Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185Nominal CitationsSrinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 184Younus Khan v. Union...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Nominal Citations
Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 184
Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Srinivasa S & ors. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 1190 of 2026 c/w WP Nos. 31956, 34040, 36589 of 2025 and WP No. 8003/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Granting relief to several forest department officers who took part in 'Operation Cocoon' to apprehend the notorious forest bandit Veerappan in 2004, the Karnataka High Court has directed the State to consider sanctioning the withheld rewards to those who were part of the Special Task Force (STF) within 12 weeks.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held that the 2015 order of the Forest Department, which restricted the cash payments to a few officers part of the STF during the demise of Veerappan, a sandalwood smuggler and brigand, was 'discriminatory'.
“…The Coordinate Bench, upon an elaborate examination of the factual matrix, has categorically held that once the names of the personnel, including those from the Forest Department, are found in the list of eligible beneficiaries prepared pursuant to the Government Order dated 08.07.2005, the State is estopped from denying such benefit on a specious plea that only a limited set of officers, who were present on the date when Koose Munisamy Veerappan was neutralized on 18.10.2004, would alone be entitled for the reward. The said contention of the State has been expressly rejected as being arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to the very object of the Government Order…”.
Case Title: Evergreen Recyclekaro India Limited vs. Bharat Electronics Limited & MSTC Limited
Case No: WP No. 935 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a tender condition requiring the participating e-waste companies to have a recycling facility within the State cannot be deemed as 'discriminatory' when the concerned items to be processed are 'sensitive' electoral equipment like EVMs and VVPAT units that are decommissioned.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum opined that such a specific condition was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, but 'a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental compliance' considering the sensitive nature of the material to be recycled.
“…The condition requiring in-state facilities is thus not a standalone commercial stipulation but a regulatory safeguard rooted in environmental governance. The disposal of EVMs and VVPATs is not merely a scrap disposal activity. It involves handling of sensitive electronic components, compliance with environmental norms and prevention of unauthorized reuse or data compromise. Therefore, the insistence on local facilities has a direct nexus with the object of ensuring safe, secure, and compliant disposal…”, the court noted in the order dated April 29.
Case Title: Darshan Srinivas v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 7473 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
In a significant order upholding the right to a fair trial, the Karnataka High Court has directed the Union Ministry of Information & Broadcasting (MIB) and the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY) to act upon a complaint against 'media trial' filed by Kannada actor Darshan Srinivas, who is the prime accused in the high-profile Renukaswamy murder case.
The single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum, while allowing the writ petition in part, emphasised that the Ministries are under a statutory obligation to examine the complaint and see if the impugned broadcasts prima facie violated the Programme Code under the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995.
On another note, the court did not take kindly to the counterproductive role that the media has been allegedly playing while Darshan's case is sub judice.
“…Freedom of speech is a cherished constitutional value; however, when it degenerates into media-driven adjudication, it ceases to be a safeguard of democracy and becomes a threat to it. The press is a watchdog, but when it assumes the role of judge, jury and executioner, the rule of law stands imperilled. Courts cannot permit the course of justice to be overshadowed by the glare of studio lights”, the high court laid down in unequivocal terms about media crossing the boundaries deliberately.
Case Title: Fayaz Khan v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 6438/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [May 14] granted bail to an accused in an NDPS case, observing that the prosecution had failed to make out a 'prima facie' case under Section 25 of the NDPS Act, as no contraband was found within the petitioner's premises.
Section 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985, punishes anyone who knowingly allows their premises, property, or vehicles to be used for committing a drug offense.
The court observed that finding the narcotic substance from the vehicles parked nearby the premises in question cannot be equated with the owner 'allowing the premises for drug use'.
The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the criminal petition filed under Section 483 BNSS by the petitioner, who was arrayed as Accused No. 4 in Crime No. 55/2026 registered at Kollegala Rural Police Station, Chamarajanagar district, for offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(A), 25, and 27(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
“…Clearly, even according to the prosecution, no substance was found within the premises…There is considerable force in the submissions made by the petitioner…Section 25 of the NDPS Act…a bare perusal of it indicates that house, room, enclosure or space, etc. should be allowed to be used with the knowledge that it would be used for the commission of an offence…This ingredient is missing in the complaint. Merely because the contraband substance was found in vehicles parked near the premises, the respondent cannot invoke the provision of Section 25. The respondent police has failed to make out a prima facie case…”, the court noted in the order while granting bail to the 67-year-old petitioner residing in Kollegala.
Case Title: Younus Khan v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 14702 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court on May 7 dismissed as not maintainable a writ petition challenging a circular issued by the Haj Committee of India demanding an additional ₹10,000/- towards differential airfare from Hajj pilgrims on account of the rising air fuel prices.
The single-judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty pointed out in the order that the petitioner had not registered himself as a Haj pilgrim for the current year. Similarly, the 54-year-old petitioner has not deposited any sum with the committee to travel for Hajj this year. In light of these circumstances, the writ petition would not be maintainable, the court added.
“…The demand for payment of differential amount of Rs.10,000/- raised vide Circular at Annexure-C dated 28.04.2026 is only from the pilgrims of Haj 2026 who have registered their names with the Haj Committee of India and have already paid/deposited the amount as aforesaid. Under the circumstances, petitioner cannot have any grievance as against the said circular, and therefore, he has no locus standi to question the same…”, the court noted in the order before dismissing the petition for not being maintainable.