorium on April 21 [ Shankaracharya Jayanti] was made by Malleswaram Brahmana Sabha Trust to the West City Corporation, Greater Bengaluru Authority.
The Senior Assistant Horticulture Director of the West City Corporation had declined the request, stating that the Corporation's auditorium could not be used for Dharmic activities.
"Though India is a secular country, it does not mean that the Dharmic and cultural activities in the country cannot be entertained…. The greatness of Indian Civilization is intertwined with its Dharmic and cultural activities and removing it amounts to removing the soul from the country. The Constitution of India itself contains pictures of seal from the Indian civilisation, a Gurukul — an integral part of the Indian Education System, Ramayana, Bhagavad Gita, Gautama Buddha, Mahavira Swami and the like”, the court opined.
Right To Legal Representation Before Insurance Ombudsman Can't Be Denied At Adjudicatory Stage: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sri M.V. Narasimha Prasad v. Office of the Insurance Ombudsman (Karnataka)
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 26221 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 158
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the Insurance Ombudsman cannot deny a complainant the option of engaging an advocate once the proceedings move beyond mediation and enter the adjudicatory stage under Rule 17 of the Insurance Ombudsman Rules, 2017.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum added that refusal to permit the representation by a lawyer once the proceedings before the Insurance Ombudsman enter the 'quasi-judicial' adjudicatory stage would prejudice the interests of 'vulnerable categories of claimants'.
“…policyholder may not necessarily be a person well-versed in law or procedure; he may be an illiterate villager, a widow who is a homemaker … or a lay consumer unfamiliar with the nuances of insurance contracts and medical documentation. To expect such a claimant to effectively present his or her case involving interpretation of policy terms, exclusions, medical records and causation, without the aid of professional assistance, would be wholly unrealistic and would, in effect, amount to denial of a meaningful opportunity of hearing”, the court held in the order dated March 27.
Case Title: Sharan A. v. Director General of Civil Aviation & Anr.
Case No: WP No.5499 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 159
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed IndiGo airlines to expeditiously conclude its enquiry against a pilot suspended last year for delaying a flight by 8 hours.
The pilot claims that delay was due to a safety hazard of 1000 kilograms fuel deficit he identified in his pre-flight inspection on the Dubai-Bengaluru route. However, the airline chose to "victimise his diligent action" by suspending him and stalling the matter since September 2025.
Meanwhile, he has been unable to complete his flying hours, which is an impediment to his license renewal.
Case Title: Karnataka Road Transport Employees League v. Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP 12716/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 160
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (April 22) dismissed plea by State Road Transport Employees League seeking permission to hold an indefinite hunger strike at Bengaluru's Freedom Park, holding that while citizens have a right to protest however public places cannot be occupied indefinitely.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that the application submitted by the body to the Police Commissioner seeking permission was 'fundamentally flawed' and contrary to scheme under Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021.
Under this the licensing authority is also conferred with the power to impose time restrictions for demonstrations/ protests.
“…It is clearly evident that the petitioner association intends to go on an indefinite strike [at Freedom Park], which contravenes Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police(2020). The apex court has held that all citizens have the right to go on a protest in a democratic set-up, but public places cannot be occupied indefinitely. Now the rules mandate that the citizen applying for a license to hold a protest has to necessarily comply with requisites under Form 1-4 in the Licensing and Regulation of Protests, Demonstrations and Protest Marches (Bengaluru City) Order, 2021…”, the court said.
Case Title: Sri. Ramesh N v. Smt. Raksha M @ Shruthi
Case Nos: Rev.Pet Family Court No.15 Of 2026 C/W Writ Petition No.8159 Of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a final maintenance order under Section 125 CrPC while simultaneously setting aside an interim maintenance order under Section 24 Hindu Marriage Act passed in separate proceedings, holding that continuance of both results in overlapping financial liability of the husband which is illegal.
The single-judge bench of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao noted in the order as follows:
“The said determination [S.125 CrPC] being a final adjudication on the entitlement and quantum of maintenance, based on appreciation of evidence, assumes primacy over any interim arrangement made during the pendency of matrimonial proceedings…continuation of a parallel direction for interim maintenance in the matrimonial proceedings….result in duplication of relief and overlapping financial liability for the same period, which cannot be sustained in law.”
Case Title: X v. Z & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.33410 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a software engineer challenging an order of interim maintenance of Rs 20,000 per month for his estranged wife, holding that an able-bodied, well-qualified husband cannot evade his legal obligation of providing maintenance by citing unemployment.
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. K Manmadha Rao noted in the order dated April 17 that the factum of an estranged wife, yielding a salary of Rs 40,000/- per month, is not an absolute bar to award maintenance. The test would be whether her income is sufficient to maintain the lifestyle she enjoyed in her matrimonial home, the court said.
“…The Court must assess if the income is sufficient to sustain a lifestyle commensurate with that enjoyed in the matrimonial home. Given the Petitioner's documented monthly income during the marriage, the Respondent's salary of Rs.40,000/- is comparatively modest and does not bridge the status gap”, the court added.
Relying on Rajnesh v. Neha (2021) 2 SCC 324, the single judge bench reasoned that 'an able bodied husband is presumed capable of earning' and 'he cannot evade payment of maintenance by citing unemployment.'
Case Title: Mohammed Ashiq v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 6111 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has iterated that when a criminal case gets stayed by virtue of the powers exercised by the court under Section 482 CrPC, the 'substratum' for continuation of a Look Out Circular (LOC) no longer exists, and such an LOC should not become an interference to carry on with the profession of a person.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the police or the investigation agency, as the case may be, cannot keep the issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC) or the recall of Look Out Circular (LOC) in a limbo once the proceedings are stayed.
“…where criminal proceedings are stayed by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it has been consistently held that the very substratum for issuance or continuation of a Look Out Circular ceases to exist. Once the proceedings are stayed, it necessarily implies that the petitioner is not required to participate either in investigation or trial during the subsistence of the stay order”, the court observed.
Case Title: M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 1637 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order directing demolition of construction on the driveway space adjacent to a residential block in Bengaluru's Rajarajeshwari Nagar, after noting that the sanction plan did not conform to the fire safety norms.
In doing so the court observed that high rise buildings regardless of the luxury they provide cannot stand at the risk of General Public particularly the residents of the building and others in the vicinity. The court thus directed the builder to keep the modified sanction plan in abeyance until fire safety norms are fulfilled.
While dismissing the builder's appeal against the single judge's order, a division bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf, observed that the fire safety violations identified during the spot inspection by the Fire Safety Department were detrimental.
'You Don't Leave Women Safe Anywhere': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Instagram Account 'Bangalore Metro Chicks' Owner
Case Title: Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Crl.P 5218/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the alleged owner of 'Bangalore Metro Chicks' Instagram account, who had sought quashing the criminal proceedings against him over posting objectionable, non-consensual videos of women travelling in the Bengaluru Metro.
During the hearing Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while refusing to entertain the plea, orally expressed discontent over denial of safe environment to women.
