NOMINAL INDEX

Naveen G. v. State of Karnataka & Anr..., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

S v. N, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322

Sheela S v State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

Smt Sheela S vs State of Karnataka & others,, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 326

G v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327

Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

X v/s State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330

X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331

SRI. SATHISH N. VAIDYA & OTHERS vs MR. M.P. NORONHA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & another vs PADMANABHA SHETTY G & others ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

A vs State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334

Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State of Karnataka & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335

Aravind Reddy v. State of Karnataka & ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. V. Vishwanath & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 338

A vs S,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe v. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340

Darshan S v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

B.R. Vijay Kumar ("Duniya Vijay") v. Smt. Nagarathna ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

Rajesh Nayak v. The Commissioner & Ors. ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

A.C.C. Limited v. Union of India & Others & Connected Matters,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

Multiplex Association of India & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

A v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS, ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

Vijay Tata v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

H M Manu v. Marigowda, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

P v.N,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

Gopalrao vs State of Karnataka & others.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

Salma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

High Court of Karnataka v. Sri. Pankaj Kaushik,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS & Batch,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

Uday Shetty Muniyal AND State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

Dr. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 370

M.N. KHAJA HUSSAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

C SWAMY VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 372

DR RAJALAKSHMI SHANKAR VS. THE SECRETARY, REP BY UNION OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & OTHERS,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 373

High Court of Karnataka, represented by the Registrar General v. Sri H.P. Sabjan, Advocate,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 374

Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Estate Management Unit (DRDO) v. State of Karnataka & Others & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

Felix Mkpang Boco v. Union of India & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

VENKAPPA GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

R v S,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379

ADAGURU H. VISHWANATH VS B.S. SURESHA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

A v. R,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 381

Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382

MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383

SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384

DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385

T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

U VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 387

X v Y,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388

X & another v Rajesh, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389

Union of India & Ors. v. Mohsin Sharieff & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390

Juhi vs Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

AISHWARYA @ ISHWARYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392

SANTHOSH KUMAR H.L & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393

RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394

SURAJ REVANNA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395

X v/s Y ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

MURALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

SHRIDHAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

Man Accidentally Exposing Himself While Urinating In Open Not 'Sexual Harassment': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AR v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 6103/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321

The Karnataka High Court has granted relief to a man booked under Section 75(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that accidentally coming in front of a woman while answering nature's call, without any sexual intent, would not by itself constitute the offence.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 321]

The bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:

"The petitioner, admittedly, even according to the complaint, was answering nature's call. Answering nature's call was after searching for a public toilet all over and not finding it. The complainant walks into the place where the petitioner was answering the nature call, a gesture that the complainant narrates is only shock that the petitioner saw the complainant, as is narrated in the statement itself. In the considered view of this court, answering a nature call and coming in front of the complainant, at that point in time, would not become an ingredient of outraging the modesty of a woman, as obtaining a 75(2) of BNS".

During the hearing, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had gotten off a bus and was looking for a public restroom. Since he was unable to find a restroom, he proceeded towards a railway track to urinate. While urinating, the complainant happened to walk in the area. The petitioner noticed her, following which she saw his private parts and lodged the complaint.

'Subjected Children To Hardship': Karnataka High Court Orders Psychological Assessment Of Parents Amid Custody Battle

Case Title: S v. N

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15549 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322

The Karnataka High Court directed a separated couple to undergo psychological assessment and counselling for “fair parenting”, while refusing the husband's plea to subject their minor twins to a psychological assessment to evaluate the extent of “parental alienation” allegedly caused by their mother.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 322]

“Undoubtedly in case there is necessity for such psychological assessment and evaluation, Court is bound to do so. However, in the case on hand this Court does not find any such necessity to order the children to subject themselves for psychological assessment and evaluation that too to know the impact of parental alienation,” Justice Chillakur Sumalatha said while rejecting the father's plea.

The Court observed that in their fight over the guardianship and custody of the children, the parents were subjecting the children to serious hardship.

“The children of 5-6 years generally tend to spend their time playing, engaging themselves with other children, learning and getting themselves involved in various activities of their choice. But this case reveals sad state of affairs where the parents claiming themselves to be the best protectors of children, are subjecting the children to unwarranted hardship,” the Court said.

Son's Death Doesn't By Itself Make Daughter-In-Law Liable To Maintain Mother-In-Law Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sheela S v State of Karnataka

Case No: WP No. 12878 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323

The Karnataka High Court has held that the death of a son does not by itself obligate the daughter-in-law to maintain her mother-in-law under Section 23 of the Senior Citizens Act, which allows a senior citizen to get a property transfer cancelled if the receiving party fails to provide basic care and physical needs of the senior citizen.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 323]

Setting aside the order of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Tribunal that granted relief to the mother-in-law, the bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj observed:

"The death of the son cannot, by itself, create a fresh statutory obligation upon the Petitioner under Section 23. The rights and obligations arising under Section 23 must be determined with reference to the transfer and the conditions attached thereto"

Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On Man For Marking Plea Against ED Officer To CJI, Finance Minister

Case Title: FAIR VAKKAYIL JOHN vs UNION OF INDIA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24293 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324

The Karnataka High Court has held that a person under investigation has no vested right to choose, nominate, or seek the substitution of an Investigating Officer based on subjective apprehensions of bias.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 324]

The Court, accordingly, rejected the prayer seeking substitution of the probing officer and imposed costs of Rs. 1 lakh on the petitioner for forwarding his representation relating to pending investigation to constitutional authorities, including the Chief Justice of India.

“Unless a clear case of mala fides, demonstrable bias, lack of jurisdiction or abuse of process is made out before a competent Court, the person under investigation cannot insist that the investigation should be conducted by an officer of his choice or seek the recusal of the Investigating Officer as a matter of right,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.

The Court noted that the petitioner has produced no material which could prima facie justify an inference that the investigation is actuated by mala fides or that the Investigating Officer has disabled himself from conducting a fair investigation.

'Elephants Can't Be Displaced': Karnataka High Court Quashes Land Acquisition For Housing Project In Bannerghatta National Park

Case title: SRI R.GOVINDA REDDY v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA and batch

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 418 OF 2025 and batch

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325

The Karnataka High Court has quashed acquisition of land near Bannerghatta National Park for a housing project, observing that the area forms part of a corridor used by elephants who cannot be displaced from their homes or treated as occupants without any rights.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 325]

It further underscored that while land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good, however no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental conservation.

A division bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan in its order said:

"It is true that the object of land acquisition should be for the greater purpose of public good. The lands may be acquired for various projects which are covered under the scope of 'public purpose.' However, in our view, no public purpose can supersede the object of environmental and ecological conservation. As important as it is to encourage development and urbanisation, the same must be done while balancing the interests of the environment and its species. The proposed Suryanagar Project aims to give affordable and well-planned housing plots to the allottees and the general public being the residents, but the same is done at the cost of displacing the wildlife and depriving them of their natural habitat. It is a settled and enduring sentiment that “there is no place like home.”

Yet, the actions of the Respondents, as borne out from the record, compel this Court to confront a disquieting question: whether the same fundamental principle of a secure and undisturbed home is to be denied to wildlife. The elephants in question, for whom these corridors constitute not merely a passage but an essential part of their natural habitat and existence, cannot be treated as occupants without rights whose homes may be displaced at will"

Gift Deed Based On 'Love, Affection' Not Automatic Maintenance Condition Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Smt Sheela S vs State of Karnataka & others,

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.12878 OF 2026

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 326

The Karnataka High Court has held that the expression “love and affection” written in a Gift Deed cannot be treated as a statutory maintenance condition under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 326]

Section 23 of the Act allows a transfer of property by a senior citizen— by way of gift or otherwise— to be declared void by a Tribunal if the transfer was made on the condition that the transferee would provide basic amenities and physical needs to the transferor, and the transferee thereafter refuses or fails to comply with that condition.

“The expression “love and affection” appearing in the Gift Deed cannot, without more, be transformed into a statutory maintenance condition. To do so would amount to rewriting the terms of the transfer and supplying an obligation which the parties themselves did not record,” Justice Suraj Govindraj said.

'Justice Not Merely About Speed, Judgments Can't Be Obtained By Click Of Button': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Fast-Track Divorce Case

Case Title: G v. M

Case No: WP No.24556/2026 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a plea seeking a direction to expedite divorce proceedings, observing that judicial officers cannot be pressurised with rigid timelines and that 'justice is not merely about speed'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 327]

The single judge bench of Dr Justice Chillakur Sumalatha noted that quality and fairness of judicial decisions cannot be compromised in the course of speedy disposal.

“…High Court cannot lay excessive emphasis on numerical disposal and pressurise for speedy adjudication of matters... Justice is not merely about speed. Judgments cannot be obtained by click of button. Reaching the correct and fair conclusion after due consideration of evidence is not an easy task…”

The court further noted that undue pressure on judicial officers can affect the quality of justice rendered. While endeavour must be made to avoid undue delays, it shouldn't affect judicial independence, the court opined.

