Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146Nominal IndexShyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 136Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And Others,...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Nominal Index
Shyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 136
Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And Others, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 137
Committee For Public Accountability (Regd) v. Kannada Univeristy Hampi & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 138
Management Of Bosch Ltd v. Andrew C. Shekharan Kp & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 139
Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Sri Abhishek Choudhari & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 140
Somashehar Rajavamshi V. Union Of India And Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
M/S. New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
Omisha Mara v. Passport Authority of India, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
Chandana H N v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Shyam Mehta S/o Bimal Mehta & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Crl Petition No.100213 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 134
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the dispatch door of factory premises, though not a 'public place', due to its accessibility to other workers in the premises, can very well fall within the definition of 'public view' as contemplated under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The court thus said that in such a case Section 3(1)(r) SC/ST Act was "prima facie" attracted. The offence states whoever not being a member of a SC or ST intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine.
Case Title: Mohammad Affaan Ahmed v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P 3146/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 135
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (April 06) refused to quash a criminal case registered against an airport staff accused of sexually harassing a south Korean national at the Kempegowda International Airport, and strongly disapproved of the officer's conduct.
“…She is a woman of another nation. She has described what all you did. Why did you take her to a gent's toilet?...”, Justice M Nagaprasanna orally asked the counsel appearing for the petitioner who had moved the high court challenging the proceedings.
The High Court noted that as per the complaint, the airport staff from a private firm took the south Korean woman to the washroom, made her stand in T position there, and touched her inappropriately without her consent.
“What kind of officer you are?.. Should you be spared? tell me...and the justification is that there was someone else in the ladies' washroom?”, the court orally remarked.
Case Title: Smt. Shaila & Anr. v. The Managing Director, ICICI Lombard GIC Ltd. & Anr.
Case No: Writ Petition No. 102733/2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 136
Quashing a Lok Adalat award payable to the family of the deceased in a motor accident claims appeal, Karnataka High Court has clarified that the claimant not signing the joint memo of the award would render the award non-binding upon him, even claimant's' lawyer signs the memo.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, relying on various precedents, noted that the National Legal Services Authority (Lok Adalats) Regulations offer surety about the validity of an award arising from a settlement. The court noted that Regulation 17 explicitly talks about ensuring that the parties affix their signatures after fully understanding the terms of the settlement, for such an award to be valid.
“…It is clear from the joint memo that the claimants have not affixed their signatures….It is only the Advocates of both sides and the representative of the Insurance Company who have affixed their signatures…since the claimants have not signed the joint memo, I deem it appropriate to set aside the award of the Lok Adalat and restore the appeal to its file to be heard on its merits”, the bench sitting at Dharwad held.
Case Title: Sukruth Keshav Gowda v. State And Others
Case No: CRL.P 2753/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 137
Refusing to quash a road rage case registered against a 23-year-old software engineer working at Whitefield, the Karnataka High Court emphasised that no one indulging in road rage would be pardoned by the court.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also orally observed that the accused should have patience and if he doesn't have such patience, the Bengaluru traffic is capable of teaching him the same.
“…If you have no patience, Bengaluru traffic would teach you patience. You should have it. No road ragers will be pardoned…”, the court orally remarked.
Case Title: Committee For Public Accountability (Regd) v. Kannada Univeristy Hampi & Anr.
Case No: WP 6414/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 138
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (April 07) refused to entertain a plea by Committee For Public Accountability against conferment of Nadoja honorary degree to state information commissioner HC Sathyan by Kannada University.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that the court cannot interfere in the independence of the university to confer award on anyone.
As per reports, on the 34th Annual Convocation of Kannada University in Hampi, Karnataka State Information Commissioner H.C Sathyan was conferred with the prestigious Nadoja honorary degree. The degree/award is usually presented to eminent personalities for their contributions to Kannada language, literature, culture, and social service etc.
Case Title: Management Of Bosch Ltd v. Andrew C. Shekharan Kp & Ors
Case No: Writ Petition No. 6976 Of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 139
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a workman is not required to file a separate delay condonation application under Section 33 C (1) [Recovery of money due from an employer] of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The single judge bench of Justice Ananth Ramanath Hegde observed that 'sufficient cause' for delay if pleaded within the application for recovery of arrears under Section 33C (1), that would be enough to condone the delay.