“...The complaint when read alongside the charge sheet, paints a disquieting picture. Women commuting in the anonymity of public transport were subjected to covert surveillance; their images and videos captured without consent, focusing upon various parts of their bodies and thereafter, disseminated in public digital platform for voyeuristic consumption. The investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, reveals that the petitioner's mobile device contain further incriminating material of a similar nature, reinforcing the allegation”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M.
Case No: Writ Petition No.33261 of 2025 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act is not necessary for maintaining a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the aforesaid Act.
The single judge bench of Justice K.Manmadha Rao was considering a plea filed by the wife against the Family Court order that rejected her application to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the husband on account of non-registration of marriage under the aforesaid Ac
“There is no specific provision in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which contemplates that a petition for a decree of divorce is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered under the Act….Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of the marriage and do not declare that registration of the marriage is compulsory or that petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered…,” the court observed in the order.
Case Title: TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & Anr
Case No: Criminal Petition No.17138 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
Quashing proceedings against TV9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd. and its ex-correspondents in the 2012 City Civil Court complex violence case, the Karnataka High Court said that offence under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 was decriminalised by a 2023 central amendment and its beneficial effect must be applied retrospectively.
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by TV9 News Channel and its correspondents, striking down the criminal proceedings before the CBI Special Court registered in 2025 afresh.
“The offence alleged against the petitioners, once bearing the imprimatur of criminality, has since been denuded of its penal character by legislative intervention. The law, in its wisdom, has chosen to recast the alleged infraction as a civil transgression, thereby stripping it of the rigours of criminal prosecution. To permit the continuation of criminal proceedings in the face of such a change would be to disregard not only the letter of the amended statute but also the spirit of fairness that animates criminal jurisprudence,” the court observed.
JD(S) Leader HD Revanna Withdraws From Karnataka High Court Plea Seeking Quashing Of Kidnapping Case
Case Title: H.D.Revanna V. State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 4943/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Janata Dal (S) Leader H.D Revanna withdrew on Thursday (April 30) his plea before Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of proceedings initiated against him for allegedly kidnapping a woman.
The single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav accepted the memo of withdrawal filed by Revanna's counsel and disposed of the petition to quash the proceedings.
On February 26 the high court had directed the trial court to continue its proceedings against the former minister. Previously, the high court had vacated its interim order stalling framing of charges against Revanna, after taking note of the lack of readiness on behalf of Revanna to go ahead with the matter on merits in view of repeated adjournments sought in the case.
Case Title: Mr. Santosh Kumar .R.S. V. Mr. Aditya Dhar & Ors.
Case No: WP 10911/2026 (C)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition seeking cancellation of the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) certificate granted to the Hindi movie 'Dhurandhar The Revenge' on the allegation that the movie was a plagiarised version of a Bengaluru-based script writer's original script titled 'D-Saheb'.
The single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha laid down in unequivocal terms that a copyright infringement claim requires an appreciation of evidence as to whether an idea has been plagiarised or not, and the same cannot be entertained in writ jurisdiction, by relying on R.G. Anand v. M/s Delux Films & Ors.(1978).
“…The burden squarely lies on the person seeking infringement to prove not only that the other side had access to the original work, but also there exists such degree of similarity which led a prudent and reasonable viewer to make an unmistakable impression that the impugned work is a copy of the original.… Such adjudication involves triable issue of facts, including proof of access, originality and copying which cannot be satisfactorily undertaken in a writ jurisdiction that is confined to examining legality of administrative action…” the court observed.
Case Title: Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr
Case No: CRL.P 3024/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court has closed the criminal proceedings initiated against Bollywood actor Ranveer Singh for allegedly outraging religious sentiments during a mimicry performance of the daiva/deity from the movie Kantara.
A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna recorded the affidavit containing the actor's unconditional apology and directed him to visit the Shri Chamundeshwari Temple in Mysuru within four weeks to offer prayers.
“…In the light of the petitioner tendering apology and also that he would visit the temple and owing to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to record the affidavit and close the proceedings qua the petitioner that have now been instituted for the aforesaid offences, with a rider that the petitioner shall visit the temple, within an outer limit of four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order…”, the single judge bench has said in the order.
Case Title: Smt. Marry Usha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WPHC No. 35 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court held last week [April 29] that a preventive detention order passed against a 19-year-old under the Karnataka Goonda Act, 1985 would stand vitiated since most of the offences forming the foundation of the said order were committed by the detenu when he was a juvenile.
The division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju allowed a habeas corpus plea filed by the detenue's mother and set aside the detention order issued in December 2025 by the State's home department.
The court also clarified that no 'subjective satisfaction' could have been derived from the offences committed as a Juvenile so as to pass a detention order under the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act, 1985.
Case Title: Christophe Stephane Monxion v. The Foreigners Regional Registration Officer
Case No: Writ Petition No. 10453 of 2026 (GM-PASS)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka High Court has refused to set aside a 'Leave India' notice issued against a French national for running a restaurant in Gokarna on a tourist visa for the past 15 years, holding that foreign nationals have no fundamental right to reside or carry on their business in India.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum has directed Christophe Stephane Monxion, a French national who entered India on a tourist visa, to leave the country within seven days in accordance with the 'Leave India' notice issued through WhatsApp by the Foreigners Regional Registration Officer (FRRO).
“…The protection under Article 21 extends to all “persons,” including foreign nationals; however, the said protection is confined to ensuring that no person is deprived of his life or personal liberty except in accordance with procedure established by law. The said guarantee cannot be expanded to confer a right to reside, settle, or carry on business within the territory of India. Such rights are traceable to Article 19(1)(e) and Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, which are expressly confined to citizens of India”, the court accordingly held in the order dated 22nd April.
Case Title: The Managing Director, KKRTC v. Sunita and Others
Case No: MFA No. 201877 of 2025 (MV-D)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court dismissed Kalyan Karnataka Road Transport Corporation's plea (KKRTC) challenging compensation of Rs 1.1 Crore in a motor accident claim, noting that the corporation suppressed the removal of the driver in disciplinary proceedings over the incident and had yet blamed the deceased for negligence.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha observed that the Corporation cannot take the contradictory stand that the negligence was entirely on the part of the deceased victim when it had already expelled or punished its employees in departmental proceedings for their negligence. It thus imposed cost of Rs 25,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
"The action initiated by the Road Transport Corporation, namely Kalyana Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, against its driver and conductor arises out of the very same accident in which the death of the deceased occurred. The Corporation, having conducted disciplinary proceedings and having recorded a finding of culpability against its employees, culminating in orders of removal from service or withholding of increment, cannot now be permitted to contend that the deceased himself was negligent and that such alleged negligence was the proximate cause of his death”, the court noted.
Case Title: X v. Y & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 5971/2026 c/w Writ Petition No. 4443/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
In a matter relating to the custody of a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court quashed a Family Court's ex parte interim injunction order which completely barred the mother from having access to the daughter till the completion of the child's year-end exams in June.
A single-judge bench of Justice Dr. K. Manmadha Rao allowed the writ petitions filed by the mother and vacated the interim stay granted in favour of the child's paternal grandmother and paternal aunt on April 24.
