Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153Nominal Index:V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148K V Shankara And Siddaramiah. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Nominal Index:
V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
Rudramma & Others
State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
K V Shankara And Siddaramiah. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15499 OF 2013
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147
The Karnataka High Court has held that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "I am of the considered opinion that a particular class or category of persons cannot be said to be socially and educationally backward to classify them in Group-B for reservation under Article 15 (4) and consider the very same class to be more forward and adequately represented for the purpose of employment by classifying the same class in Group-D for purposes of Article 16(4). This dichotomy and the dual standards which have been used is not justified by the State in any manner".
Case Title: Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29559 OF 2018
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148
The Karnataka High Court has held if lands already restored in grantee's favour, is again sold, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for the second time and seek resumption and restoration of the lands.
It further said if such a procedure–of selling granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant, then securing its resumption and thereafter, once again selling the resumed land before seeking its resumption again–is allowed, it would amount to a "mockery of the law, making the entire procedure of resumption a mere parody”.
Case Title: K V Shankara And Siddaramiah
Case No: EP 13/2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the election petition filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory from Varuna constituency in the 2023 assembly elections..
A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dut Yadav dismissed the petition filed by K M Shankara, a voter from the constituency who alleged that the Congress leader indulged in electoral malpractices.
The Congress party's manifesto provided five guarantees to the people of Karnataka: 'Gruha Jyothi' - 200 units of free electricity to all houses, 'Gruha Lakshmi' - ₹2,000 every month to each and every woman head of a family, 'Anna Bhagya' - 10 kilograms of food grain per month to every member of a below poverty line (BPL) family, 'Yuva Nidhi' - ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders and 'Uchita Prayana/Shakthi' - free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses.
Case Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150
The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.
The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".
BREAKING | Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Actress Ranya Rao, Co-Accused In Gold Smuggling Case
Case Title: Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Tarun Konduru Raju AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Case No: Criminal Petition 5047/2025 c/w Criminal Petition 5432/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151
The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (April 26) dismissed the bail petitions filed by Kannada Actress Harshavardhini Ranya Rao and co-accused Tarun Konduru Raju, who have been arrested in the Gold Smuggling Case.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while dictating the order, said, "Petitions dismissed". A detailed copy of the order is awaited.
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) has seized gold bars worth ₹12.56 crore from Ranya at Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 3. A subsequent search of her home had yielded gold jewellery worth ₹2.06 crore and Indian currency amounting to ₹2.67 crore.
Case Title: Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 22674/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (April 24) disposed of a public interest litigation seeking enforcement of Supreme Court's direction regarding advance medical directives or "living wills", after the State government filed a memo enumerating steps taken and orders/circulars issued for compliance of such directives.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind disposed of the petition filed by Advocate Shiv Kumar.
It said “The counsel submitted that petitioner stands satisfied with the steps and measures taken as well as orders and circulars issued by the State Government towards compliance of directions issued by the Supreme Court. In the aforesaid view, nothing further survives in the present petition and the same stands disposed off. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) will also carry out compliance of SC directives for which it is obliged in law.”
Case Title: High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153
Terming the "tendency" amongst former constitutional authorities, ex-MPs and legislators in misusing "Emblem, Flags, Names" by fixing it in their letter heads and vehicle number plates as "unfortunate", the Karnataka High Court issued a slew of directions to prevent misuse and unauthorised use of National Symbols and Emblems.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun in its order observed: “It is true and unfortunate that there is tendency amongst the constitutional authorities who are the former authorities no more in the office, the former Members of the Parliament or Ex-Legislators have been misusing the Emblem, Flags, Names, etc. by fixing them in their letter heads and the number plates of the vehicles. This conduct is both unfortunate and depreciable.The misuse, misprojection and misstatement of these Symbols, Emblems and Names have to be prevented resolutely. The state of affairs prevails in the society which needs to be immediately remedied by the law enforcing agencies.”