Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 129 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170Nominal IndexSri Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 129Smt. Sumithra & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 130Mohan Naik & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 131Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Ors. v. Sri Pavanesh D & Ors....
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 129 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders
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.