The court said that the mother -a natural guardian of the teenage daughter under Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 - cannot be fully restricted from meeting her child, in the absence of 'compelling justifications', even if the interim order is for a limited time period.
“…Though the impugned order[Family Court's] does not expressly displace such status [mother as a natural guardian], its effect is to substantially curtail the petitioner's ability to exercise the incidents of natural guardianship. By continuing an order of injunction …the Family Court has, in substance, diluted the statutory recognition accorded under Section 6….at the interlocutory stage. In a situation where the dispute is not between two natural guardians, any order resulting in complete exclusion of the mother must be supported by compelling circumstances demonstrable from the record”, the court said.
Case Title: Bharath Earth Movers Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 19885 of 2025 (clubbed with WP Nos. 15749 & Other Connected Matters)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has held that employees belonging to exempted establishments could still claim higher pensions post-2014 under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 [Scheme, 1995], through a joint option, provided that they have been contributing on actual wages to the provident fund, even when the contribution is paid on capped wages to the pension scheme.
The single-judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while quashing multiple EPFO rejection orders, held that members of the Provident Fund Trusts of the exempted establishments, who have contributed to the Provident Fund on actual wages (not on capped wages), but contributed to the Pension Fund only on the capped pensionable wages (not on actual wages), can rightly claim a higher pension.
This is permissible under Paragraph 11(4) [Determination of Pensionable Salaries] of the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, by exercising a joint option for a higher pension along with the employer, even after the supposed cut-off date in September 2014 to opt for higher pension options, the court added.
Case Title: S v. R & Anr.
Case No: MFA No. 200082 of 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim by a person that their spouse has accused them of suffering from a grave illness like HIV/AIDS won't amount to mental cruelty in order to seek divorce, unless corroborated with sufficient evidence.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr Justice Chillakure Sumalatha, setting aside the decree for divorce, opined that the Family Court erred in granting the divorce decree by blindly accepting the husband's uncorroborated testimony that his wife had accused him of suffering from the ailment of HIV/ AIDS.
"The case of the husband is that the wife and her parents subjected him to ill-treatment, used abusive and vulgar language, and further imputed that he was suffering from HIV/AIDS. These allegations, if established, would undoubtedly fall within the ambit of mental cruelty as contemplated under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, particularly having regard to the serious and stigmatic nature of such imputations. However, the critical question is not the nature of the allegation but whether such allegation has been proved in accordance with law. In support of his case, the husband has examined himself as PW.1. No documentary evidence has been produced. No independent witness has been examined. There is no contemporaneous material, such as complaints, correspondence, or testimony of persons who may have witnessed the alleged conduct, to lend assurance to the version of the husband. Thus, the finding of cruelty rests solely on the uncorroborated and interested testimony of the husband".
Case Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6850/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 7) granted bail to one of the accused in alleged mob-lynching of a man from Kerala who purportedly chanted pro-Pakistan slogans at a cricket stadium in Mangalore's Kudupu Village last year.
The single judge bench of V Srishananda passed the order granting bail to the third accused- Manjunatha Mallikarjuna.
The court directed the accused to be released from the custody upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 1 Lakh along with two sureties to the like sum. Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam appeared for the petitioner-accused.
Case Title: Smt. Vanitha S. v. The Special Officer and Competent Authority for IMA
Case No: Writ Petition No. 5049 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The High Court has held that an Order VII Rule 11 CPC application seeking rejection of plaint at the threshold claiming no cause of action, would not be maintainable in summary proceedings under Karnataka Protection of Interest of Depositors in Financial Establishments Act, 2004 (KPIDFE) Act.
“The KPIDFE Act provides a self-contained mechanism, beginning from ad-interim attachment under Section 3 of the KPIDFE Act, confirmation through Special Court under Section 12 of the KPIDFE Act, adjudication of claims and objections, final orders regarding attachment. The entire scheme is time-bound and recovery-oriented, unlike ordinary civil litigation…The KPIDFE Act is designed to secure immediate protective measures in respect of the properties of defaulting financial establishments so as to safeguard the interests of depositors. If applications invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC are entertained at the threshold of such proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be to derail and delay the process of attachment and preservation of assets, introduce preliminary adjudicatory stages not contemplated by the statute and frustrate the legislative mandate of expeditious and timebound adjudication”, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said.
Case Title: Channakeshava D.R v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 1901/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that 'serious and drastic measures' such as freezing a bank account in entirety cannot be resorted to in 'a casual and mechanical' manner since it paralyses the financial autonomy of a person.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while partly allowing a writ petition filed by a practising advocate whose Karnataka Bank Account was frozen, based on a complaint registered at the Cyber Crime Police Station in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, noted as below:
“..The primary object of directing debit freeze is to secure the alleged 'proceeds of crime' or to preserve the subject matter of investigation in relation to a cognizable offence. Therefore, such power must necessarily be exercised only when there exists a live and proximate nexus between the funds in the account and the alleged criminal activity, ordinarily backed by the registration of a First Information Report and supported by some tangible material indicating involvement in a cognizable offence”.
The court added that complete defreezing without the aforesaid valid grounds 'trenches upon the fundamental right to carry on profession and to deal with one's property'.
Renewal Of Arms Licence Can't Be Denied For Not Owning Agricultural Land: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Gregory F. Peres v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11588 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that firearm license renewal applications cannot be rejected for the reason that the applicant does not have his own agricultural land.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum clarified that the licensing authority, under Section 15 of the Arms Act, 1959, cannot insist on 'extraneous reasons' such as lack of agricultural land for not renewing a firearm. The court, hence, set aside the order passed by the Police Commissioner declining to renew a 12-bore SBBL weapon license of a 60-year-old resident in Mangalore who has held a valid license for the past 30 years.
“...The licensing authority has thus imported a condition which is alien to the scheme of the Act and Rules. The requirement of ownership of agricultural land is neither a statutory precondition nor a permissible consideration. When the statute expressly mandates that lack of property shall not be a ground for refusal, the authority cannot indirectly achieve what is directly prohibited”, the court noted in the order dated April 23.
Case Title: Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2026 c/w WP Nos. 31956, 34040, 36589 of 2025 and WP No. 8003/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Granting relief to several forest department officers who took part in 'Operation Cocoon' to apprehend the notorious forest bandit Veerappan in 2004, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State to consider sanctioning the withheld rewards to those who were part of the Special Task Force (STF) within 12 weeks.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the 2015 order of the Forest Department, which restricted the cash payments to a few officers part of the STF during the demise of Veerappan, a sandalwood smuggler and brigand, was 'discriminatory'.
“…The Coordinate Bench, upon an elaborate examination of the factual matrix, has categorically held that once the names of the personnel, including those from the Forest Department, are found in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared pursuant to the Government Order dated 08.07.2005, the State is estopped from denying such benefit on a specious plea that only a limited set of officers, who were present on the date when Koose Munisamy Veerappan was neutralized on 18.10.2004, would alone be entitled for the reward. The said contention of the State has been expressly rejected as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the very object of the Government Order…”.