Super Speciality Doctor Can't Be Bound By Bond To Serve Govt Till Retirement When No Posting Given: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Adnan Saeed v. Smt. Vandana Sharma & Ors.

Case No: CCC No.933/2023 along with WA No.928/2023 & WA No.114/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a government bond requiring a doctor to serve till retirement, especially when no posting orders were provided after completion of a super-specialty course, amounts to an unreasonable condition that cannot be enforced. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 328]

The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T noted in the order that the doctor-petitioner, though he completed his M. Ch Surgical Oncology course through in-service quota in 2018, was not granted posting for over 3 years despite reporting for duty soon after the course completion. Pertinently, the door had executed a bond which mandated compulsory government service till retirement with no voluntary retirement eligibility.

“… in the absence of any posting orders being issued to the respondent, the appellants cannot raise these contentions in these proceedings. It is not on account of any fault of the respondent that appropriate posting orders as provided in the Bond and the Government Order were not made available to the respondent. The respondent, a Super Specialty Qualified Doctor cannot be expected to remain idle and not work when no posting orders are provided to him, even in spite of reporting to the Government for duty and seeking the same”.

The court further held that the condition in the bond requiring a doctor to remain indebted to the Government for life, particularly when no posting orders were provided, cannot be countenanced.

Karnataka High Court Recalls Contempt Action Against Lawyer Accused Of Threatening Judge; Accepts Apology

Case Title: Ravi Basavaraj v. State of Karnataka & Ors

Case No: Criminal Petition No.100680/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329

The Karnataka High Court has recently accepted the unconditional apology tendered by an advocate, who had allegedly threatened a Sessions Judge and attempted to hamper court proceedings. While doing so, the court imposed a symbolic fine of Rs 1,000 and directed the lawyer to plant 1,000 fruit-bearing saplings as a 'social action'.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 329]

The single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar sitting at Dharwad noted in the order as below:

“…Justice has been pictured in as Goddess of Justice with open eyes holding scale in one hand and the Constitution of India on the other hand. The scales connote the weighing and balancing of rights and privileges. The judge and the lawyer should remember, first and foremost, that in weighing and balancing rights and privileges they are building together a monument in the Temple of Justice. At the same time we should follow principles enshrined in the Constitution of India in letter and spirit in our life… This building is never-ending, for the process of justice is never finished…Hence, this case shall remind all of us and make us introspect what we are and what is our contribution to society and to the nation.”

The petitioners-accused had filed a petition under Section 447 BNSS seeking transfer of Sessions Case No.5/2026 pending before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Koppal.

In April, the High Court had dismissed the transfer petition with costs and had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against the advocate for his conduct during the Session trial.“…Therefore it is observed that the judicial function cannot and should not be permitted to be stoneward by browbeating or bullying methodology either it is by litigants or by counsel…”, the court noted as the reason for its previous order initiating contempt, as a measure to deter other legal professionals from repeating the same conduct.

Promise To Marry Not Deceitful If Man Intended To Marry But Woman's Mother Refused: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail

Case title: X v/s State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No.11340/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330

Granting bail to man booked in a rape case, the Karnataka High Court observed that when a man who promises marriage subsequently approaches the woman's family seeking approval and where her mother refuses the proposal then it cannot be said that the man had no intention to fulfill the promise.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 330]

The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty noted that the victim herself, in her statement recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, confirmed that after the alleged sexual act between them, the petitioner had approached the woman's mother and iterated his willingness to marry her daughter. However, the said prospective alliance was allegedly rejected by the mother of the victim.

“…For the purpose of Section 69 of the BNS, 2023, accused should have sexual intercourse with a woman by deceitful means or by making promise to marry the said woman without any intention of fulfilling the same…. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that petitioner, who allegedly had promised to marry the first informant had approached her mother but the proposal was refused by the mother of the first informant… In the present case, having regard to the aforesaid aspects, it cannot be said that petitioner had no intention to marry the first informant”, the court accordingly noted in the order granting bail.

Wife Who Left Matrimonial Home During Covid To Care For Parents & Never Came Back Not Entitled To Maintenance: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: X v. Z

Case No: RPFC No.133/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a revision plea filed by a wife seeking maintenance, holding that she failed to establish reasonable cause for leaving the matrimonial home, particularly when she left to care for COVID-affected parents and subsequently refused to return despite her husband's requests.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 331]

The single judge bench of Dr. Justice Chilakur Sumalatha noted as below in the order:

“…As per the contents of Ex.R1 - Complaint, petitioner went to her maternal home to take care of her parents and sister as they contacted COVID and her father suffered with heart attack. Thus, it cannot be held that due to the attitude of respondent, petitioner left matrimonial home and went to her maternal home…Also, undisputedly, as per the contents of Ex.R3 statement given by wife to police, her husband approached her parents house asking her to return to matrimonial home”, the court noted at the outset, iterating the findings of the family court.

The court highlighted that the grant of maintenance is not automatic and the wife seeking maintenance should meet certain specific criteria for the same.

“….A wife is entitled to get an order of maintenance against her husband only if she meets required criteria prominent of which are:

(i) That her husband neglected or refused to maintain her;(ii) That she is unable to maintain herself; and(iii) That her husband has got sufficient means to maintain her…”, the court pointed out.

Karnataka High Court Upholds 3-Month Jail Term Of Newspaper Staff For Violating Order In Defamation Case, Says Tendering Apology Not Enough

Case: SRI. SATHISH N. VAIDYA & OTHERS vs MR. M.P. NORONHA

WRIT PETITION NO.23294/2022 (GM-CPC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 332

The Karnataka High Court has upheld 3-month civil imprisonment against the editor, managing director and director of Karavali Ale newspaper for violating a temporary injunction order, holding that the trial court could not have have directed them to tender an apology instead of imposing a punishment under Order 39 Rule 2A CPC.

The Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the appellate court's order. The appellate court had found error in the trial court's order, which directed the petitioners to tender an apology instead of imposing the punishments provided under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC for disobedience or breach of injunction—namely, attachment of property or detention in civil prison for up to three months.

“The legal maxim Nulla poena sine lege means no punishment without law, the Court is duty bound to award a punishment within the framework of law and cannot invent new penalties,” Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil observed.

The High Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Centre for Environment Protection Research and Development, wherein the Apex Court had said, “It is well settled that when a statute or statutory rules prescribed a penalty for any act or omission, no other penalty not contemplated in the statute or statutory rules can be imposed. It is well settled that when statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it is to be done only in that manner.”

Non-Hospitalisation No Ground For Insurer To Deny Mediclaim If Treatment Connected To Insured Disease: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & another vs PADMANABHA SHETTY G & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14682 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a health insurance company cannot deny reimbursement merely because the insured patient was not hospitalised for the administration of injections, where such injections were part of the continuing treatment for a disease covered by the policy.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333]

“Hospitalisation is not an end in itself; it is a mode in which medical treatment may be administered. Where advances in medical science enable a treatment which would otherwise have required a longer hospital stay to be administered safely and effectively without hospitalisation, the absence of hospitalisation cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of whether the treatment is connected with the insured disease,” Justice Suraj Govindraj observed.

Brothel Customer Can't Be Expected To Know Age & Caste Of Minor: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case

Case Title: A vs State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334

The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man booked in a POCSO and SC/ST Act FIR accused of sexually assaulting a minor in a brothel, observing that customer of a brothel cannot possibly know the age or caste of a victim.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334]

Justice S Rachaiah allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

“Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the charge-sheet it makes clear that the appellant is one of the customer of the brothel which was being run by accused No.1. On going through the averments of the said charge-sheet, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be justified for the reasons that the appellant being a customer of the brothel cannot be possible to know the actual age and caste of the victim. Having considered the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for,” the Court said.

Karnataka High Court Declares Notification Granting Externment Power To SP As Illegal, Says Executive Action Can't Run Contrary To Statute

Case Title: Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State of Karnataka & others

Case No: WP No. 104096 of 2026 (GM-Police)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335

The Dharwad bench of Karnataka High Court declared a State Government notification conferring externment powers on Superintendents of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act, as non-est and a nullity, observing that an executive instruction or notification cannot run contrary to express provisions in parent statute.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335]

For context, Sections 55 and 56 of the 1963 Act provide power to remove persons about to commit crimes or convicted of certain offences from an area to the Police Commissioner, for Bangalore city and other areas for which a Commissioner is appointed. For other areas, the power can be extended only to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) through a notification published in the Official Gazette.

Quashing an externment order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, against the petitioner, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or notification, confer such power upon an authority not contemplated by the statute. Executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where there is a gap, but they cannot override, amend, or run contrary to the express provisions of the parent statute.”

Karnataka High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Police Issuing Look Out Circular Against Advocate-Cricketer In Bailable Offence

Case Title: Aravind Reddy v. State of Karnataka & ors.

