Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225NOMINAL INDEXArnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 196Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
NOMINAL INDEX
Arnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 196
Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
Girish M Anchan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 200
Padmavathi T B v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
Sri P.A. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
Smt. S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
Sharada Purya Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Mr. Dinesh Malpani v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
Sri. Madhu v. The IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
Mangalappa Hullikeri v. State of Karnataka. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
Deepak Singh v. Enforcement Directorate & connected matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
Krishnamurthy M v. State of Karnataka & Ors and Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
K.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State and Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 212
M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
Bhuvan M v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Arnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: CRL.P 15929/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 1) refused to entertain a plea challenging the arrest of a photocopy shop owner accused of creating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for alleged illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the plea, graned him liberty to approach the trial court for bail.
During the hearing the court orally said:
“…Fake Aadhaar card creation, you are the one destroying everything, giving it to people who are not Indians. How many people are you going to let in... Everyone has an aadhaar card today. Why? Because of you. Have some concern for the nation...Every person who is not a citizen of this country has an Aadhaar card because of people like you, and it becomes the foundation of every right they claim to have. How much vigil can the State display if matters are going on like these?”
Case Title: Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P 4849/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [June 4] declined to quash a POCSO case against a school headmaster accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old student, observing that the allegations levelled against him are 'unpardonable'.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, hearing the quashing plea moved by the accused and asked him to seek discharge before the trial court.
“…You are the headmaster. The student was around 15‑16 years…. Do you think this court would spare a headmaster who has touched the breasts of a 15‑year‑old child? … What kind of teacher are you?”, the court orally remarked on the alleged conduct of the teacher.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters
Case No: WA No. 4647/2013 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court set aside state's land acquisition proceedings with respect to Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association (IMTMA), observing that the proceedings were 'colourable exercise of power' as it was not for a public purpose and a 'fraud on the statute' to divest owners of their land in favour of a profit-making private entity.
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf has on June 3 [Wednesday] accordingly allowed a batch of 12 appeals filed by landowners whose lands were acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for setting up a multi‑level car parking facility for the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC) led by IMTMA.
“…Setting up an industrial area is a public purpose and acquiring the land for a profit making entity for its expansion would not be in the line of the objects of the KIAD Act, and it is nothing but a fraud committed on statute by the authorities to divest the landowners from their land holdings for a pittance in favour of a private entity for expansion of its business and making more and more profit. This kind of exercise of power is a statutory and constitutional fraud by the State Authorities...,”, the court observed
Case Title: Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors. and BSNL v. Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.Nos.16104/2025 & 4674/2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Underscoring the accountability of telecom service provider for its negligence in a case of SIM swap fraud, the Karnataka High Court held telecom company BSNL vicariously liable for wrongful issuance of a duplicate SIM card to fraudsters by one of its employees, resulting in a loss of Rs 87.70 lakhs to a co‑operative bank.
In doing so the court while recognizing the role of telecom providers as vault keepers who if dishonestly gives access to unauthorised persons bears responsibility for the resulting theft, the court also urged banks to take protective steps against SIM-Swap fraud.
Case Title: Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 12170/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) dismissed a PIL seeking directions to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and others regarding an allegedly "missing volume" of Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography and "17-year-old delayed probe" into his assassination in 1948.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha orally remarked that "There is no national interest or public interest..Judicial time cannot be used for whimsical matters”, while dismissing the plea by 'Jagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha' with Rs 10,000/- cost, payable to the Legal Services Authority.
“…. As noted above, the petitioner earlier filed a similar petition…which was dismissed on 28 August 2025. We find that the present petition is an exercise in procuring publicity rather than seeking a relief in public interest. Therefore, we are not persuaded to entertain the same….”, the court accordingly noted in the order.
Case Title: Girish M Anchan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P. 635/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 8) quashed an FIR against BJP MLA Yashpal Suvarna and others booked in connection with an alleged illegal protest and burning of an effigy of former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in Manipal in 2024, holding that there was no direct evidence linking the petitioners to the incident.