Case Title: Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited
Case No: WP No. 935 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a tender condition requiring the participating e-waste companies to have a recycling facility within the State cannot be deemed as 'discriminatory' when the concerned items to be processed are 'sensitive' electoral equipment like EVMs and VVPAT units that are decommissioned.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum opined that such a specific condition was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but 'a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental compliance' considering the sensitive nature of the material to be recycled.
“…The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance. The disposal of EVMs and VVPATs is not merely a scrap disposal activity. It involves handling of sensitive electronic components, compliance with environmental norms and prevention of unauthorized reuse or data compromise. Therefore, the insistence on local facilities has a direct nexus with the object of ensuring safe, secure, and compliant disposal…”, the court noted in the order dated April 29.
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
In a significant order upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to act upon a complaint against 'media trial' filed by Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas, who is the prime accused in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while allowing the writ petition in part, emphasised that the Ministries are under a statutory obligation to examine the complaint and see if the impugned broadcasts prima facie violated the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
On another note, the court did not take kindly to the counterproductive role that the media has been allegedly playing while Darshan's case is sub judice.
“…Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value; however, when it degenerates into media-driven adjudication, it ceases to be a safeguard of democracy and becomes a threat to it. The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury and executioner, the rule of law stands imperilled. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights”, the high court laid down in unequivocal terms about media crossing the boundaries deliberately.
Case Title: Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6438/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [May 14] granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that the prosecution had failed to make out a 'prima facie' case under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, as no contraband was found within the petitioner's premises.
Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, punishes anyone who knowingly allows their premises, property, or vehicles to be used for committing a drug offense.
The court observed that finding the narcotic substance from the vehicles parked nearby the premises in question cannot be equated with the owner 'allowing the premises for drug use'.
The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 483 BNSS by the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Kollegala Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar district, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
“…Clearly, even according to the prosecution, no substance was found within the premises…There is considerable force in the submissions made by the petitioner…Section 25 of the NDPS Act…a bare perusal of it indicates that house, room, enclosure or space, etc. should be allowed to be used with the knowledge that it would be used for the commission of an offence…This ingredient is missing in the complaint. Merely because the contraband substance was found in vehicles parked near the premises, the respondent cannot invoke the provision of Section 25. The respondent police has failed to make out a prima facie case…”, the court noted in the order while granting bail to the 67-year-old petitioner residing in Kollegala.
Case Title: Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14702 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court on May 7 dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition challenging a circular issued by the Haj Committee of India demanding an additional ₹10,000/- towards differential airfare from Hajj pilgrims on account of the rising air fuel prices.
The single-judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty pointed out in the order that the petitioner had not registered himself as a Haj pilgrim for the current year. Similarly, the 54-year-old petitioner has not deposited any sum with the committee to travel for Hajj this year. In light of these circumstances, the writ petition would not be maintainable, the court added.
“…The demand for payment of differential amount of Rs.10,000/- raised vide Circular at Annexure-C dated 28.04.2026 is only from the pilgrims of Haj 2026 who have registered their names with the Haj Committee of India and have already paid/deposited the amount as aforesaid. Under the circumstances, petitioner cannot have any grievance as against the said circular, and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the same…”, the court noted in the order before dismissing the petition for not being maintainable.
Case Title: Sri Sheenappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 13836 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has on May 14 directed the State government and the Police department to remove deepfake and AI-manipulated content about the Dharmasthala Dharmadhikari Dr. D Veerendra Heggade and his family members from all social media platforms, press and media outlets and URLs.
The single judge vacation bench of Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the concerned authorities failed to take necessary action against such fabricated and morphed content despite a direction to the same effect in an earlier W.P. No. 19382/2023, pursuant to which a representation was made to the police authorities.
"Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to take necessary/effective/immediate steps to ensure that AI-generated, morphed, manipulated or fabricated images, video content depicting Dr. D. Veerendra Heggade, his family members, etc., to be taken down, removed, erased, effaced, deleted, etc., from all social media, URLs, press/media, social media platforms, etc., and press and other media including respondent Nos. 3 to 7 within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Irfan Pasha v. National Investigation Agency
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 812 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed an appeal filed by an accused in a UAPA case, who sought interim bail of three days to attend the Chehlam (40th day prayer ceremony) of his deceased sister, after having already been granted bail by the trial court to attend the 10th to 13th day rituals earlier.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Rai K and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum also noted the trial court's finding that there was another living male member in the family to carry out the 40th-day rituals of the deceased sister, and hence no cogent reason was made out to grant interim bail.
“Since the appellant has filed the present application to attend 40th day prayer ceremony of his deceased sister, that too, immediately after his earlier application being considered and granted by the Trial Court vide order dated 16.04.2026 to attend 10th to 13th day prayer ceremony, the present application has rightly been rejected by the Trial Court as there was no cogent reason assigned by the appellant as to why the similar application has to be entertained once again and as the trial of the case being at the fag end and that the offences alleged against the appellant being serious in nature”, the Division Bench noted in the order.
Case Title: Mr. Riyaz Ahmed v. Karnataka State By North Traffic P.S., Mangalore
Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No. 486 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Taking into account the accused-driver's act of shifting the injured victim to the hospital in his own car as a mitigating circumstance, the Karnataka High Court has modified the sentence awarded for rash and negligent driving resulting in death from one year to one day.
The single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda, acknowledging the driver's decision not to flee the spot after the accident, reduced his jail term from one year to jail term till the rising of the court while enhancing the compensation to the victim's family to Rs 1,00,000 lakh.
“…In the considered opinion of this Court, if the sentence ordered by the trial Magistrate confirmed by the First Appellate Court for the offence under Section 304A IPC, if modified by directing the petitioner to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of ₹1,00,000/- which can be paid as compensation in a sum of ₹50,000/- each to the wife of deceased Anand Shetty, Mrs. Sumathi and Sri. Santhosh Kumar being the son, ends of justice would be met”, the court said while upholding the conviction and asking the accused to pay the fine amount in two instalments by the end of May and June respectively.
Case Title: M.B. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 15660 of 2026 (S-KSAT)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court quashed the suspension of an executive engineer over the collapse of Bowring Hospital's compound wall in Bengaluru which claimed 7 lives in April, observing that the falling of the wall does not create "prima facie evidence of gross dereliction of duty" in absence of specific evidence against the officer.
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr Justice K. Manmadha Rao set aside M.B Nagaraj's suspension, an executive engineer of the Health & Family Welfare Department noting that the requirement of 'prima facie evidence against him' under clause Rule 10(1)(d) Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules was non-existent in the present case.
“…The usage of the word 'him' would indicate that such evidence is required insofar as the officer who is proposed to be suspended and not the event itself”, the court noted in the order, emphasising the aforesaid requirement before accusing the jurisdictional officer for the fall of the compound wall.
Case Title: Cristian Soporuchukwu v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: Criminal Petition No.16286/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the bail plea preferred by a Nigerian national for possessing commercial quantity of MDMA crystals, reasoning that the non-furnishing of grounds of arrest could not be utilised as 'a backdoor entry' to avail bail by superseding the twin conditions for bail laid down in Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The vacation bench of Justice V Srishananda observed in the order that non-compliance with furnishing the grounds of arrest as derived from Article 22(1) of the Constitution would entitle the accused to bail in ordinary offences; the same principle cannot be applied mechanically when the seized narcotics are commercial in quantity.