Case No: WP No.36586/2025 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

The Karnataka High Court has expressed deep displeasure over the police's decision to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) against advocate-cricketer and AVR Group founder Aravind Reddy in a case involving bailable offences, including the alleged stalking of a Kannada actress, while disposing of the writ petition after the State agreed not to enforce the LOC further. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336]

The single judge bench of Justice T.P Vivekananda noted in the order that the petitioner had not eloped abroad in anticipation of the arrest over bailable offences, but he was returning from Sri Lanka after participating in a cricket tournament. The court hence found no justifying circumstances for the issuance of LOC.

“…From 17.10.2025[date of registration of FIR] till 06.11.2025, what steps the respondent police have taken to trace the petitioner is not forthcoming from the writ petition papers or the documents produced along with the memo. It is on record that the petitioner has traveled to Sri Lanka only on 06.11.2025 and it cannot be said that in anticipation of his arrest in respect of the crime registered on 17.10.2025, the petitioner has travelled to abroad….This Court expresses deep displeasure against respondent Nos.3 to 5[DCP, ACP & Commissioner] for taking extreme step of issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular against the petitioner, pursuant a crime registered against the petitioner for the bailable offences.”, it was noted in the order.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Terror Convicts Who Pleaded Guilty, Cites Gravity Of Waging War Against India

Case Title: Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors.

Case No: CRL.A No.277/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337

he Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the appeal of two men convicted under UAPA seeking reduction of their sentence from 7 years to 5 years, holding that the gravity of the offences committed by them warranted no leniency from the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337]

The Division bench of Justice H.P Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod noted in the order that the reduction of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of right to the terror convicts.

“…the Trial Court considering the gravity of the offence, imposed sentence of 7 years proportionate to the crime committed by the appellants and the appellants also as a matter of right cannot claim to impose minimum sentence of only 5 years and it is the discretion of the Court to impose the same, even though the accused persons have pleaded guilty without trial….”

For context, the appellants were convicted by the Bengaluru Special Court for NIA Cases for offences under Sections 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 38 (Offence Relating to Membership of a Terrorist Organization), 39 (Offence Relating to Support Given to a Terrorist Organization) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 153-B of IPC, and had been imprisoned for the past 4 years.

Drunk Riding Poses Risk To Public, Can't Adopt Liberal Approach In Compensation Claims: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. V. Vishwanath & Ors.

Case No: MFA No.202713/2023

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 338

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a claimant who rode a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol couldn't claim full compensation, attributing 30% contributory negligence to the injured rider. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 338]

The single judge bench of Justice K.V Aravind, sitting at Kalaburagi, held that ignoring the violation of law such as riding a vehicle under the influence of alcohol would be counter-productive to the safety of citizens on the road. In such cases, the norm of liberally interpreting benevolent laws cannot be extended indefinitely when the claimant himself has violated the law, the court opined.

Woman Marrying Divorcee Can't Claim Maintenance If She Fails To Verify Finality Of Divorce Decree: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: A vs S

Case No: REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100123 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court has held that a woman who knowingly marries a man believing him to be a divorcee cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if she failed to verify whether the divorce decree had attained finality or was stayed in appeal.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339]

Justice Geetha K.B. dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman challenging the Family Court's order denying her maintenance.

“When once it is brought to the knowledge of petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent person will make efforts to verify the genuineness of said factum; whether any appeal against the said order is filed, pending or not.

Karnataka High Court Allows Private Complaint Against Mallikarjun Kharge Family Trust Over 'Illegal' BDA Land Allotment To Proceed

Case Title: Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe v. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.12406/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a defective affidavit accompanying a private complaint is a curable defect, and the same cannot be used as grounds to abandon the statutory procedure under Section 175 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and opt for a complaint enquiry under Section 223 BNSS instead. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was adjudicating a challenge to a trial court order refusing further investigation into allegations of irregularities in BDA (Bengaluru Development Authority) land allotment involving the trust of senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge and his family.

“…The concerned Court, instead of permitting such rectification[curing defects of affidavit] and thereafter traversing the statutory route ordained under Section 175 of the BNSS, allowed itself to be arrested by the technical infirmity in the affidavit and diverted the proceeding altogether to an enquiry under Section 223 of the BNSS. Such an approach places procedure on a pedestal above purpose…. The requirement of an affidavit is undoubtedly a statutory safeguard and must be scrupulously complied with before any substantive order directing investigation is made; but a safeguard intended to ensure responsibility in invocation of the criminal process cannot be converted into a stumbling block, which extinguishes that very process even before the stage for its invocation arrives.”, the court noted by relying on the precedents in N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2025) and Arul Gerald Prakash v. State of Tamil Nadu(2025) which has held that defects in filing affidavits in itself can be cured.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Pardoning Approver Pradosh In Renukaswamy Murder Trial, Cites 'Procedural Aberrations'

Case Title: Darshan S v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Crl P 13595/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 8) set aside a trial court's order granting conditional pardon to an accused-turned-approver Pradosh in the Renukaswamy murder case allegedly involving Kannada actor Darshan, holding that the procedure adopted suffered from 'procedural aberrations'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341]

Darshan, accused No.2 in the murder case, had approached the High Court challenging two orders passed by LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court Judge S.M Sambrani, namely, order granting pardon to Pradosh S. Rao and treating him as an approver, and the earlier order calling for a report from the Probation Officer

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna today said,

“….In light of the procedural aberrations, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The orders dated 20 August 2026 and 25 August 2026 stand obliterated….The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass an order afresh on the application filed under Section 307 of Cr.P.C and regulate its procedure… taking the issue to its logical conclusion. While so doing, the Court shall bear in mind the observations made in the course of this order."

Offerings By Devotees To Hereditary Temple Priest In Arati Tray Is His Personal Income, Not Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200037 OF 2014 (PAR/POS)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

The Kalaburgi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the offerings made by devotees to a hereditary archak (temple priest) in the mangalarathi (prayer ritual) plate constitute his individual income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, and do not form part of a joint family nucleus.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342]

“The offerings made by the devotees to the archak is the remuneration that he receives for leading a pious life and as a token of respect for his vidwath in agama shastra, mastery over kriyas, kainkaryas, memorizing hymns, mantras, rituals and understanding the relevant religious texts and reciting them appropriately and invoke the blessings of God etc,” the Division Bench of Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally observed.

“These offerings are therefore in recognition of the learning of the person and hence, are deemed to be his own income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 and not the income of the joint family,” the Court added.

The Court also drew a distinction between the offerings made to the temple and those to the priest, stating, “Therefore, any offering by the devotees to the temple cannot become the income of the priest but on the contrary would be accounted by the Trust. The only offering that a priest is entitled to take home is the offering made by the devotees in the mangalarathi plate.”

Fame Doesn't Create Exception: Karnataka High Court Grants Divorce To Actor 'Duniya Vijay', Awards ₹2 Crore Permanent Alimony To Wife

Case Title: B.R. Vijay Kumar ("Duniya Vijay") v. Smt. Nagarathna

Case No: MFA No.6129/2024 (FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

The Karnataka High Court has granted a decree of divorce to popular Kannada actor 'Duniya Vijay' (B.R. Vijay Kumar) on the ground of cruelty, while awarding Rs 2 crores as permanent alimony to his estranged wife, Nagarathna. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343]

“…Fame does not create an exception to a person's conduct but it magnifies its standard. When a man of public influence strays from the sanctity of marriage, his fall from grace does not become a cause for adulation. This Judgment is rendered, not in celebration of the husband's conduct but inspite of it, considering the peculiar facts herein. We hope that it serves as a reminder that respect earned on screen cannot compensate for dereliction of matrimonial obligations at home”, the court noted in the order at the outset.

Karnataka High Court Issues Directions For Financial Management Of Hindu Temples; Mandates Real-Time Monitoring, Tamper-Proof Receipts

Case Title: Rajesh Nayak v. The Commissioner & Ors.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

Calling for an overhaul of finance management of Hindu temples, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee held for misappropriation of temple funds, while simultaneously issuing a comprehensive set of directions applicable to all Hindu religious institutions in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while hearing the plea against the dismissal of a 2^nd Division Assistant at Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Udupi concluded that the employee was guilty of issuing duplicate receipts and misappropriating temple collections.