According to the complaint it has been alleged that last year, the petitioners had allegedly organized an illegal protest at Syndicate Circle in Manipal against the withholding of a state award to the principal of a Kundapura school. During the protest, volunteers allegedly burned an effigy of former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah.
Case Title: Padmavathi T B v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 7311/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 201
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 9) imposed cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on a female cop for suppressing the existence of an earlier order directing registration of an FIR against her for allegedly "kicking" a lady advocate, when she had approached the vacation bench recently in order to seek a stay of probe.
The court said that the petitioner had not disclosed the earlier order directing FIR against her before the coordinate vacation bench, which had passed an interim order staying probe in the FIR.
Case Title: PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 11351 of 2020 (GM‑RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 202
The Karnataka High Court has issued a detailed Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Universal Accessibility, mandating that all government buildings as well as private buildings such as schools, malls, hospitals, and transport hubs as well as digital platforms become fully accessible to persons with disabilities.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj in his 465-page order issued the comprehensive SOP while dismissing a plea filed by a private school challenging an order by the State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities to grant a teacher compensation for a disability arising out of the rescue of a student.
Case Title: Sri P.A. Ponnappa v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 17310/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 203
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 11) granted relief to the owner of a Homestay in Kodagu whose registration/license was cancelled on account of his alleged involvement in the rape of a US national who was a guest at his property.
The court also asked the Principal Secretary of the Tourism Department to formulate a proper, comprehensive policy for the regulation of homestays under the Karnataka Tourism Trade (Facilitation and Regulation) Act, 2015, noting that the existing framework is inadequate.
Case Title: Smt. S. Savithramma v. The Karnataka Information Commission & Ors.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 21831 of 2025 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 204
The Karnataka High Court dismissed an RTI applicant's plea seeking disclosure of assets and liability statement of a public servant, former Deputy Controller of State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), observing that the information sought was personal unconnected to any public interest hence protected under Section 8(1) (j) RTI Act.
It observed that official acts, decisions, utilization of public resources, and matters directly connected with public administration would stand on a different footing.
Case Title: Sharada Purya Naik vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRL.P No: 13717/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
The Karnataka High Court has on June 12 [Friday] quashed the criminal proceedings against Janata Dal (Secular) MLA from Shimoga (Rural) Sharada Purya Naik, who has been accused of using children in a political rally in 2023.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the mere presence of children alongside a campaign venue would not attract the rigours of Sections 77 [cruelty to child] of the Juvenile Justice Act and Section 14 [permitting children to work in violation of laws] the Child & Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act.
Can A Person Be Jailed For More Than 6 Months For Non-Payment Of Fine In Cheque Bounce Case? Karnataka High Court Explains
Case Title: Mr. Dinesh Malpani v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 5718 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206
The Karnataka High Court has held that the default jail term for non-payment of fine in cheque bounce cases cannot exceed one-fourth of the maximum substantive sentence prescribed for the offence, which means that it can't exceed six months in each case where the maximum punishment is two years. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 206].
Relying on Section 65 of IPC [Section 8(3) BNS- Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and fine awardable], the single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna opined that Section 138 of the NI Act prescribes a maximum imprisonment of two years, and therefore, the default sentence cannot exceed six months.
Banks Can't Freeze Entire Account Anticipating Future Directions From Probe Agencies: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Sri. Madhu v. The IndusInd Bank Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No.38362 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 207
The Karnataka High Court has held that a bank cannot freeze an "entire bank account" merely on the apprehension that directions for freezing additional amounts may be received from the investigating agencies in the future. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 207]
“A possibility or apprehension of a future event cannot be equated with a lawful order. The powers exercised by a bank must be traceable to an existing direction or statutory authority and not to speculative contingencies which may or may not arise in future. If such a course of action were to be accepted, it would permit banks to freeze entire accounts whenever a limited freezing request is received, merely on the assumption that further requests may follow. Such an approach would not only be contrary to law but would also result in disproportionate hardship to account holders”, the single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj underscored.
