Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 205Nominal IndexJagrutha Karnataka, Jagrutha Bharatha v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199Girish M Anchan & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 200Padmavathi T B v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 201PSBB Learning Leadership Academy v. Mrs. Barnali Rout & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 202Sri...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 199 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 205
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/ Orders
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.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the plea for quashing FIR, observing that permitting further investigation 'without an iota of evidence' would constitute an 'abuse of the process of law'.
“…Without an iota of evidence, further investigation to be permitted will be an abuse of process of law. It is apposite to refer to State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and others. In that light, Allowed. Quashed…, the court accordingly noted in the order.
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.
The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petitioner's plea for quashing the FIR, in his order noted:
“…. The petitioner [SI] comes to the Police Station and boots the complainant [lady lawyer accused of unruly conduct in another case] …. all of this is captured in CCTV and this court's order in Crl P. 3695/2026. Pursuant to the registration of crime, apart from departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings are initiated against the police officer. A separate Crl P 7311/2026 comes to be filed by the police officer and an interim order of stay on further investigation is granted by the coordinate [vacation] bench of this court…
Not a whisper about the order passed by this court pursuant to which the crime is registered is made in the pleadings before the coordinate bench. Suppressing the very foundation of registration of the crime, petitioners approach the coordinate[vacation] bench and an order is passed by this court. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed…. but an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh should be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority…. Result of investigation to be placed before this court prior to its filing before the trial court…”
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.
The SOP states that it is issued by the court in exercise of the power to issue directions in the public interest and to give effect to the statutory rights created by the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rules, while acknowledging that Accessibility for persons with disabilities is a constitutional guarantee flowing from Articles 14, 15(1), 1991)(g), 21 among others.
“…. Accessibility is NOT a welfare measure or a concession. It is a fundamental right flowing from Articles 14, 19 and 21 of our Constitution,” the Court declares in the SOP by relying on the apex court judgment in Kabir Paharia v. National Medical Commission (2025).
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.
“…The Act does not cover various aspects relating thereto, namely fire clearance, FSSAI (kitchen) licenses and permissions from local municipal authorities, aspect of security provided, manner of charges levied… It will be required for the Principal Secretary, Department of Tourism to formulate a proper policy for regulation of homestays so as to enable the stakeholders to know all the Do's and Don'ts in the regulations so that they can comply with them”, the single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said in the order.
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.
"However, information relating to personal assets, liabilities, financial affairs, income particulars, tax records, family matters, medical records, and similar personal details would ordinarily fall within the ambit of personal information protected under Clause (j) of Sub Section (1) of Section 8 of the RTI Act, unless disclosure is justified by an overriding public interest," Justice Surah Govindaraj said.
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.
“…It has been alleged that children were seen participating in the petitioner's political rally. The petitioner never brought any children for the rally. The school being adjacent, the children had come out and accompanied the rally…. That would not mean that the petitioners would be liable for prosecution under Section 75 of JJ Act and Section 14 of Labour Prohibition Act…Quashed”, the court noted in the order.