Calling such practises 'a systemic concern' affecting the utilisation of temple finances prone to fraud and misappropriation, the court noted as below:

“The system, in short, neither prevented the fraud nor preserved the trail needed to prove it …What this case shows is how easily temple collections can be siphoned off, and how difficult such wrongdoing can be both to detect and to prove…Temple funds are not ordinary funds. They are trust property, gathered from the faith of devotees and held for the deity and for the institution. A system of financial control that depends on chance discovery and manual reconciliation, and that can be defeated by one employee with exclusive access to a counter and a password, does not answer to that duty in the present age…”, the court noted in the order

No Supplementary Lease Deed Needed For Statutorily Extended Mining Lease: Karnataka High Court Quashes ₹482 Crore Penalty On ACC

Case Title: A.C.C. Limited v. Union of India & Others & Connected Matters

Case Numbers: WP No. 25298 of 2024 (GM-MM-S) C/W WP No. 18655 of 2025 (GM-MM-S) & WP No. 36850 of 2025 (GM-MM-S)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

The Karnataka High Court has on September 8 [Tuesday] quashed a Rs 482.69 crore penalty imposed on ACC Limited- a part of the Adani Group- holding that mining operations during a statutorily extended lease term won't be deemed as 'unlawful' merely because a Supplementary Lease Deed was not executed to that effect.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha has allowed the writ petitions filed by ACC Ltd, while dismissing the State's challenge to a revisional order that had rejected the State's demand for royalty on a notional basis.

“…By virtue of Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act, the term of the mining lease in question has been extended till 31.03.2030. Thus, by virtue of the statute, ACC held the mining lease and the right to extract minerals... In this view, the minerals extracted by ACC cannot be construed as minerals extracted without authority of law solely on the reason that a Supplementary Lease Deed recording the extension of term... was not executed”, the Court observed while rejecting the State's argument that a registered lease deed is essential for the validity of mining operations during the extended period.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Enforcement Of 2% Cinema Cess On Film Tickets

Case Title: Multiplex Association of India & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: WP 28571/2026

2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of the Multiplex Association of India and PVR INOX Limited by setting aside the measures used to enforce 2% cess on cinema tickets under the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346]

The single judge bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad ruled that the steps taken to operationalise and collect the cess could not stand because the 2024 Act had not been validly commenced through a notification under Section 1(2) of the 2024 Act.

The writ petition had challenged the 2024 Act, the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists Social Security and Welfare Rules, 2025, the 2026 amendment to the Act, and various notifications, office orders, circulars and enforcement notices issued to implement the cess against cinema halls and multiplexes.

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside 'Unreasoned' Ex-Parte Takedown Order In Defamation Case

Case Title: ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4754 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte order directing fintech journalist Arti Singh and tech news platform Head and Tale Media Pvt. Ltd founded by Singh, to take down allegedly defamatory articles against digital payments platform Cashfree Payments.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347]

In doing so the court held that the trial court's order–passed in a defamation suit filed by Cashfree–was unreasoned and failed to record findings on the three essential ingredients required for grant of an ex-parte injunction — a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

“Whenever an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is considered, the trial Court is required to deliberate upon three essential requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties,” Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed.

The Court noted that the Trial Court failed to spell out the fulfilment of essential requirements under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) while grating ex-parte injunction order, and said, “In the present case on hand, it is apparently clear that reasons are not spelt out in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as to what is the prima facie case made out and the two other essential requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR Against Ex-SP Accused Of Hurling Paperweight At Subordinate For Missing Sports Activities

Case Title: Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 8397 of 2021 c/w Criminal Petition No. 1694 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR against former Superintendent of Police of Chikkamagalur district [accused no.1] accused of hurling a paperweight at a subordinate officer during over being allegedly absent from sports activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348]

However, the single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani has quashed the FIR against the former Inspector [accused no.2] accused of abusing the complainant.

The court held that while the former Inspector's alleged acts of reprimanding the complainant for skipping sports activities had a nexus with maintaining discipline in a uniformed force, the former SP's alleged act of calling the complainant to his chamber, locking the door and hitting him with a paperweight causing a bleeding eyebrow injury could not be considered a 'bona fide exercise of official duty'.

Development Projects Can't Be Abandoned, Shifted Or Stalled Merely Due To Change In Govt: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch

Case No: WP NO.105825/2024, WP NO. 105789/2023, WP NO.105795/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

The Karnataka High Court has held that a government scheme or a developmental project cannot be “abandoned, shifted or stalled” merely because there has been a change in political dispensation.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349]

In doing so the court quashed a communication issued by the sitting MLA of Siruguppa who had directed shifting of an irrigation project from Ibrahimpur village to Nagalpur village.

“A change in political dispensation, by itself, cannot furnish a ground to obliterate or undo decisions already taken in accordance with law. Governmental schemes and developmental projects, particularly projects intended for the benefit of marginal farmers, cannot be treated as matters which can be abandoned, shifted or stalled merely because there has been a change in the political executive,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed.

'Hectic': Karnataka High Court Modifies Visitation To Prevent 950-Km Monthly Travel For 10-Yr-Old In Father's Custody

Case Title :  A v. C

Case Number :  Writ Petition No. 16393 of 2026 (GM-FC)

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

The Karnataka High Court has recently modified a family court's visitation order that required a 10-year-old boy studying in Bengaluru to travel nearly 1,000 kilometres every month to spend a weekend with his mother in Honnavar, observing that the child had 'literally become a victim of the disputes' that occurred between the estranged couple. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350]

The Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing a writ petition filed by the father, challenging the order passed by a Family Court at Honnavar in an interim application, in favour of the wife.

“…A child of 10 years old cannot take up such a hectic task. Literally child has become a victim of the disputes that are prevailing between the estranged couple who are parties to these proceedings. Paramount welfare of the child is the prime consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the directions given for such visitation are unsustainable.”, the court noted.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over MBBS Seat Fraud, Says 'Cloak' Of Civil Transaction Can't Defeat Criminal Probe

Case Title :  SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRL.P No. 10705/2026, CRL.P NO. 10794/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against a couple, accused of defrauding a woman of Rs 1.40 crore on the promise of securing an MBBS seat for her daughter, holding that mere presence of a monetary/civil transaction cannot be permitted to “smother” a legitimate criminal investigation.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351]

The couple claimed that the case was at best a civil transaction between them and the complainant which happened three years ago and that the complainant waited three years to lodge a complaint.

Rejecting the petitioners' argument that the criminal proceedings were a coercive device for recovery of money, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:

"The submission that the proceedings are merely a coercive device for recovery of money, therefore, cannot become a talisman by the mere utterance of the expression “civil dispute”. Every transaction involving money does not, by that circumstance alone, shed its criminal complexion. Where the very foundation of the transaction is alleged to have been laid in deception and the victim is induced to part with property on a representation which, from its inception, is alleged to have been dishonest, the cloak of a civil transaction cannot be permitted to smother a legitimate criminal investigation"

Waqf Board Can't Appoint Ad-Hoc Panel To Manage Waqf Institution By Bypassing Statutory Rules: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: BAZME TOHID TANZEEM & ANOTHER VS. KARNATAKA STATE BOARD OF AUQAF & OTHERS

CASE NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 101523 OF 2026 (GM-WAKF)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court quashed an Office Memorandum issued by the State Board of Auqaf constituting an ad-hoc committee for eleven months to manage and supervise a waqf institution, holding that the Board bypassed the statutory mechanism under the Karnataka Wakf Rules, 2017.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 352]

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum was hearing a plea moved by the President and Secretary of the Bazme Tohid Tanzeem Committee of Mudalagi— stated to be a religious institution— challenging the board's decision to constitute an ad-hoc panel to manage the institution without following the procedure under the 2017 Rules.

The Court held that it can exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction in Wakf matters when they concern the violation of a mandatory statutory provision in breach of natural justice principles, or a disregard of judicial directions.

“Where the Rules framed under the Act prescribe the manner in which the succeeding managing committee has to be constituted and specifically provide for the consequence of failure to constitute such committee, the Board cannot bypass that mechanism by resorting to an ad-hoc arrangement,” Justice Magadum observed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating FIR Against Accused In Ambidant Investment 'Scam', Refuses To Quash ED Summons In PMLA Case

Case Title: Vijay Tata v. Directorate of Enforcement & Anr.

Case No: W.P. No. 24980 of 2019 c/w W.P. No. 56732 of 2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a cheating FIR against realtor-businessman Vijay Tata, booked in the Ambidant Marketing investment "scam"–a company accused of cheating its customers of their money, holding that there was no incriminating material against him except inadmissible confession statements of co-accused. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 353]

For context, in 2018, a case was registered at Devarajeevanahalli Police Station, Bengaluru, against Ambidant Company and its directors under Sections 4, 5 and 6 of the Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978, and other penal provisions.

M/s Sanchaya Land and Estate Pvt. Ltd, of which Tata is a representative, is said to have entered into a number of agreements of sale with M/s. Ambidant Construction Pvt. Ltd, in terms of which M/s. Sanchaya had agreed to register various flats/apartments in favour of M/s. Ambidant Construction Pvt. Ltd. or its nominees. According to these agreements, flats were allotted to approximately 85 nominees of Ambidant.