“…While on one hand, non-furnishing of grounds of arrest, or improper compliance of furnishing the grounds of arrest would be a good ground for grant of bail in all offences, on the other hand, where the accused is alleged of possessing commercial quantity of NDPS, would not be permitted to gain a back door entry in getting the bail on the ground of improper compliance of furnishing of grounds of arrest, especially when he has failed to make out a ground for grant of bail by resorting to Section 37 of the NDPS Act." the Court noted in its order dated May 7.
Case Title: Mahesh Shetty Thimarody v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 7376 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to social activitist Mahesh Shetty Thimarody accused of making allegedly derogatory remarks about a woman and implying that she had an illicit relationship with Rajya Sabha MP Veerendra Heggade, administrator (Dharma Adhikari) of Dharmasthala Temple.
The single judge bench of Justice R. Nataraj opined that custodial interrogation was unnecessary since the crux of the case at hand relies on a purported telephonic conversation between the accused and one Mr. Prajwal.
The said call recording was allegedly later forwarded to the complainant woman's son by Prajwal himself. The son, disturbed by the insinuations allegedly made by Shetty on the call recording, informed his mother about the same. The complainant had alleged that the petitioner had thereby linked her to Veerendra Hegde and his brothers. She claimed that this outraged her modesty and generated enmity between groups.
Case Title: Sri Manjunatha N. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 7025 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a 52-year-old cinema theatre owner accused of stalking and sexually harassing a class 9 minor student.
The complainant alleged that the accused, who owns Shankar Talkies, made explicit threats over the phone that she and her friends should sleep with him; otherwise, he would stab her.
The single judge bench of Justice R Nataraj dismissed the petition filed by Manjunatha N, who has been charged by the Ramanagara Town Police for a slew of offences including those under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The Court noted in the order that the minor victim had previously complained about inappropriate touching and stalking by the theatre owner. Subsequent to the said complaint, the petitioner-accused allegedly escalated the harassment meted out to the student by sending a group of boys to threaten her with murder and acid attack.
Case Title: Sri Pradeepkumar v. State by Vidhana Soudha Police Station & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 29541 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Cautioning against 'increasingly disturbing trend' of dragging lawyers into criminal proceedings, Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a lawyer booked for forgery and offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, who had appeared for the co-accused in a matrimonial case and sought RTI information on the complainant.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna underscored that the independence of the Bar cannot be meddled with when the lawyers are merely discharging their professional obligations.
"Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it both necessary and appropriate to record its deep, disquiet and increasingly disturbing trend that has surfaced in recent times. This Court is encountering plethora of cases, wherein Advocates, who merely represent parties before Courts of law in the discharge of their professional obligations, are themselves being dragged into criminal proceedings and arrayed as accused. The only “fault” attributable to such Advocates, is that they appeared for their clients and articulated their cause before the concerned judicial forum.
Such tendency strikes at the very heart of independence of the bar, by necessary extension the purity of administration of justice itself. Advocates are officers of the Court, they function within the confines of professional duty, acting upon the instructions of their client and presenting their cause within the four corners of law. If every Advocate, merely by a reason of appearing for a litigant is exposed to criminal prosecution and trauma of investigative proceedings, the inevitable consequence would be a chilling and paralyzing effect upon fearless discharge of professional responsibilities. The majesty of legal profession cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants to wield criminal law as a weapon of intimidation against the members of the bar".
Case Title: Mr. Nixon v. State by Banaswadi Police Station & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5622 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 194
Criticising the 'reckless' utilisation of police powers, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a husband who was charged with abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 -despite the alleged victim (his wife) being alive.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna directed that the husband, languishing in jail for the past six months since October 2025, should be released immediately. The court has also directed for a departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer for the 'reckless invocation' of penal provisions.
“Section 108 is neither ambiguous nor elastic. It stands anchored upon the un-denial prerequisite that, “if any person commits suicide” only then culpability for abetment would arise. In an astonishing display of recklessness or prosecutorial haste, the crime is registered for abetment to suicide and a charge sheet is also filed for the offence of abetment of suicide, an offence whose very foundation is actual commission of suicide…”, the court made harsh remarks about the investigating officer's conduct in the case.
Case Title: Arnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: CRL.P 15929/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 1) refused to entertain a plea challenging the arrest of a photocopy shop owner accused of creating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for alleged illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the plea, graned him liberty to approach the trial court for bail.
During the hearing the court orally said:
“…Fake Aadhaar card creation, you are the one destroying everything, giving it to people who are not Indians. How many people are you going to let in... Everyone has an aadhaar card today. Why? Because of you. Have some concern for the nation...Every person who is not a citizen of this country has an Aadhaar card because of people like you, and it becomes the foundation of every right they claim to have. How much vigil can the State display if matters are going on like these?”
Case Title: Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P 4849/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [June 4] declined to quash a POCSO case against a school headmaster accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old student, observing that the allegations levelled against him are 'unpardonable'.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, hearing the quashing plea moved by the accused and asked him to seek discharge before the trial court.
“…You are the headmaster. The student was around 15‑16 years…. Do you think this court would spare a headmaster who has touched the breasts of a 15‑year‑old child? … What kind of teacher are you?”, the court orally remarked on the alleged conduct of the teacher.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters
Case No: WA No. 4647/2013 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court set aside state's land acquisition proceedings with respect to Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association (IMTMA), observing that the proceedings were 'colourable exercise of power' as it was not for a public purpose and a 'fraud on the statute' to divest owners of their land in favour of a profit-making private entity.
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf has on June 3 [Wednesday] accordingly allowed a batch of 12 appeals filed by landowners whose lands were acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for setting up a multi‑level car parking facility for the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC) led by IMTMA.
“…Setting up an industrial area is a public purpose and acquiring the land for a profit making entity for its expansion would not be in the line of the objects of the KIAD Act, and it is nothing but a fraud committed on statute by the authorities to divest the landowners from their land holdings for a pittance in favour of a private entity for expansion of its business and making more and more profit. This kind of exercise of power is a statutory and constitutional fraud by the State Authorities...,”, the court observed
Case Title: Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors. and BSNL v. Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.Nos.16104/2025 & 4674/2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Underscoring the accountability of telecom service provider for its negligence in a case of SIM swap fraud, the Karnataka High Court held telecom company BSNL vicariously liable for wrongful issuance of a duplicate SIM card to fraudsters by one of its employees, resulting in a loss of Rs 87.70 lakhs to a co‑operative bank.
In doing so the court while recognizing the role of telecom providers as vault keepers who if dishonestly gives access to unauthorised persons bears responsibility for the resulting theft, the court also urged banks to take protective steps against SIM-Swap fraud.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed BSNL's plea against the Permanent Lokayukta Award and enhanced the compensation payable to the Bank from Rs 5 lakhs to 50.5 Lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent interest per annum.