Case Title: Mangalappa Hullikeri v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 17310/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 208
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [June 16] dismissed a PIL challenging the constitutionality of the newly formed Council of Ministers headed by Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar, imposing costs of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for what it called a 'publicity stunt' and an 'unjustifiable use of the judiciary's time'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 208]
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha dismissed the petition filed by Mangalappa Hullikeri, claiming to be a 45-year-old public worker, who had sought a direction to strike down the 14-member council of ministers— as unconstitutional under Article 164(1A) of the Constitution of India.
“ …The present petition is premised on the erroneous ground that the number of ministers including CM in a council of ministers cannot be less than 12 per cent of the Karnataka Legislature...A plain reading of the proviso states... the proviso to clause (1A) of Article 164 of the Constitution of India states that number of ministers including Chief Minister in a State shall not be less than twelve. The premise that the number of Ministers cannot be less than 12 per cent as argued by the petitioner renders the present petition on an ex-facie erroneous presumption…" the Court observed.
Case Title: Deepak Singh v. Enforcement Directorate & connected matters
Case No: WP 15130/2026 (and connected matters WP 15277/2026 & WP 15278/2026)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 209
Outlining the safeguards of accused persons under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Karnataka High Court declared the arrest of three directors of the online gaming company Gameskraft Technologies Private Limited- as illegal and ordered their immediate release from prison. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 209].
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna, while allowing the pleas of Directors Vikas Taneja, Deepak Singh and Prithviraj Singh, opined that the Enforcement Directorate did not comply with Section 19 of the PMLA Act.
Pertinently, the high court had on January 22 stayed ED's investigation against Gameskraft Technologies after a closure report was filed in the FIR registered for the predicate offence at Bengaluru, noting that once the FIR is closed, the foundation for ECIR from November 2025 had vanished. On February 23, 2026, the ED registered a new ECIR based on the three FIRs registered in Telangana subsequent to the stay order.
Article 300A Doesn't Protect Property Values From Policy-Induced Fluctuations: Karnataka High Court
Case title: Krishnamurthy M v. State of Karnataka & Ors and Connected Matters
Case No: WA 1983/2025 & Connected Matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the State's Premium Floor Area Ratio scheme (Premium FAR) while observing that the impugned scheme is not in contravention of Article 300A of the Constitution. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 210]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha observed that variations in property value due to change in economic policies would not amount to 'deprivation of property', in contravention of Article 300A.
Case title: K.G. RAJANNA v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
Case No: CRL.P 6443/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 22) said that grant of indiscriminate adjournments without any rhyme or reason is the reason which is clogging the courts. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 211]
The court made the oral observation while directing the trial court to conclude the proceedings in a 15-year-old criminal case, after noting that the matter was adjourned by the concerned court on a plethora of occasions without any rhyme or reason.
The petitioner had sought quashing of a 2011 FIR for offences under IPC Sections 406(Criminal Breach of Trust),420(Cheating),468(forgery),471(Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record) pending before the magistrate court in Bengaluru.
Case Title: Ningaraj Gulappa V/S State, Prashanth Kareepa Talavar V/S State, Nithin G.B. V/S State, Chandrashekar B V/S State
Case No: Crl P 1857 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 212
The Karnataka High Court last month denied bail to four persons who have been booked for making obscene posts on social media against actor Darshan's wife Vijaylakshmi Darshan. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 212]
Justice S Rachaiah dismissed the bail petitions in four separate orders and noted:
"No doubt, freedom of speech of expressions are guaranteed to its citizens under the Constitution of India. However, every such right has its reasonable restrictions. Exceeding such restrictions or invading the personal liberty of another person, certainly would be an offence and it would be dealt with in accordance with law.
