Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231NOMINAL INDEXAnanda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 219 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
NOMINAL INDEX
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
Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
V v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Ananda Karegoñeppara & Others v. The Karnataka State Law University & Others
Case No.: W.P. No. 17879 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a circular issued by the state law university which required the repeater students to appear for the newly introduced subjects instead of the earlier subjects they had been taught [Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 220].
The single judge bench of Justice Ashok S. Kinagi struck down the circular issued by Karnataka State Law University [Respondent No.1], mandating the repeating students to appear for new subjects such as 'Labour and Industrial Law-I' and 'Labour and Industrial Law-II' instead of 'Labour Law-I' and 'Labour Law-II'.
Case Title: Jayanthi G. v. State of Karnataka & Another
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 2163 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash FIR against a wife accused of transmitting obscene videos of her husband allegedly sexually assaulting an employee at his establishment, holding that the act of transmission itself constitutes an offence under Section 67A of the Information Technology Act. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 221]
It had been alleged that during the course of her employment, accused No. 1, the husband of the petitioner, committed acts of sexual assault upon the complainant—not once, but twice—by employing deceit, coercion, and manipulation.
Meanwhile, the allegation against the petitioner/accused no.2 was that, sexually explicit material or the activities between the husband and the complainant were shot on a mobile phone and circulated by the petitioner to the complainant's husband and her relatives.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the wife [accused no.2] will be liable to face trial under Sections 67 and 67A of the IT Act for allegedly sharing the survivor's explicit video.
Case Title: Sri Ravi S. @ Jeevan S. v. Smt. Sahana Devi A. & Others
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2327 of 2026 (GM-FC)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222
The Karnataka High Court, while setting aside a trial court's direction to a husband to pay Rs 20,000 interim maintenance to his wife, has held that a wife who earns considerably more than her husband cannot claim maintenance from him, especially when she has no other obligations or liabilities to discharge. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 222]
The single judge bench of Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha noted in its order as follows:
“…When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final”.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Penalty Under RTI Act, Says Successor Officer Can't Blame Predecessor For Pending Matters
Case Title: Sri Shivakumar C.L., Secretary, Bangalore Development Authority v. Karnataka Information Commission & Sri A. Suresh Chandra Babu
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 15040 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea by the Secretary of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), challenging the imposition of a Rs 25,000 penalty and directions for disciplinary proceedings against him by the Karnataka Information Commission (KIC) for failure to furnish information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 223]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the responsibilities to be borne by the First Appellate Authority [BDA Secretary] under the RTI Act do not get extinguished with the expiry of the term of 'an individual incumbent'.
A public servant cannot avoid statutory responsibilities on the basis that the proceedings in question originated during the term of his previous incumbent officer, the court added.
Case Title: Sri U.M. Haidar, Travel Agent, Mangalore v. State Public Prosecutor & Regional Passport Officer, Mangalore
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 12734 of 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224
Remarking that anyone who 'acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book', Karnataka High Court refused to quash criminal proceedings against a travel agent accused of facilitating the renewal of passports, including that of a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad for alleged terror activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 224]
The allegations against the agent are over facilitating passport renewal for 15 persons, including a person wanted by the Andhra Pradesh Anti-Terrorist Squad.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna emphasized that the 'law must therefore reach every link in the chain', while dismissing the plea by a travel agent accused of furnishing his own address in as many as fifteen passport applications fraudulently, coincidentally facilitating the passport renewal of Ibrahim Khaleel- a terror accused from Andhra Pradesh.
"Any individual—whether a private citizen, intermediary, or public servant—who, by act of commission or omission, acts against the interest of the Nation must be brought to book. National security is not imperiled only by those who directly engage in unlawful acts; it is equally endangered by those who facilitate, enable, or negligently permit such acts to occur. The law must therefore reach every link in the chain”, the court held.
School's Duty Of Care Extends To Children Travelling In School Bus: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over Child's Permanent Eye Injury
Case Title: Divyajyothi School Management v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 13718 of 2025
Citation: [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case registered against a private school after a 4th standard student lost vision in one eye and suffered 40% permanent disability when coloured confetti was allegedly sprayed into his eyes by other students inside a school bus. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
While noting that the school bus is an extension of the school itself, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna held that the allegations levelled against the school do not merely concern a 'transient hurt' but that 'of a childhood permanently scarred'.
“…A child which travels in a school bus which is an extension of the school itself, cannot be left high and dry till the child from the school reaches the house even if it is the last stop. The safety of children in a school bus is not a matter of charity or convenience; it is a solemn obligation mandated under the Statute as well”, the court further observed.
The High Court, after perusing the FIR, noted in the order that the allegations prima facie warrant investigation, and that the school cannot absolve itself from its liability by taking a defence at the threshold that the act was done by another student. The state had earlier drawn the court's attention to the finding by the police that the CCTV camera installed inside the school bus was not functional
Earlier, the school had also argued that its management could not be made liable for an act done by another student inside the school bus post the school hours.
However, the complainant-father had contended that the school bus 'is not a detached island beyond institutional responsibility', making the bus 'an extension of the school itself'.
Case Title: Radha & Ors. v. BBM Ispat Limited & Ors.