BSNL would also be liable to pay consequential damages amounting to Rs 5 lakhs for reputational harm, liquidity crisis, and operational disruption caused to the co-operative Bank.
“…Telecom service providers are the custodians of the mobile numbers that serve as the authentication anchors for the entire OTP‑based digital payment system. Their role in the digital financial ecosystem is structurally equivalent to the role of a vault keeper in a traditional banking system. Just as a vault keeper who carelessly or dishonestly gives access to unauthorised persons bears responsibility for the resulting theft, a telecom service provider that carelessly or dishonestly issues a duplicate SIM bears responsibility for the financial fraud that the duplicate SIM enables…”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms about the role played by telecom companies in the hierarchy of digital payments.
Case Title: Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 12170/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) dismissed a PIL seeking directions to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and others regarding an allegedly "missing volume" of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography and "17-year-old delayed probe" into his assassination in 1948.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha orally remarked that "There is no national interest or public interest..Judicial time cannot be used for whimsical matters”, while dismissing the plea by 'Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha' with Rs 10,000/- cost, payable to the Legal Services Authority.
“…. As noted above, the petitioner earlier filed a similar petition…which was dismissed on 28 August 2025. We find that the present petition is an exercise in procuring publicity rather than seeking a relief in public interest. Therefore, we are not persuaded to entertain the same….”, the court accordingly noted in the order.
Case Title: Girish M Anchan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P. 635/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) quashed an FIR against BJP MLA Yashpal Suvarna and others booked in connection with an alleged illegal protest and burning of an effigy of former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in Manipal in 2024, holding that there was no direct evidence linking the petitioners to the incident.
According to the complaint it has been alleged that last year, the petitioners had allegedly organized an illegal protest at Syndicate Circle in Manipal against the withholding of a state award to the principal of a Kundapura school. During the protest, volunteers allegedly burned an effigy of former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the plea for quashing FIR, observing that permitting further investigation 'without an iota of evidence' would constitute an 'abuse of the process of law'.
“…Without an iota of evidence, further investigation to be permitted will be an abuse of process of law. It is apposite to refer to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others. In that light, Allowed. Quashed…, the court accordingly noted in the order.
Case Title: Padmavathi T B v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 7311/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 9) imposed cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on a female cop for suppressing the existence of an earlier order directing registration of an FIR against her for allegedly "kicking" a lady advocate, when she had approached the vacation bench recently in order to seek a stay of probe.
The court said that the petitioner had not disclosed the earlier order directing FIR against her before the coordinate vacation bench, which had passed an interim order staying probe in the FIR.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petitioner's plea for quashing the FIR, in his order noted:
“…. The petitioner [SI] comes to the Police Station and boots the complainant [lady lawyer accused of unruly conduct in another case] …. all of this is captured in CCTV and this court's order in Crl P. 3695/2026. Pursuant to the registration of crime, apart from departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings are initiated against the police officer. A separate Crl P 7311/2026 comes to be filed by the police officer and an interim order of stay on further investigation is granted by the coordinate [vacation] bench of this court…
Not a whisper about the order passed by this court pursuant to which the crime is registered is made in the pleadings before the coordinate bench. Suppressing the very foundation of registration of the crime, petitioners approach the coordinate[vacation] bench and an order is passed by this court. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed…. but an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh should be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority…. Result of investigation to be placed before this court prior to its filing before the trial court…”
Case Title: PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11351 of 2020 (GM‑RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has issued a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Universal Accessibility, mandating that all government buildings as well as private buildings such as schools, malls, hospitals, and transport hubs as well as digital platforms become fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his 465-page order issued the comprehensive SOP while dismissing a plea filed by a private school challenging an order by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to grant a teacher compensation for a disability arising out of the rescue of a student.
The SOP states that it is issued by the court in exercise of the power to issue directions in the public interest and to give effect to the statutory rights created by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules, while acknowledging that Accessibility for persons with disabilities is a constitutional guarantee flowing from Articles 14, 15(1), 1991)(g), 21 among others.
“…. Accessibility is NOT a welfare measure or a concession. It is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of our Constitution,” the Court declares in the SOP by relying on the apex court judgment in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission (2025).
Case Title: Sri P.A. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 17310/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 11) granted relief to the owner of a Homestay in Kodagu whose registration/license was cancelled on account of his alleged involvement in the rape of a US national who was a guest at his property.
The court also asked the Principal Secretary of the Tourism Department to formulate a proper, comprehensive policy for the regulation of homestays under the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2015, noting that the existing framework is inadequate.
“…The Act does not cover various aspects relating thereto, namely fire clearance, FSSAI (kitchen) licenses and permissions from local municipal authorities, aspect of security provided, manner of charges levied… It will be required for the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism to formulate a proper policy for regulation of homestays so as to enable the stakeholders to know all the Do's and Don'ts in the regulations so that they can comply with them”, the single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said in the order.
Case Title: Smt. S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 21831 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an RTI applicant's plea seeking disclosure of assets and liability statement of a public servant, former Deputy Controller of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), observing that the information sought was personal unconnected to any public interest hence protected under Section 8(1) (j) RTI Act.
It observed that official acts, decisions, utilization of public resources, and matters directly connected with public administration would stand on a different footing.
"However, information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, medical records, and similar personal details would ordinarily fall within the ambit of personal information protected under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, unless disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest," Justice Surah Govindaraj said.
Case Title: Sharada Purya Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRL.P No: 13717/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has on June 12 [Friday] quashed the criminal proceedings against Janata Dal (Secular) MLA from Shimoga (Rural) Sharada Purya Naik, who has been accused of using children in a political rally in 2023.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the mere presence of children alongside a campaign venue would not attract the rigours of Sections 77 [cruelty to child] of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 14 [permitting children to work in violation of laws] the Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.
“…It has been alleged that children were seen participating in the petitioner's political rally. The petitioner never brought any children for the rally. The school being adjacent, the children had come out and accompanied the rally…. That would not mean that the petitioners would be liable for prosecution under Section 75 of JJ Act and Section 14 of Labour Prohibition Act…Quashed”, the court noted in the order.
Can A Person Be Jailed For More Than 6 Months For Non-Payment Of Fine In Cheque Bounce Case? Karnataka High Court Explains
Case Title: Mr. Dinesh Malpani v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5718 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has held that the default jail term for non-payment of fine in cheque bounce cases cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum substantive sentence prescribed for the offence, which means that it can't exceed six months in each case where the maximum punishment is two years. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206].
Relying on Section 65 of IPC [Section 8(3) BNS- Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and fine awardable], the single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna opined that Section 138 of the NI Act prescribes a maximum imprisonment of two years, and therefore, the default sentence cannot exceed six months.
“Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act prescribes a maximum punishment of two years' imprisonment, or fine extending to twice the cheque amount, or both. Consequently, when Section 65 of the IPC and Section 8(3) of the BNS are read in conjunction with the penal framework of Section 138, the outer limit of imprisonment in default of payment of fine would be six months in each case".