“…merely because a separate application for condonation of delay-which is not mandated under the Act of 1947 is not filed, cannot be a ground to reject the claims on the ground of delay. Such an objection pertains to form rather than substance. It is well settled that, in case of conflict between form and substance, substance must prevail, unless the law expressly mandates strict adherence to the form as well….”, the court held.
Case Title: Employees State Insurance Corporation & Anr. v. Sri Abhishek Choudhari & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 312 of 2020
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 140
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that service bonds can be enforced on medical students who avail subsidised education, noting that the same cannot be termed as "bonded labour" as it was common for students to avail study loans to defer the cost of education.
In doing so the court allowed an appeal by Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) on mandatory service in its medical colleges, and set aside a 2020 single-judge's order that had done away with the compulsory service bonds for medical students.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha held that the 5-year bond, later converted into a 1-year mandate prospectively from 2020, wouldn't violate the rights of MBBS students under Article 19(1)(g) [Right to practise a profession of choice] or Article 23 [prohibition against bonded labour].
Case Title: Somashehar Rajavamshi V. Union Of India And Others
Case No: WP 5925/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 141
The Karnataka High Court today refused to entertain a PIL challenging the Ministry of Home Affairs' circular advising singing of all six stanzas of the national song 'Vande Mataram' in all schools.
The division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakru and Justice C.M Poonacha noted that the MHA circular mentions "may" and is thus, not mandatory.
"....The petitioner claims that the same violates the secular basic structure of the constitution.The national song is not covered under any statutory framework. ASG points out that MHA order mention 'may' and it is not mandatory...," it observed.
Case Title: M/S. New Space Research and Technologies Private Limited v. The State of Karnataka
Case No: Writ Petition No. 3862 of 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 142
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a criminal case against a drone research company based in Bengaluru over a test drone flying across the company's premises and entering a private property, thereby allegedly constituting the offence of criminal trespass.
M/s NewSpace Research and Technologies Private Limited filed the petition for quashing the FIR registered under Sections 125 [Act endangering life or personal safety of others] and 329[Criminal Trespass] of BNS, 2023.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that 'criminal jurisprudence… rests on the bedrock of mensrea'. No intentional human entry or ingredients of mens rea have been met in the current case, the court opined.
Case Title: Omisha Mara v. Passport Authority of India
Case No: WP No. 8072/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 143
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that the insistence by the passport authorities on the signature of a minor sportsperson's estranged father for the renewal of her passport cannot be condoned when she is all set to participate in an international sports event.
The writ petition was filed by a 16-year-old minor who is a class X student at a private school in Bengaluru, seeking the renewal of her passport for an International Taekwondo Competition in China in April 2026.
“…The insistence on the father's signature, in the peculiar facts of the present case, would amount to adopting a hyper-technical approach, which would defeat the larger interest of the minor child….", the court held.
Case Title: Chandana H N v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 10676/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 144
The Karnataka High Court today imposed ₹1 lakh costs on a PIL litigant for wrongly claiming that the State Education Minister, through a policy prescribing grading system for third language SSLC exam (including Hindi), was "doing away" with Hindi language.
Pointing towards sensitivity of the matter, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M Poonacha orally said,
"...The statement that Hindi should be done away with…no such statement is seen in the newspaper article...The present petition is not motivated by public interest…it may be to seek publicity.”
Case Title: Smt. Eman Abbas Topiwala vs. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl. P. 3020/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 145
The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a woman booked in an NDPS case concerning a raid conducted at a birthday party in Ellavoma Farm last May.
In doing so the court noted that the arrest of the petitioner was unlawful and thus conduct of medical exam under Section 51 BNSS was vitiated.
For context, Section 51 BNSS prescribes the procedure for examination of an accused by a medical practitioner, at the request of police officer.
Case title: X v/s Y
CRL.RP No. 1600 of 2016 and another petition
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 146
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to enhance the maintenance amount awarded to a wife in her plea under the Domestic Violence Act, noting that the husband claimed that he was 'jobless' and the wife is getting a handsome salary.
A bench of Justice V Srishananda, however, also denied relief to the husband who sought the setting aside of the 2015 order of the Family Court directing him to pay Rs. 9K to the wife. With this, the bench dismissed the criminal revision petitions filed by both parties challenging the common judgment.
Briefly put, the parties got married in April 2009 and it is the claim of the wife that there was repeated demand for additional dowry from her husband and she was also subjected to physical and mental harassment.