Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198Nominal IndexArnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 196Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197 Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Nominal Index
Arnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors, Mangalore, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 196
Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Judgments/ Orders
Case Title: Arnab Mondal v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: CRL.P 15929/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 195
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (June 1) refused to entertain a plea challenging the arrest of a photocopy shop owner accused of creating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for alleged illegal immigrants from Bangladesh.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while permitting the petitioner to withdraw the plea, graned him liberty to approach the trial court for bail.
During the hearing the court orally said:
“…Fake Aadhaar card creation, you are the one destroying everything, giving it to people who are not Indians. How many people are you going to let in... Everyone has an aadhaar card today. Why? Because of you. Have some concern for the nation...Every person who is not a citizen of this country has an Aadhaar card because of people like you, and it becomes the foundation of every right they claim to have. How much vigil can the State display if matters are going on like these?”
Case Title: Hemanth GM v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P 4849/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 196
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday [June 4] declined to quash a POCSO case against a school headmaster accused of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old student, observing that the allegations levelled against him are 'unpardonable'.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, hearing the quashing plea moved by the accused and asked him to seek discharge before the trial court.
“…You are the headmaster. The student was around 15‑16 years…. Do you think this court would spare a headmaster who has touched the breasts of a 15‑year‑old child? … What kind of teacher are you?”, the court orally remarked on the alleged conduct of the teacher.
Case Title: Mukesh Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Anr. & Connected matters
Case No: WA No. 4647/2013 & connected matters
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 197
The Karnataka High Court set aside state's land acquisition proceedings with respect to Indian Machine Tool Manufacturers' Association (IMTMA), observing that the proceedings were 'colourable exercise of power' as it was not for a public purpose and a 'fraud on the statute' to divest owners of their land in favour of a profit-making private entity.
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf has on June 3 [Wednesday] accordingly allowed a batch of 12 appeals filed by landowners whose lands were acquired under the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Act, 1966 (KIAD Act) for setting up a multi‑level car parking facility for the Bangalore International Exhibition Centre (BIEC) led by IMTMA.
“…Setting up an industrial area is a public purpose and acquiring the land for a profit making entity for its expansion would not be in the line of the objects of the KIAD Act, and it is nothing but a fraud committed on statute by the authorities to divest the landowners from their land holdings for a pittance in favour of a private entity for expansion of its business and making more and more profit. This kind of exercise of power is a statutory and constitutional fraud by the State Authorities...,”, the court observed
Case Title: Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha v. Canara Bank & Ors. and BSNL v. Basaveshwara Pattana Sahakara Bank Niyamitha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.Nos.16104/2025 & 4674/2025)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
Underscoring the accountability of telecom service provider for its negligence in a case of SIM swap fraud, the Karnataka High Court held telecom company BSNL vicariously liable for wrongful issuance of a duplicate SIM card to fraudsters by one of its employees, resulting in a loss of Rs 87.70 lakhs to a co‑operative bank.
In doing so the court while recognizing the role of telecom providers as vault keepers who if dishonestly gives access to unauthorised persons bears responsibility for the resulting theft, the court also urged banks to take protective steps against SIM-Swap fraud.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed BSNL's plea against the Permanent Lokayukta Award and enhanced the compensation payable to the Bank from Rs 5 lakhs to 50.5 Lakhs, along with interest at the rate of 9 per cent interest per annum.
BSNL would also be liable to pay consequential damages amounting to Rs 5 lakhs for reputational harm, liquidity crisis, and operational disruption caused to the co-operative Bank.
“…Telecom service providers are the custodians of the mobile numbers that serve as the authentication anchors for the entire OTP‑based digital payment system. Their role in the digital financial ecosystem is structurally equivalent to the role of a vault keeper in a traditional banking system. Just as a vault keeper who carelessly or dishonestly gives access to unauthorised persons bears responsibility for the resulting theft, a telecom service provider that carelessly or dishonestly issues a duplicate SIM bears responsibility for the financial fraud that the duplicate SIM enables…”, the court laid down in unequivocal terms about the role played by telecom companies in the hierarchy of digital payments.
Other Developments
Case Title: Vinay Rajshekarappa Kulkarni v/s State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.A 764/2026
Former Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni told the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 02) that the trial court order convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for the murder of BJP Leader Yogesh Goudar was based on 'extraneous considerations' as none of the eye witnesses had supported the prosecution case.
The Division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice G Basavaraja was hearing arguments in the criminal appeals filed by Kulkarni (Accused No.15), and other convicts challenging their conviction and life imprisonment in the 2016 murder of BJP Zilla Panchayat member Yogesh Goudar.
Senior Advocate CV Nagesh appearing for Kulkarnai took the Court through the chronology of the case.