Banks Can't Freeze Entire Account Anticipating Future Directions From Probe Agencies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sri. Madhu v. The IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.38362 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court has held that a bank cannot freeze an "entire bank account" merely on the apprehension that directions for freezing additional amounts may be received from the investigating agencies in the future. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 207]
“A possibility or apprehension of a future event cannot be equated with a lawful order. The powers exercised by a bank must be traceable to an existing direction or statutory authority and not to speculative contingencies which may or may not arise in future. If such a course of action were to be accepted, it would permit banks to freeze entire accounts whenever a limited freezing request is received, merely on the assumption that further requests may follow. Such an approach would not only be contrary to law but would also result in disproportionate hardship to account holders”, the single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored.
Case Title: Mangalappa Hullikeri v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 17310/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [June 16] dismissed a PIL challenging the constitutionality of the newly formed Council of Ministers headed by Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for what it called a 'publicity stunt' and an 'unjustifiable use of the judiciary's time'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 208]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by Mangalappa Hullikeri, claiming to be a 45-year-old public worker, who had sought a direction to strike down the 14-member council of ministers— as unconstitutional under Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India.
“ …The present petition is premised on the erroneous ground that the number of ministers including CM in a council of ministers cannot be less than 12 per cent of the Karnataka Legislature...A plain reading of the proviso states... the proviso to clause (1A) of Article 164 of the Constitution of India states that number of ministers including Chief Minister in a State shall not be less than twelve. The premise that the number of Ministers cannot be less than 12 per cent as argued by the petitioner renders the present petition on an ex-facie erroneous presumption…" the Court observed.
Case Title: Deepak Singh v. Enforcement Directorate & connected matters
Case No: WP 15130/2026 (and connected matters WP 15277/2026 & WP 15278/2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
Outlining the safeguards of accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Karnataka High Court declared the arrest of three directors of the online gaming company Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited- as illegal and ordered their immediate release from prison. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 209].
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna, while allowing the pleas of Directors Vikas Taneja, Deepak Singh and Prithviraj Singh, opined that the Enforcement Directorate did not comply with Section 19 of the PMLA Act.
Pertinently, the high court had on January 22 stayed ED's investigation against Gameskraft Technologies after a closure report was filed in the FIR registered for the predicate offence at Bengaluru, noting that once the FIR is closed, the foundation for ECIR from November 2025 had vanished. On February 23, 2026, the ED registered a new ECIR based on the three FIRs registered in Telangana subsequent to the stay order.
Article 300A Doesn't Protect Property Values From Policy-Induced Fluctuations: Karnataka High Court
Case title: Krishnamurthy M v. State of Karnataka & Ors and Connected Matters
Case No: WA 1983/2025 & Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the State's Premium Floor Area Ratio scheme (Premium FAR) while observing that the impugned scheme is not in contravention of Article 300A of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha observed that variations in property value due to change in economic policies would not amount to 'deprivation of property', in contravention of Article 300A.
For context, the Court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by landowners who had been granted Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in lieu of monetary compensation for land acquired for public purposes. They challenged the State's Premium Floor Area Ratio (Premium FAR) scheme on ground of violating property rights.
The pleas primarily claimed that the concept of premium floor area ratio upon additional fee would detrimentally lower the market value of TDRs, which in turn, amounts to a violation of right to property under Article 300A of the TDR holders.
Case title: K.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Case No: CRL.P 6443/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 22) said that grant of indiscriminate adjournments without any rhyme or reason is the reason which is clogging the courts. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211]
The court made the oral observation while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings in a 15-year-old criminal case, after noting that the matter was adjourned by the concerned court on a plethora of occasions without any rhyme or reason.
The petitioner had sought quashing of a 2011 FIR for offences under IPC Sections 406(Criminal Breach of Trust),420(Cheating),468(forgery),471(Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) pending before the magistrate court in Bengaluru.
Case Title: Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar V/S State, Nithin G.B. V/S State, Chandrashekar B V/S State
Case No: Crl P 1857 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court last month denied bail to four persons who have been booked for making obscene posts on social media against actor Darshan's wife Vijaylakshmi Darshan. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 212]
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the bail petitions in four separate orders and noted:
"No doubt, freedom of speech of expressions are guaranteed to its citizens under the Constitution of India. However, every such right has its reasonable restrictions. Exceeding such restrictions or invading the personal liberty of another person, certainly would be an offence and it would be dealt with in accordance with law.
It is needless to state that the Social Media as its responsibility to maintain decorum and also to instill the confidence in the minds of the citizens of this Country. The persons who are making comments on any issues have to maintain public peace and order. Making a baseless, false, frivolous and intimidating messages are required to be regulated by the Company itself, if not, Courts are required to secure the confidence of the citizens of this Country by way of interfering with such comments on the social media which violates the fundamental rights of any citizens of this Country".
Case Title: M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.109133 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has directed various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to consider and decide a representation submitted by a distillery seeking enhancement of ethanol allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2025–26. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213]
The OMCs in question are Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Justice N Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by M/S Vinp Distilleries and Sugar Private Limited, a dedicated ethanol manufacturer, challenging the reduced allocation of ethanol supply despite having established a dedicated ethanol plant.
Case Title: NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS
Case No: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has held that a criminal contempt petition filed by a private party, without obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General of India, cannot proceed as a regular contempt petition, but may be treated as “information” and be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of whether any suo motu action should be initiated. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214]
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was dealing with a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against four accused persons alleging deliberate and wilful disobedience of a High Court order.
The company sought initiation of suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against the accused, as well as to convict and sentence them to imprisonment.
An application was filed seeking recall of an earlier order passed in February that had overruled the office objection raised on maintainability of the petition.
The question before the Court was whether the Criminal Contempt of Court case filed seeking to take action against an alleged contemnor without the consent of the Advocate General is maintainable?
Case Title: Bhuvan M v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 16889/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Central Zoo Authority (CZA) told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday [June 24] that it has formed an expert committee to formulate SOPs and related protocols for zoo veterinarians, staff and other animal handlers, following the death of a trainee veterinarian who was mauled by a pregnant hippopotamus at Shivamogga Zoo recently. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha which was hearing a PIL for formulating zoo safety protocols, observed that CZA has been taking sufficient steps to ensure safety in zoos.
“…The counsel (for CZA) has also handed over an office order dated 05.05.2026 setting out the constitution of an expert committee. R2 has already taken steps to formulated protocols and SOP…. Therefore, it is not apposite to issue any directions by the court…Disposed”, the court noted in the order.
The PIL, filed by Bhuvan M who claims to be a wildlife conservationist, emphasised that 17 such fatal incidents have occurred in animal enclosures of the zoos since 2016. The petitioner submitted that newspaper reports annexed to the petition indicate a plethora of such incidents.
Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Crl.P. No. 7003/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Noting that animals are not 'mere chattels existing solely for human utility' and every act of cruelty against them is a 'blemish upon the collective human conscience', the Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order directing the return of nine rescued dogs to their original owner, facing allegations of cruelty, repeated beatings, and sexual abuse. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while quashing the magistrate's order dated April 25, directed that the dogs- including six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus- currently in the custody of animal welfare organizations, shall continue to remain there pending trial and completion of investigation.