It is needless to state that the Social Media as its responsibility to maintain decorum and also to instill the confidence in the minds of the citizens of this Country. The persons who are making comments on any issues have to maintain public peace and order. Making a baseless, false, frivolous and intimidating messages are required to be regulated by the Company itself, if not, Courts are required to secure the confidence of the citizens of this Country by way of interfering with such comments on the social media which violates the fundamental rights of any citizens of this Country".
Case Title: M/S.VINP DISTILLERIES AND SUGARS PVT. LTD V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.109133 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213
The Karnataka High Court has directed various Oil Marketing Companies (OMCs) to consider and decide a representation submitted by a distillery seeking enhancement of ethanol allocation for the Ethanol Supply Year (ESY) 2025–26. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 213]
The OMCs in question are Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Indian Oil Corporation Limited.
Justice N Nagaprasanna allowed the plea filed by M/S Vinp Distilleries and Sugar Private Limited, a dedicated ethanol manufacturer, challenging the reduced allocation of ethanol supply despite having established a dedicated ethanol plant.
Case Title: NEW SPACE RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD v. MR. PRABHAT SHARMA & ORS
Case No: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.5 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214
The Karnataka High Court has held that a criminal contempt petition filed by a private party, without obtaining prior consent of the Advocate General of India, cannot proceed as a regular contempt petition, but may be treated as “information” and be placed before the Chief Justice for consideration of whether any suo motu action should be initiated. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 214]
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was dealing with a criminal contempt petition filed by New Space Research and Technologies Pvt. Ltd. against four accused persons alleging deliberate and wilful disobedience of a High Court order.
Case Title: Bhuvan M v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 16889/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215
The Central Zoo Authority (CZA) told the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday [June 24] that it has formed an expert committee to formulate SOPs and related protocols for zoo veterinarians, staff and other animal handlers, following the death of a trainee veterinarian who was mauled by a pregnant hippopotamus at Shivamogga Zoo recently. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 215]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S Hemalekha which was hearing a PIL for formulating zoo safety protocols, observed that CZA has been taking sufficient steps to ensure safety in zoos.
“…The counsel (for CZA) has also handed over an office order dated 05.05.2026 setting out the constitution of an expert committee. R2 has already taken steps to formulated protocols and SOP…. Therefore, it is not apposite to issue any directions by the court…Disposed”, the court noted in the order.
The PIL, filed by Bhuvan M who claims to be a wildlife conservationist, emphasised that 17 such fatal incidents have occurred in animal enclosures of the zoos since 2016. The petitioner submitted that newspaper reports annexed to the petition indicate a plethora of such incidents.
Case Title: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) India v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Crl.P. No. 7003/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216
Noting that animals are not 'mere chattels existing solely for human utility' and every act of cruelty against them is a 'blemish upon the collective human conscience', the Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order directing the return of nine rescued dogs to their original owner, facing allegations of cruelty, repeated beatings, and sexual abuse. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 216]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while quashing the magistrate's order dated April 25, directed that the dogs- including six Golden Retrievers and three Shih Tzus- currently in the custody of animal welfare organizations, shall continue to remain there pending trial and completion of investigation.
Case Title: Manjunatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 513 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 28-year-old man accused of marrying a 17-year-old girl and indulging in sexual relations with her on the ground that the girl had worldly knowledge about the consequences of her actions. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 217]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted in the order that the accused and the survivor were in love and got married at a temple and lived together for a considerable duration.
“…It appears that the victim and the petitioner who were in love got married in a temple and lived together for a considerable period of time in a rented house and had consensual sex. The victim girl was aged about 17 years as on the said date and therefore she had the worldly knowledge about the consequences of her act…”, the court said.
The court added that Trial in the case is yet to commence and allegations against him will have to be proved in a full-fledged trial.