On June 15, 2016, Yogesh Gouda, a member of the Zilla Panchayat, Dharwad, met with a homicidal death. Nagesh said that the initial investigation by Dharwad Police resulted in a chargesheet against A1-A6. The matter went up for trial before the Sessions Court, Dharwad. 62 witnesses were examined, but not a single witness supported the prosecution, Nagesh submitted further.
Karnataka High Court Refuses To Stay Declaration Of State Bar Council Election Results
Case Title: Smt Sandhya U v. Returning Officer & Ors. and Hema Kariyappa Gowda v. The Chairman, HPEC & Ors.
Case No.: WP 15832/2026 & WP 15252/2026
The Karnataka High Court on Monday [June 1] refused to stay the declaration of results of the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) Elections 2026, while hearing pleas by two contesting candidates who alleged widespread malpractices including cash bribes, pre-marked ballot papers, and bogus voting.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, though initially inclined to dismiss both petitions after reserving the liberty to approach the Election Tribunals, later agreed to hear the petitioners further on June 10.
The bench sitting at Bengaluru initially observed that the court cannot interfere in election proceedings once the counting is ongoing.
Listing the matter next week, the court orally said:
“….Once counting is going on, we cannot interdict at that time….We are considering this matter after the elections ….If at all aggrieved by the process of election, the petitioner can initiate proceedings challenging the election before the appropriate forum..”
Case Title: Dr. Prabhakar Bhat v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: CRL.P No.156/2026
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday [June 2] told Dr. Prabhakar Bhat Kalladka, an 83-year-old right wing activist accused of spreading communal enmity by allegedly deriding Muslim women giving birth to multiple children, to 'exercise restraint' in his further speeches.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing Prabhakar's petition seeking the quashing of the FIR lodged against him over a speech delivered in October 2025 at Uppalige in the Puttur Thaluk for a Deepotsava program.
When the matter was called, the complainant Ishwari Padmunja [Karnataka State Dalita Hakkugala Rajya Samiti member], submitted that the petitioner 'gets off in the morning and just spews venom after seizing the mike', and that he has spoken against Muslims repeatedly in many instances. A direction was sought to restrain the petitioner from making such statements in the future.
Case Title: Karnataka Employers' Association & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WP 16145/2026
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 2) issued notice on a plea challenging State government's May 22 notification proposing minimum wage hike for 81 scheduled employments.
The single judge bench of Justice Jyothi M was hearing a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Employers' Association (KEA) and another entity, which contends that the state government issued the notification by invoking powers from a repealed statute, The Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which became obsolete after the implementation of Code on Wages Act, 2019.
“…Counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to implead the Central Government as a party to the proceedings in the open Court. Submission is noted. Permission is noted… The counsel for the petitioners is directed to serve copy of the writ petition along with annexures to the Central Government Standing Counsel. List this matter on 09.06.2026…”, the court noted in its order while allowing impleadment of Centre.
Case Title: Srinath Nagaragadde v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Title: CRL.P 5408/2026
While hearing a man's plea challenging an FIR over alleged sale of land housing Malleshwaram police quarters, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 4) orally remarked that if such claims are permitted then tomorrow even high court building would not be safe.
When the matter was taken up, Senior Counsel Aruna Shyam appearing for the accused person Srinath Nagaragadde, submitted before Justice M.Nagaprasanna that all documentary evidence, including encumbrance certificate, stood in their favour.
He submitted that in the matter, police quarter was situated in a place where the accused no. 1 lady who was the original owner, had entered into sale agreement with other individuals.
“…There is nothing, no documents with prosecution to show that the land belongs to police department,” the counsel contended.
At this stage the bench orally said that the land has been with the police department since 1950; there is a police quarters built within the premises and policemen have been living there, the court added.
Homestay Owner Moves Karnataka High Court In Plea For Quashing FIR Over Alleged Rape Of US Woman
Case Title: Palecanda Ponnappa @ Vishal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRL.P 7712/2026
The owner of a Homestay in Kodagu, booked in an FIR lodged over the alleged sexual assault of a female US national, approached the Karnataka High Court on Thursday (June 4) seeking quashing of the FIR.
Along with the quashment, the owner also seeks a declaration that his arrest was illegal and that he should be compensated Rs 15 lakhs for the violation of his fundamental rights.
Advocate Angad Kamath, appearing for the owner mentioned the matter before the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna today. The court has permitted the matter to be heard on next Monday [June 8].
Kamath submitted that the petitioner was merely the owner of the villa and not the employee who allegedly assaulted the foreign tourist. Based on such allegations against the employee, the owner cannot be implicated, he added.
“Even my homestay license has been revoked, milord”, submitted the counsel. While listing the matter for next week, the court orally said “…those homestays need to be regulated”.