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Trial Court's Spot Inspection In Property Suit, Says It Must Generally Follow Recording Of Evidence

Case Title: H M Manu v. Marigowda

Case No: WP 15209/2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354

The Karnataka High Court has held that the power of a trial court under Order XVIII Rule 18 CPC to inspect a suit property and record a memorandum of facts must ordinarily be exercised only after evidence has been recorded in the suit.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 354]

ORDER XVIII pertains to hearing of the suit and examination of witnesses wherein Rule 18 states that Court may at any stage of a suit inspect any property or thing concerning which any question may arise [and where the Court inspects any property or thing it shall, as soon as may be practicable, make a memorandum of any relevant facts observed at such inspection and such memorandum shall form a part of the record of the suit.

Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil set aside a memorandum of facts recorded by a Malavalli trial court, holding that in the present case the trial court has “committed a grave error in prematurely exercising” the power to inspect suit property.

'Permanent Alimony Not Intended To Equalise Wealth': Karnataka High Court Slashes Wife's ₹2 Crore Alimony To ₹50 Lakh

Case Title: P v.N

Case No: MFA No. 1575 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 355

The Karnataka High Court has recently upheld the dissolution of marriage between a couple on grounds of cruelty, while substantially reducing the permanent alimony awarded to the wife from Rs. 2 crores to Rs. 50 lakhs. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar 355]

The court held further that permanent alimony is not intended to equalise the assets or wealth of the parties but to ensure reasonable maintenance.

A Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan disposed of an an appeal filed by the husband, challenging the Family Court's order, while holding that alimony must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual needs of the wife and the paying capacity of the husband, without placing an unreasonable financial burden upon him.

Part-Heard Criminal Trial Can Be Transferred; Accused Cannot Insist On Same Judge Continuing Case: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Krishna Murthy @ Murthy v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 21332 of 2026 (GM - RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356

The Karnataka High Court has held that a part-heard criminal trial which has not crossed stage of examination of accused, final arguments nor has been reserved for judgment can be transferred to another court and in such circumstances accused cannot insist upon the same presiding officer to continue hearing his case.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 356]

Referring to judgments, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said that in the present criminal trial, the evidentiary exercise was yet to be concluded and noted that it was not under the exceptions mentioned in the notification, whereby certain cases were allowed to be retained and continued by the same Judge.

“When the re-allocation took effect, the proceeding was at the stage of securing the presence of PW-20, the Investigating Officer, and recording his evidence. The evidentiary exercise itself was yet to conclude. The case had not reached the stage of examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.; it had not travelled to final arguments; and, a fortiori, it had not been reserved for judgment or order.

State Can't Restrict Transfer Of Lawful Leasehold Interest Due To Technical Glitches In Online Software: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Gopalrao vs State of Karnataka & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103223 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 357

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the State cannot render a legally recognised and transferable leasehold interest incapable of being conveyed due to a technical deficiency/defect in their software.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 357]

The observation was made in a plea seeking a direction to the state government to accept and register sale deeds executed by the petitioner and to provide an alternative mode of registration until technical glitches in the Kaveri 2.0 portal are rectified.

The petitioner— a builder who had acquired a land under Nirantara Patta (permanent lease) and constructed a residential building consisting of 34 flats— submitted that after the Kaveri 2.0 portal was introduced, the sale deeds of 13 flats were not processed because his name appeared as “Holder/Tax Payer” instead of “Owner”.

MACT | Pay Protection No Bar To Compensation For Loss Of Future Income If Post Is Reduced Following Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHANDRAKANTH VS MANZOOR AHMED & OTHERS

Case No: MFA No. 200873/2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The Kalaburagi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) cannot deny compensation under the head of loss of future income merely because the claimant's salary has been protected pursuant to being assigned a lower position/reduction in post after a road accident. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 358]

The court said that reliance on pay protection benefit without examining the loss of opportunities to the claimant amounts to an error.

Justice K V Aravind, allowing two appeals in part, remitted the matter to the tribunal for determining the loss of future income, and also enhanced compensation under several other heads.

Karnataka High Court Awards ₹10.52 Lakh To Parents Of Boy Electrocuted While Retrieving Kite, Quashes Finding On Child's Negligence

Case Title: Gudadappa Rudrappa Talawar & Anr. v. The Section Officer, HESCOM, Balekundri Kh Section & Ors.

Case No: WP No. 114767 of 2015

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed a 2015 order of Belagavi Lok Adalat which had rejected compensation claim for a minor boy's death by electrocution by attributing negligence to the boy who had died while trying to retrieve a kite entangled in a high-tension electric line. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 359]

Th single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum allowed the plea filed by parents of the boy while holding that electricity authorities [Hubli Electricity Supply Company Limited and its officers] cannot escape liability on the claim that the child climbed the pole himself.

The court, hence, declared that the respondents HESCOM, and its officers would be liable to compensate the parents on the principle of strict liability.

"The doctrine of strict liability leaves no manner of doubt that the respondents are legally liable to compensate the parents of the deceased child. The tragic death of an elevenyear-old child due to contact with a live high-tension electrical installation cannot be brushed aside by attributing negligence to the child himself. The responsibility for ensuring that such dangerous installations do not become death traps rests squarely upon the electricity authorities. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered in the 'Negative' and the impugned award deserves to be interfered with"

Insurer Not Liable If Learner's Licence Holder Not Accompanied By Instructor With Valid License At The Time Of Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Hulagamma Mallappa Biradar & Ors.

Case No: MFA No. 104064 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The Karnataka High Court has held that an insurance company won't be liable if a vehicle driven by a learner's license holder met with an accident, and the driver failed to prove compliance with Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, such as being accompanied by an instructor with valid license when the accident happened. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 360]

The single judge bench of Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa, sitting at Dharwad, has directed the insurer to deposit the compensation amount with the Tribunal and permitted it to be recovered from the vehicle owner, by applying the 'pay and recover' principle.

“…Although the Insurance Company may not be liable stricto sensu, the Insurance Company can be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle…”, the Court said.

To elaborate further, the High Court applied the 'pay and recover' principle after it concluded that the driver with learner's license failed to prove that he was accompanied by an instructor who had a valid driving licence and who was seated as to be in a position to control or slow down the car when the accident occurred.

“…. The Tribunal has concluded, only on the ipse dixit of the driver, that he was accompanied by the instructor… at the time of the accident. It is relevant to note that the purported instructor was not examined. He would have been the star witness on behalf of the driver. Further, the Police charge sheet cites certain eye witnesses to the incident. None of them is examined. The charge sheet does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor. The complaint filed by the child's father…also does not mention the presence of the alleged instructor… Further, there is absolutely no evidence of compliance with clause(c) of Rule 3 regarding display of the “L” sign”, the court noted in the order.

Mere Smell Of Alcohol Can't Prove Workman Was Under Its Influence At Time Of Accident: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Salma & Ors. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Case No: MFA 2825/2016

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court has held that a smell of alcohol emanating from the stomach as per a post-mortem report is insufficient to conclude that a deceased workman was 'under the influence' of alcohol. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 361]

The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V. Hosmani has set aside a Tribunal order dismissing a compensation claim under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 preferred by the legal representatives of a deceased lorry driver, observing that 'consumption of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol are two wholly different aspects'.

“…If an incident occurs while workman is under influence of alcohol or drugs, liability of employer/insurer would stand discharged. However, consumption of alcohol and being under influence of alcohol are too wholly different aspects. And prescription of alcohol limit under Section 185 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would substantiate such distinction. Based only on smell of alcohol, it cannot be implied that such person had consumed alcohol was under its influence…”, the court noted in the order.

The dependents of the deceased lorry driver filed a plea under Section 22 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 before a Bengaluru Tribunal in 2014. As per their version, the deceased was working with the respondent no.2- employer who entrusted him with driving the vehicle from Bengaluru to Hassan. Enroute, the vehicle met with an accident and the deceased- driver suffered fatal injuries.

Karnataka High Court Convicts Lawyer For Contempt Over Shouting, Appearing Intoxicated Before Trial Court; Sends Him To 1-Day Jail

Case Title: High Court of Karnataka v. Sri. Pankaj Kaushik

Case No: CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 10 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

The Karnataka High Court has sentenced an advocate to a one-day simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs 2,000 under Contempt of Courts Act, accused of interrupting court proceedings in an intoxicated state, shouting at a Judicial Magistrate, and making scandalous and unfounded allegations against judicial officers.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 362]

The Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Venkatesh Naik T observed that the contemnor, instead of demonstrating any remorse or offering viable mitigating circumstances, attempted to justify his actions and made unfounded statements against the judicial institution.

“The very demeanor and tone of the accused is clearly contemptuous of the orders and authority of the Court and the judicial system as such,” the Court said.