Karnataka High Court Cancels Vachanananda Swami's Anticipatory Bail In POCSO Case
Case title: SMT REKHA v/s STATE BY AND ANOTHER
Case No: CRL.P 7944/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 25) cancelled the anticipatory bail granted by a sessions court to Vachanananda Swami booked in a POCSO case over allegations of sodomy, remarking that it was troubled by the manner in which bail was granted. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 218]
The court was hearing the complainant's plea challenging Sessions Court's May 2 order granting anticipatory bail to Vachanananda Swamiji who has been booked for offences under Sections 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 of POCSO Act. In the interim, the plea sought a stay on the May 2 order.
Case Name: Smt. Savitha.R v. State of Karnataka & Others
Case No. : WP No. 3765 of 2022 (S-KSAT)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219
A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice S.G.Pandit and Justice Rajesh Rai K held that a substituted amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, which includes married daughters in the definition of “family,” is retrospective in effect and entitles the married daughter to consideration for compassionate appointment.
It was observed by the Co-ordinate Bench that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, but eligible dependents of a deceased government servant are entitled to be considered under the applicable compassionate appointment scheme. It was noted that under the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 1996, married daughters were initially excluded from the definition of dependents eligible for compassionate appointment.
Case Title: Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 17879 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a circular issued by the state law university which required the repeater students to appear for the newly introduced subjects instead of the earlier subjects they had been taught [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220].
The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi struck down the circular issued by Karnataka State Law University [Respondent No.1], mandating the repeating students to appear for new subjects such as 'Labour and Industrial Law-I' and 'Labour and Industrial Law-II' instead of 'Labour Law-I' and 'Labour Law-II'.
Case Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 2163 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash FIR against a wife accused of transmitting obscene videos of her husband allegedly sexually assaulting an employee at his establishment, holding that the act of transmission itself constitutes an offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221]
It had been alleged that during the course of her employment, accused No. 1, the husband of the petitioner, committed acts of sexual assault upon the complainant—not once, but twice—by employing deceit, coercion, and manipulation.
Case Title: Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2327 of 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court, while setting aside a trial court's direction to a husband to pay Rs 20,000 interim maintenance to his wife, has held that a wife who earns considerably more than her husband cannot claim maintenance from him, especially when she has no other obligations or liabilities to discharge. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222]
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha noted in its order as follows:
“…When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final”.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending Matters
Case Title: Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15040 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea by the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), challenging the imposition of a Rs 25,000 penalty and directions for disciplinary proceedings against him by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the responsibilities to be borne by the First Appellate Authority [BDA Secretary] under the RTI Act do not get extinguished with the expiry of the term of 'an individual incumbent'.
A public servant cannot avoid statutory responsibilities on the basis that the proceedings in question originated during the term of his previous incumbent officer, the court added.
Case Title: Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 12734 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Remarking that anyone who 'acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book', Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a travel agent accused of facilitating the renewal of passports, including that of a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad for alleged terror activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224]
The allegations against the agent are over facilitating passport renewal for 15 persons, including a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna emphasized that the 'law must therefore reach every link in the chain', while dismissing the plea by a travel agent accused of furnishing his own address in as many as fifteen passport applications fraudulently, coincidentally facilitating the passport renewal of Ibrahim Khaleel- a terror accused from Andhra Pradesh.
"Any individual—whether a private citizen, intermediary, or public servant—who, by act of commission or omission, acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book. National security is not imperiled only by those who directly engage in unlawful acts; it is equally endangered by those who facilitate, enable, or negligently permit such acts to occur. The law must therefore reach every link in the chain”, the court held.
School's Duty Of Care Extends To Children Travelling In School Bus: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Child's Permanent Eye Injury
Case Title: Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025
Citation: [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case registered against a private school after a 4th standard student lost vision in one eye and suffered 40% permanent disability when coloured confetti was allegedly sprayed into his eyes by other students inside a school bus. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
While noting that the school bus is an extension of the school itself, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the allegations levelled against the school do not merely concern a 'transient hurt' but that 'of a childhood permanently scarred'.
“…A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop. The safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well”, the court further observed.