Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86Nominal IndexSri Sirajuddin v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30Prof Niranjana v/s State & Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 31Dr. BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 32X v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 33Shri Jayant Jadhav Anr. v/s Principal Secretary & Others...
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Nominal Index
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
Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v/s M/s Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Judgments/Orders
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5163 OF 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
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) 72
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) 73
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) 74
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) 75
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: Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16636 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
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) 77
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) 78
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) 79
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) 80
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) 81
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) 82
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) 83
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) 84
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) 85
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) 86
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.