It added, “Far from expressing any remorse for the initial criminal contempt committed by him, he has attempted to justify his actions and has proceeded to make scandalous and unfounded statements against the judicial institution as a whole. His conduct can only be termed as deliberate and adamant and reveals complete apathy towards social, moral and judicial codes of conduct...The accused/contemnor is convicted for Criminal Contempt of Court punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971”

Shopping Mall Needs One-Time Permission To Install Diesel Generator, Not Annual Trade Licence Renewal: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ISLAND STAR MALL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.882 OF 2022 (LB-BMP)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

The Karnataka High Court has held that owners of shopping malls who operate diesel generator (DG) in their premises cannot be mandated to renew trade licenses annually, observing that Section 354 State Municipal Corporations Act only contemplates a one-time “permission” to install machinery and not renewable “trade licence”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 363]

For context, Section 354 requires prior permission to construct or establish a factory, workshop or workplace that uses steam, water, mechanical or electric power. It also applies to installing any machinery or manufacturing plant driven by these or other power sources.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda set aside a Single Judge's order that had upheld the demand of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for annual renewal of trade license and allowed in part the writ appeal filed by Phoenix Market City mall's owner M/s Island Star Mall Developers Pvt. Ltd.

Scolding Minor & Refusing To Return His Ball Which Damaged Shop Not Abetment Of Child's Suicide U/S 305 IPC: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: GNANASHEKAR M. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

CASE NO: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.361 OF 2025 (A)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

The Karnataka High Court has held that refusal by a shopkeeper to hand back a playing ball to a minor and asking him to bring his father to take back the ball after which he allegedly got upset and died by suicide, does not amount to abetment of suicide of a child under Section 305 IPC.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 364]

Section 305 concerns the offence of abetment of the suicide of a child or an insane person. To establish the offence, the prosecution must prove the essential elements of abetment provided under Section 107 of the IPC. A person is considered to have abetted an act if they instigate someone to commit that act, engage in a conspiracy to execute it, or intentionally aid the act through their actions or illegal omissions.

A Division Bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod dismissed the appeal filed against the acquittal of two shopkeepers, observing:

“In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused have done any positive act and have driven the child to commit suicide leaving with no other alternative but to put an end to his life. Not only is the said positive action in close proximity to the time of occurrence absent, but there is also no evidence of any continuous physical or mental torture meted to the deceased by the accused...

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Over Instagram Post After Puneeth Rajkumar's Death, Warns Student To Be Careful On Social Media

Case Title: Ritvik S. Sharma v. State by Subramanya Nagar Police Station

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 3845/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [September 18] quashed criminal proceedings under Section 67 Information Technology Act, initiated against a young student who had posted an allegedly offensive Instagram story showing a beer bottle, following the death of Kannada actor Puneeth Rajkumar. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 365]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while issuing a stern warning to the youngster, allowed the petition which sought to quash the proceedings, arising out of an FIR registered by Subramanya Nagar Police Station back in 2021.

“There is no dispute about the posting of message on the Instagram handle of petitioner …It is not only the statement which is made that is required to be considered but the timing and context in which the statement was made... It is rather sad that such a post had been put up immediately after the expiry of well-respected film actor. The petitioner ought to have known that making such a statement at the relevant point of time and the context in which it was made-the said film actor being against the consumption of alcohol by younger persons -would have an effect…”, the court noted at the outset.

Renukaswamy Murder Trial: Karnataka High Court Says Darshan Will Be Physically Produced During Cross-Examination Of Material Witnesses

Case Title: Smt Vijayalakshmi Darshan v. State of Karnataka &Ors.

Case No: WP 28836/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (September 18) indicated the procedure by which Kannada Actor Darshan's shall be physically produced during the Renukaswamy murder trial, directing that the prosecution shall examine material witnesses and that the actor can be physically produced during the cross-examination of such witnesses. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 366]

The single judge bench of Justice V. Srishananda passed the order while hearing a petition filed by Darshan through his wife Vijaya Lakhsmi, challenging a trial court order that had refused his request for physical production during trial.

“…As undertaken by the prosecution before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the same matter, the prosecution must examine 60 witnesses, which shall include the seven material witnesses submitted by the petitioner as per the list dated 16.09.2026 and the list dated 18.09.2026, except CW 228, CW 232, and CW 233…When once the seven witnesses mentioned in the list dated 16.09.2026 and CW 168 in the list dated 18.08.2026 are examined in chief, all those witnesses shall be bound over, and two or three consecutive dates may be fixed by the trial judge in consultation with the counsel for the accused as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor, and all those witnesses may be cross-examined on those dates…

'Fraud Committed To Obtain Compensation': Karnataka High Court Finds Collusion In Motor Accident Claim, Orders SIT Probe

Case Title: GIRIDHAR NEELAKANT PAI VS NEELAKANT NARAYAN PAI & OTHERS

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101014 OF 2017 (MV-I)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court ordered a SIT probe to investigate allegations of collusion by the claimant and the complainant in a motor accident claim, after observing that the parties had colluded to "manipulate the case" solely to obtain compensation from the insurance company.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 367]

Justice Geetha K.B. upheld an MACT order dismissing a compensation claim and directed the state police authorities to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to investigate criminal collusion between the parties.

"In the present case, even though respondent No.3 himself came forward to give evidence and complainant was examined as R.W.3 and not as the claimant's witness shows that there is clear collusion in between claimant, respondent Nos.1, 3 and complainant to manipulate the case"

The court found that there were proper reasons to disbelieve the case of the claimant.

Stipendiary Nurses' Performing Full-Time Duties Of Staff Nurse For Years Entitled To Regular Wages Under 2019 GO: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS & Batch

Case No: WA No. 263/2022 and connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 368

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order directing an autonomous medical institute to pay the “stipendiary nurses” at par with regular employees as well as to not discontinue their service until recruitment for staff nurses on a regular basis takes place. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 368]

For context, stipendiary nurses are employed on a contractual basis who receive a regular fixed stipend instead of a salary.

A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda were hearing a batch of writ appeals filed by Mysore Medical College and Research Institute and the State of Karnataka against a common judgment of the Single Judge dated July 22, 2021.

Karnataka High Court Directs State To Decide Representation On Reconstruction Of Parashurama Statue At Udupi Theme Park

Case Title: Uday Shetty Muniyal AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 22881/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 369

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to consider a representation seeking reconstruction and reinstallation of the Lord Parashurama statue at the Parashurama Theme Park in Karkala, Udupi district. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 369]

Disposing of a PIL filed by Uday Shetty Muniyal, a Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice T.P. Vivekananda observed that the dispute was “purely factual” and that it was for the State Government to take a decision on the petitioner's representation.

“We can easily say it does not appear to be a PIL at all. You want this to be considered by the first respondent, that's all,” it orally remarked.

The Court thereafter recorded in its order, “Annexure-D is representation preferred by the petitioner before the first respondent [Department of Tourism]. Since the disputes are purely factual, it is for the first respondent to take decision.”

Karnataka High Court Directs SIT Probe Into KPSC Veterinary Officer Recruitment Scam, Declines CBI Investigation

Case Title: Dr. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No.: WP No. 23448/2026 (GM-RES-528-529)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 370

The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 21) constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to conduct a de novo investigation into the alleged Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC) Veterinary Officer (Group A) recruitment scam, while declining to entrust the probe to the CBI.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 370]

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order in a batch of petitions, including those filed by BJP MLA Basanagouda R Patil Yatnal, the All-Karnataka State Students Association, and several successful and unsuccessful candidates alleging large-scale irregularities in the recruitment of 400 Veterinary Officers by the KPSC.

“…In the peculiar facts obtaining in this case, while I do not deem it appropriate to permit the investigation to continue at the hands of the CID or the jurisdictional police, I am equally not persuaded that entrustment to the CBI is the only available recourse…. I deem it appropriate to constitute a SIT comprising senior and experienced officers to undertake the investigation. It is in public domain that the ED has also registered an ECIR pursuant to the predicate offences noted hereinabove and are investigating into the offences under the PMLA. In that light, the SIT shall extend such cooperation to the ED as well in furtherance of the investigation now directed”, the court noted in the order at the outset.

Promotion Can't Be Withheld If Complaint Against Employee Does Not Result Into Departmental Inquiry, Other Action: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M.N. KHAJA HUSSAIN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.103388 OF 2023 (S-PRO)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 371

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has ruled that promotion of a government employee cannot be withheld merely on the grounds that a complaint has been filed against the employee, if it has not resulted in any departmental inquiry or other action as contemplated under the Service Law. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 371]

Justic T.M. Nadaf observed,

“In that view of the matter, withholding the promotion of the petitioner who is otherwise eligible for promotion as per the Provisional List prepared is against the settled position of Service Law. A mere intimation by the police or correspondence, without the same resulting in any enquiry as contemplated in the Law, cannot be a circumstance to deny the petitioner, the promotion for which he is otherwise entitled.”