“…The measure of a civilised society is often reflected not merely by how it treats its humans but as to how it extends mercy and justice to voiceless creatures that inhabits this shared world. Therefore, every act of cruelty against an animal is not merely an injury to a sentient being, but a blemish upon the collective human conscience... Protection of animal life is not therefore charity... it is an affirmation of constitutional morality and the recognition that the arc of justice must extend to even those who can't knock at the doors of the court..”, the court underscored in its order today.
The impugned order 'shocks the conscience of the court', the single judge bench opined. The Court orally noted that the visuals depicted the owner of the dogs repeatedly beating every dog and has treated those dogs like chattels that he can deal with as and how he wants.
"… Before I say Omega to this order, it would not be inept to refer that though animals are bereft of human speech, they are not bereft of sentience, suffering and the capacity to experience pain. The law, in its civilisational wisdom, has long ceased to view animals as mere chattels existing solely for human utility. The law now recognises animals also to be living beings entitled to dignity, compassion and protection from cruelty”, the court continued.
Case Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 513 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 28-year-old man accused of marrying a 17-year-old girl and indulging in sexual relations with her on the ground that the girl had worldly knowledge about the consequences of her actions. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted in the order that the accused and the survivor were in love and got married at a temple and lived together for a considerable duration.
“…It appears that the victim and the petitioner who were in love got married in a temple and lived together for a considerable period of time in a rented house and had consensual sex. The victim girl was aged about 17 years as on the said date and therefore she had the worldly knowledge about the consequences of her act…”, the court said.
The court added that Trial in the case is yet to commence and allegations against him will have to be proved in a full-fledged trial.
Karnataka High Court Cancels Vachanananda Swami's Anticipatory Bail In POCSO Case
Case title: SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER
Case No: CRL.P 7944/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 25) cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by a sessions court to Vachanananda Swami booked in a POCSO case over allegations of sodomy, remarking that it was troubled by the manner in which bail was granted. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218]
The court was hearing the complainant's plea challenging Sessions Court's May 2 order granting anticipatory bail to Vachanananda Swamiji who has been booked for offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. In the interim, the plea sought a stay on the May 2 order.
Earlier this week the court had orally remarked that it will cancel Vachanananda's anticipatory bail.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:
"The petitioner is before the court calling in question an anticipatory bail granted to respondent 2...The learned counsel for respondent 2 now submits that police have filed a chargesheet after investigation. Though in law once an anticipatory bail is granted it would run even after filing of chargesheet, this court is not examining whether filing of chargesheet would obliterated anticipatory bail granted. No it is not.
The manner in which the pre-arrest bail is granted is what troubles this court as one week prior to registration of complaint itself a bail is granted under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. Therefore going to the offence, and manner in which it is what leads to obliteration of the subject order, and not the mere fact of filing of the chargesheet. In that light I deem it appropriate to obliterate this order and reserve liberty to the petitioner to knock at the doors of the appropriate court to seek regular bail".
Case Name: Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No. : WP No. 3765 of 2022 (S-KSAT)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K held that a substituted amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which includes married daughters in the definition of “family,” is retrospective in effect and entitles the married daughter to consideration for compassionate appointment.
It was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but eligible dependents of a deceased government servant are entitled to be considered under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. It was noted that under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, married daughters were initially excluded from the definition of dependents eligible for compassionate appointment.
Case Title: Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 17879 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a circular issued by the state law university which required the repeater students to appear for the newly introduced subjects instead of the earlier subjects they had been taught [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220].
The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi struck down the circular issued by Karnataka State Law University [Respondent No.1], mandating the repeating students to appear for new subjects such as 'Labour and Industrial Law-I' and 'Labour and Industrial Law-II' instead of 'Labour Law-I' and 'Labour Law-II'.
Case Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 2163 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash FIR against a wife accused of transmitting obscene videos of her husband allegedly sexually assaulting an employee at his establishment, holding that the act of transmission itself constitutes an offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221]
It had been alleged that during the course of her employment, accused No. 1, the husband of the petitioner, committed acts of sexual assault upon the complainant—not once, but twice—by employing deceit, coercion, and manipulation.
Meanwhile, the allegation against the petitioner/accused no.2 was that, sexually explicit material or the activities between the husband and the complainant were shot on a mobile phone and circulated by the petitioner to the complainant's husband and her relatives.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the wife [accused no.2] will be liable to face trial under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act for allegedly sharing the survivor's explicit video.
Case Title: Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2327 of 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court, while setting aside a trial court's direction to a husband to pay Rs 20,000 interim maintenance to his wife, has held that a wife who earns considerably more than her husband cannot claim maintenance from him, especially when she has no other obligations or liabilities to discharge. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222]
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha noted in its order as follows:
“…When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final”.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending Matters
Case Title: Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15040 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea by the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), challenging the imposition of a Rs 25,000 penalty and directions for disciplinary proceedings against him by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the responsibilities to be borne by the First Appellate Authority [BDA Secretary] under the RTI Act do not get extinguished with the expiry of the term of 'an individual incumbent'.
A public servant cannot avoid statutory responsibilities on the basis that the proceedings in question originated during the term of his previous incumbent officer, the court added.
Case Title: Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 12734 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Remarking that anyone who 'acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book', Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a travel agent accused of facilitating the renewal of passports, including that of a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad for alleged terror activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224]
The allegations against the agent are over facilitating passport renewal for 15 persons, including a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna emphasized that the 'law must therefore reach every link in the chain', while dismissing the plea by a travel agent accused of furnishing his own address in as many as fifteen passport applications fraudulently, coincidentally facilitating the passport renewal of Ibrahim Khaleel- a terror accused from Andhra Pradesh.
"Any individual—whether a private citizen, intermediary, or public servant—who, by act of commission or omission, acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book. National security is not imperiled only by those who directly engage in unlawful acts; it is equally endangered by those who facilitate, enable, or negligently permit such acts to occur. The law must therefore reach every link in the chain”, the court held.
School's Duty Of Care Extends To Children Travelling In School Bus: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Child's Permanent Eye Injury
Case Title: Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025
Citation: [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case registered against a private school after a 4th standard student lost vision in one eye and suffered 40% permanent disability when coloured confetti was allegedly sprayed into his eyes by other students inside a school bus. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
While noting that the school bus is an extension of the school itself, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the allegations levelled against the school do not merely concern a 'transient hurt' but that 'of a childhood permanently scarred'.
“…A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop. The safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well”, the court further observed.
The High Court, after perusing the FIR, noted in the order that the allegations prima facie warrant investigation, and that the school cannot absolve itself from its liability by taking a defence at the threshold that the act was done by another student. The state had earlier drawn the court's attention to the finding by the police that the CCTV camera installed inside the school bus was not functional
Earlier, the school had also argued that its management could not be made liable for an act done by another student inside the school bus post the school hours.
However, the complainant-father had contended that the school bus 'is not a detached island beyond institutional responsibility', making the bus 'an extension of the school itself'.