Case No: MFA No. 200447 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Allowing an appeal filed by the dependents of a deceased sole proprietor, Karnataka High Court has recently held that a proprietor who personally undertakes a hazardous work cannot be denied compensation by reasoning that he is a business owner who wouldn't fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 225]
The Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha, while setting aside the Raichur Workmen's Compensation Commissioner's order, noted that the principal employer and the insurer is jointly and severally liable to pay Rs 7,07,760/-as compensation [ for loss of dependency, estate and funeral expenses] to the dependents along with 12 per cent interest.
“…. In India, a substantial proportion of commercial and industrial activity is carried on through sole proprietary concerns. Unlike large corporate organisations... the proprietor of a small proprietary concern often constitutes the principal technician, mechanic, operator, supervisor, manager and administrator rolled into one. He secures the contract, arranges the resources, supervises the work and very often personally executes the work itself”, Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted in his supplementary opinion in the judgment authored by Justice C. Sumalatha.
Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Allowing Policyholder To Engage Lawyer Before Insurance Ombudsman
Case Title: The Office Of Insurance v. M V Naramsimha Prasad
Case No: WA 1534/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (July 1) dismissed an appeal filed by the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman challenging a single-judge's order that permitted a complainant to engage an advocate during the adjudicatory stage of proceedings before the Ombudsman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 227]
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha upheld the single-judge's ruling, which stated that the Ombudsman discharges a quasi-judicial function and cannot deny legal representation once the matter moves beyond mediation.
“…Learned counsel for respondent accepts notice. Petition is finally heard. For the reasons mentioned above appeal is dismissed. Condonation of delay is allowed”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: Micah Mark & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Connected Matters
Case Nos: Criminal Petition No. 8401/2026 & Criminal Petition No. 8417/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (June 1) refused to quash a UAPA case lodged against the functionaries and alleged associates of a missionary group 'The Timothy Initiative'-including its India Head- accused of using over 1000 international debit cards to channel around Rs. 100 crores funds to Naxal regions. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 228]
The ED has alleged that The Timothy Initiative disbursed Rs 92.55 crore to 'Left Wing Extremism-affected' regions.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order that since the case concerns national security, investigation is warranted instead of summary quashing, the court held.
“National security is the invisible architecture upon which the sovereignty, stability and constitutional order of a nation rest. One of the gravest threats to National security in the present times is, the clandestine funding of extremism. …Funding becomes the oxygen that enables extremist movements to survive and proliferate. The danger of extremist financing lies not merely in the money transferred, but in the consequences it unleashes. Left unchecked, such funding can transform ideological extremism into organized violence, threatening National unity and public safety…”, the Court observed.
Case Title: V v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 10716 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a cruelty case lodged by a woman against her sister-in-law who resides in Luxembourg, for allegedly 'filling the ears' of her in-laws by repeatedly calling them. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 229]
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna noted that complaint about sister-in-law torturing the complainant through such phone calls cannot be accepted in the absence of specific allegations, since instigation, that too by way of telephonic conversation, would not meet the ingredients of Section 498A IPC
The primary allegation against the petitioner was that she would call and instigate the in-laws against the complainant- wife.
“..All that the petitioner is alleged of in the complaint is that, she was filling in the ear of mother in-law and father-in-law by repeatedly calling over the telephone, from Luxemburg. Except this, there is no other allegation against the petitioner… Instigation that too, by way of telephonic conversation would not mean that it would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC”, the court said.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. Mrs. Aishwarya Gowda
Case No: CRL.P No.13915 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has last week dismissed a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) seeking cancellation of regular bail granted to Aishwarya Gowda, accused under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002 for an alleged ₹15 crores Gold Investment Scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 230]
The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty noted that the proviso to Section 45 PMLA, which prescribes special treatment for Bail to women and others in money laundering cases, is not automatic. However, any such denial of special treatment, must be reasoned.
“…the respondent[Aishwarya Gowda] has been granted bail in all the cases registered against her for predicate offences and further proceedings in some of the cases registered against her for predicate offences has been stayed by this Court. The respondent who is a married women was in custody for nearly two months and the Trial Judge has observed that it is not the case of the prosecution that they require the presence of the respondent for investigation in the present case”, the High Court said.
Case Title: G.T Dinesh Kumar v. ED
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7565 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court on July 1 [Wednesday] granted bail to G.T. Dinesh Kumar, the former Commissioner of the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA), who was arrested in connection with a money laundering case linked to the alleged MUDA land allotment scam. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 231]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order there were five 'changed circumstances' warranting a fresh consideration of Kumar's bail plea, subsequent to the rejection of Kumar's bail application by a coordinate bench twice.
The circumstances, according to the court, were subsequent filing of chargesheet in the predicate offence, grant of bail in the said predicate offence, filing of a supplementary prosecution complaint against three accused without their arrest and the trial remaining at the pre cognisance stage.
“…The changed circumstances contended are quoted hereinabove. Those should merit acceptance for the reason that… These five circumstances are undoubtedly changed circumstances to the order passed by the coordinate Bench on 20-01-2026, as every circumstance has happened subsequent to the rejection of bail application by the coordinate Bench”, the court noted in the order.