Karnataka High Court Mandates Admitting, Marking Of Undisputed Documents Under S.330(3) BNSS To Ensure Speedy Trial

Karnataka High Court Mandates Admitting, Marking Of Undisputed Documents Under S.330(3) BNSS To Ensure Speedy Trial

Case Title: C SWAMY VS CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION & ANOTHER

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10693 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 372

The Karnataka High Court has mandated all the trial courts in the State to adhere to Section 330 BNSS, corresponding to Section 294(3) CrPC, to ensure the fundamental right to a speedy trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 372]

Under Section 330(3) of the BNSS, if the genuineness of a document is undisputed, it can be admitted as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under BNSS without formally proving the signature of its author.Provided that the Court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

Disposing of a petition filed by a government official seeking to quash a 10-year-old CBI charge sheet on grounds of delay, a Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Srishananda observed,

“It is the experience of this court that provisions of Section 294(3) of Cr.P.C corresponding to Section 330(3) of BNSS is hardly put to use. Therefore, it is just and necessary for this Court to direct all the trial judges to adhere to the mandate in Section 294(3) of Cr.P.C, corresponding to Section 330(3) of BNSS, in all pending trials.”

Para Asian Games 2026: Karnataka High Court Directs Reconsideration Of Women's Doubles Table Tennis Selection

CASE TITLE : DR RAJALAKSHMI SHANKAR VS. THE SECRETARY, REP BY UNION OF INDIA, THE MINISTRY OF YOUTH AFFAIRS AND SPORTS & OTHERS

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 26896 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 373

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI) to reconsider the team selection process for the women's doubles events in table tennis for the upcoming Aichi-Nagoya 2026 Asian Para Games after finding the selection method “ex-facie contrary" to well known norms of selection for double events. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 373]

The Asian Para Games are set to take place between October 18 -24, 2026 in Aichi-Nagoya, Japan.

Justice C.M. Poonacha was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr. Rajalakshmi Shankar Janardhana Murthy, a para-Table Tennis athlete, who had sought directions for her name to be considered for selection in the upcoming Asian Para Games. Murthy holds the eleventh position in Asia in Women's Singles Class 2, as of July 21, 2026, while in the doubles event, she, along with her partner Sonalben Patel, falls within the top eight among Asian countries in international ranking.

Karnataka High Court Sentences Advocate To 15 Days' Jail For Calling Trial Court Judgment A Result Of 'Match Fixing'

Case Title: High Court of Karnataka, represented by the Registrar General v. Sri H.P. Sabjan, Advocate

Case Number: Criminal Contempt Petition No. 2 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 374

The Karnataka High Court has recently sentenced a lawyer from Chitradurga to simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days, after finding him guilty of criminal contempt in a suo motu petition registered through the Registrar General of the Court. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 374]

The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan passed the order, noting that the first charge against the lawyer that he accused the trial court of passing a judgment by 'match fixing' stood proved. The court added that the contemnor refused to tender an unconditional apology.

The subsequent charge was with respect to a remark in the statement of objections to the notice filed in contempt case itself, wherein the contemnor mentioned that a previous order of the High Court in a criminal appeal was false, fabricated and created only for the purpose of falsely implicating him in the criminal contempt case.

National Security Paramount, Takes Precedence Over Individual Rights: Karnataka High Court Upholds Land Acquisition For DRDO Defence Project

Case Title: Union of India, Ministry of Defence, Estate Management Unit (DRDO) v. State of Karnataka & Others & Connected Matters

Case No: W.A. No. 2121 of 2015 & Connected Matters

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 375

The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed a batch of writ appeals filed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) and the Union, restoring the land acquisition proceedings for the establishment and completion of the Centre for Artificial Intelligence and Robotics (CAIR) in Bengaluru, while holding that national security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 375]

“…National security is paramount and must always take precedence over individual interests or personal rights. While personal rights are undoubtedly precious, they cannot be asserted in a manner that compromises the safety and security of the nation. The nation must come first, for the protection of the country is the foundation upon which all individual rights and freedoms securely rest…”

Karnataka High Court Dismisses Nigerian Student's Plea Against 'Leave India' Order; Says Visa Extension Is Sovereign Discretion, No Vested Right

Case Title: Felix Mkpang Boco v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WP 29876/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 376

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 23) dismissed a writ petition filed by a Nigerian national challenging a 'Leave India' order issued by the Foreigners Regional Registration Office (FRRO), observing that his visa had expired on August 31 and that he had no vested right to seek its extension, which falls within the sovereign discretion of the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 376]

Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed the plea filed by Felix Mkpang Boc, a final-year undergraduate student at Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bengaluru, challenging the FRRO's September 9 order directing him to leave India on or before September 23 after obtaining an Exit Permit.

WhatsApp Status Shared With Contacts Not Enough To Attract Offence Of Communal Enmity U/S 505(2) IPC: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: VENKAPPA GOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CASE NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5909 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377

The Karnataka High Court has held that posting a statement as a WhatsApp status does not constitute “publication or circulation” on a public forum so as to amount to a statement which creates or promotes enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes under Section 505(2) IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 377]

In doing so the court quashed an FIR under Section 505(2) IPC against a man accused of posting a WhatsApp status which allegedly created “enmity between communities” following the Lok Sabha election result announcement in 2024.

Section 505(2) of the IPC (corresponding to Section 353(2) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) penalizes a person for publishing or circulating statements intended to create enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different communities on the grounds of religions, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, community or any other ground.

Short Duration Of Marriage Alone Can't Determine Permanent Alimony: Karnataka High Court Upholds ₹50 Lakh Award

Case Title: R v S

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.3547/2026(FC

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378

The Karnataka High Court has held that the quantum of permanent alimony cannot be determined based solely on the duration of marriage or “by applying a mathematical formula”. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 378]

In doing so the court dismissed cross appeals filed by a husband and wife challenging a family court order that dissolved their marriage and awarded Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony to the wife.

“The contention of the Respondent that the amount should be reduced merely because the marriage was of short duration or because he claims to be presently unemployed cannot be accepted. Permanent alimony cannot be determined on the basis of the duration of the marriage alone or by applying a mathematical formula,” the Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan said, while upholding the family court order.

Insult To Prime Minister Doesn't Attract S.352 BNS Without Intent To Provoke Breach Of Peace: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Imtiyaz Nuruddin Chinchali v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.101720 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a man who was booked by Athani Police for allegedly putting up barricades in front of his shop and making insulting remarks against the Prime Minister when he was questioned by a social worker. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 379]

The single judge bench of Justice Venkatesh Naik T held that the complaint did not disclose intentional insult to the complainant, and mere abuse or rudeness may not amount to an offence under Section 352 BNS.

“…The allegation against the petitioner is essentially that, when the complainant questioned him regarding the barricades, he made certain statements against the Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. There is no specific allegation that the petitioner abused or intentionally insulted the complainant so as to provoke a breach of peace..”, the court pointed out.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Defamation Case Against BJP MLC Over Statements Made In Press Conference Against State Minister

Case Title: ADAGURU H. VISHWANATH VS B.S. SURESHA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14685 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 380

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a petition filed by BJP Member of Legislative Council (MLC) Adaguru H. Vishwanath, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in a defamation case filed by the State Transport Minister, BS Suresh. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 380]

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said that whether the alleged statements were made in good faith, or if they lowered the minister's reputation, are maters to be determined at the time of trial.

“In the instant case, since the petitioner has not disputed the statements allegedly made in the press conference. The Court is of the view that as to whether the statements were made in good faith, whether the statements fall under the exceptions and whether the statements have actually lowered the reputation of the complainant/respondent, are the matters that have to be considered at the time of trial,” the High Court said.

General Allegation That In-Laws Supported Husband Not Enough To Invoke Domestic Violence Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: A v. R

Case Nos.: Crl.P No.101593/2025 connected with Crl.P No.101594/20

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 381

The Karnataka High Court has quashed domestic violence proceedings against a husband's parents, holding that a general allegation that they supported their son, without any specific allegation or overt act of domestic violence, cannot justify continuation of proceedings against them. The case against the husband, however, will continue. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 381]

Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing two petitions filed by the husband and his parents. While the parents sought quashing of the entire proceedings initiated by the wife under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the husband also challenged an order directing him to pay ₹7,000 per month as interim maintenance to the wife.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against YouTuber Drone Prathap Over 'Pond Explosion' Experiment, Says No 'Malicious Intent'

Case Title: Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 469/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a science educator and YouTuber, Pratap N M, who runs the channel 'Drone Prathap', over a video demonstrating the reaction of sodium with water. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj opined that though it does not endorse the manner in which the experiment was conducted, the act was 'educative' and not 'malicious'.

“….As indicated above, though this Court does not condone or commend the actions taken by the petitioner, the fact remains that it is not a malicious action but only an educative action on the part of the petitioner, which should not require such an educator to go through the ordeal of a criminal investigation thereafter….”, the court noted in the order.

Preventive Detention | Not Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent To Central Govt Violates Article 22(5) Safeguard: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Case No: WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.100019 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383

The Karnataka High Court has held that the failure to inform a detenu of their right to make a representation to the Central Government under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 seeking revocation of detention order, violates safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383]

A Division Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni at Dharwad quashed a preventive detention order issued against a person, observing that preventive detention cannot be converted into a “parallel mechanism for cancellation of bail.”

“If the statute confers upon the Central Government, the power to revoke an order of detention, the detenu must necessarily have an effective opportunity to invoke that power by making a representation. A right to make a representation, if kept beyond the knowledge of the person whose liberty is taken away, would be a right existing only on paper. The right becomes real and meaningful only when the detenu is made aware that such a representation can be made and to whom it can be made,” the High Court said.

It added, “If the Detaining Authority fails to communicate to the detenu his right to make such a representation to the Central Government seeking revocation of the order of detention, the failure is not a mere procedural aberration capable of being brushed aside as inconsequential. It cuts at the very root of the constitutional safeguard engrafted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and renders the continued detention constitutionally vulnerable.”

Mere Knowledge Of Where Stolen Articles Were Kept Can't Sustain Prosecution Without Material Linking Accused To Theft: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.111 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere knowledge of where valuable articles are kept, coupled with general suspicion, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution for theft, while quashing an FIR registered against a man under Section 305 BNS. .[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that when different complaints made by family members disclose materially contradictory versions regarding missing gold articles, then allowing investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

“The petitioner is sought to be implicated essentially on the ground that he was aware of where the gold articles were kept and had access to the house. Mere knowledge of the place where articles are kept, coupled with a general suspicion, cannot by itself constitute the basis for a criminal prosecution for theft, particularly when the material already on record discloses a completely different circumstance in which substantial quantities of gold were allegedly handed over to the petitioner,” the Court said.

Internal Committee's Closure Report Not Enough To Close Sexual Harassment FIR: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18058 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385

The Karnataka High Court has held that an Internal Committee's report following an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint cannot, by itself, result in the closure of a criminal case involving a cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385]

Justice V Srishananda observed that since the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable, the Internal Committee's proceedings and report would not be sufficient to close the criminal case unless a police investigation takes place.

As per the facts, the complainant was working as a Junior Resident under the petitioner in the Department of General Surgery, wherein the petitioner was working as a Assistant Professor. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the petitioner. The matter was referred to Internal Local Committee and it was closed. However a complaint was lodged based on which police registered the case under Section 354A IPC against which petitioner approached the high court.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Accused Of Posing As Lawyer, Taking ₹21 Lakh To Resolve Litigation

Case Title: T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 991 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against two persons–one of whom allegedly posed as an advocate–accused of cheating a widow of over Rs 21 Lakh on the promise of resolving her property litigation, holding that the allegations disclosed a criminal element and could not be dismissed as a purely civil matter. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while dismissing the petition filed by the accused, directed the police to conduct a “proper and in-depth investigation” into the case.

Observing that the petitioners failed to fulfil their promise of resolving the complainant's property litigation and that one of them was later found not to be an advocate, the High Court said, “This conduct would be required to be examined during the course of investigation to ascertain whether accused no.1 had represented that he was an advocate and whether he is an advocate or not since such a conduct would not only have a bearing on the present matter would also have bearing on the judicial system as a whole, where litigants depend on the judicial system for proper adjudication of their matters in a manner known to and in accordance with law.”

'Afterthought': Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO FIR Against Father, Notes Complaint Filed Days After Wife's Custody Plea Rejected

Case Title: U VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8868 OF 2017

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 387

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused by his estranged wife of sexually assaulting their minor daughter, holding that the complaint was a “classic example of afterthought and for personal vengeance against the husband.”[ 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 387]

Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that the criminal complaint under the POCSO Act was filed only after the wife's application seeking temporary injunction against a family court order granting interim custody to the father was rejected.

The High Court observed that neither the complaint filed by the mother nor the communication from NIMHANS disclosed that the child was subjected to molestation.

“The court has to take note of the contents of the complaint wherein there is no allegation that the child was subjected to molestation by the father. No doubt, the statement of victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C wherein a statement is made that father had taken her forcibly to the Chennai and subjected to such act. The same is not found in the contents of the complaint filed by the mother and that complaint was even dated 23.03.2017 and there is inconsistency in the contents of the complaint as well as the statement made before the Magistrate and child was also in the custody of the mother and it appears to be tutored,” the Court said.

S.65B Evidence Act Certificate Not Mandatory For Electronic Evidence Before Family Courts: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: X v/s Y

CASE NUMBER: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101273 OF 2021 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101274 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388

The Karnataka High Court has held that the requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting electronic evidence such video recordings stored in CDs is not mandatory in proceedings before Family Courts.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388]

The Division Bench of Justice M.I. Arun and Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 overrides the Evidence Act provisions regarding the relevance and admissibility of documents.

“It is clear from a reading of Section 14 that the Family Court may receive any document as evidence that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act,” the Court said.

Wife's Masters Degree, Rejection Of Permanent Alimony Can't Be Grounds To Deny Maintenance U/S 125 CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: X & another vs Rajesh

Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100065 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389

The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied to a wife merely because her earlier claim for permanent alimony was rejected in divorce proceedings, or on the grounds that she holds an educational qualification that might allow her to earn a livelihood.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389]

Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the revision petition filed by a wife against a family court order that had granted maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC only to the couple's minor child while rejecting her claim.

“In the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, gave a finding that petitioner No.1 is not entitled for maintenance from respondent as her claim for Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony was rejected and that she has not challenged that order. It was also observed that Petitioner No.1 whose educational qualification is M.A. may earn for her livelihood,” the Court observed.

It added, “It is not the case of even respondent that petitioner No.1 is a working woman. Thus, only because she holds M.A. degree, maintenance cannot be denied to her. Also as earlier indicated, permanent alimony was not granted to petitioner No.1 only because she failed to establish the financial capability and status of the respondent/husband. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Family Court ought not to have rejected her claim for maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent/husband.”

Military Land Register Conclusive Record, Private Title Claim Can't Stand: Karnataka High Court Restores Land To Indian Air Force

Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Mohsin Sharieff & Ors.

Case No: WA No. 1929 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single judge bench's order which had directed the revenue entries in favour of a private claimant over a few acres of land in Yelahanka, which the Defence Ministry claimed was acquired in 1943 for the Air Force Station's aircraft taxi track. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390]

The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan noted that the Military Land Register is conclusive proof of title. Invoking the maxim 'nemo dat quod non habet', the court opined that a 2015 court commissioner-executed sale deed could not convey title over land acquired by the Defence Ministry in 1943.

“…. after several decades, an attempt has been made to create a private title over the very same land and to assert rights against the Defence authorities. However, such an attempt has not escaped the scrutiny of this Court. After the acquisition, the land was utilised for the purposes of the Indian Air Force and compensation was paid to the original land owner. It is a classic case of 'nemo dat quod non habet'—no person can convey a better title than what he himself possesses. The Military Land Register is an official document and a conclusive document insofar as defence land is concerned….”, the court noted in the order.

SC, ST, OBC Reservation Cannot Be Applied To NRI Quota Seats: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  Juhi vs Union of India & others

Case Number :  WRIT PETITION NO. 107372 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the reservation for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) or Other Backward Class (OBC) cannot be applied to the Non- Resident Indian quota in the NEET-UG counseling process.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391]

The Division Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni rejected a petition filed by an 18-year-old NEET-UG candidate seeking directions allowing her to retain her OBC status during the ongoing NEET-UG counselling process, despite having applied as an NRI (sponsored) candidate.

The Bench noted that the NRI seats are reserved under the unreserved category, and a candidate can opt only for one type of reservation during counseling.

“The NRI quota is a separate quota and 15% of the seats are reserved for NRIs. The nuances of such reservation are found in the brochure that is notified in terms of law, which clearly indicates that NRI can only be under the unreserved category,” the Court said.

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To BJP MLA's Daughter Booked For Slapping Cop, Notes Her Public Apology

Case Title: AISHWARYA @ ISHWARYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13991 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392

The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to BJP MLA B. Suresh Gowda's daughter who is accused of assaulting a woman Police Sub Inspector (PSI) at Maramma temple in Arathi Ukkada.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392]

Allowing the petition seeking anticipatory bail, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty noted that the incident took place on the spur of the moment, the petitioner and her father had already issued an unconditional public apology, she had no prior criminal antecedents, and she had undertaken to cooperate with the police in the investigation.

“The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is the daughter of MLA and her husband is a serving Deputy Superintendent of Police… Learned Senior Counsel has produced material before this Court which would prima facie go to show that petitioner as well as her father have tendered unconditional apology publicly for the untoward incident that had taken place on 12.08.2026,” the High Court observed.

Assault On Pregnant Woman's Abdomen Can Attract 'Attempt To Murder' Charge Even If Medical Certificate Records No Injury: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  SANTHOSH KUMAR H.L & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 39 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393

The Karnataka High Court held that an assault on the abdomen of a woman, who was stated to be in an advanced stage of pregnancy, cannot fall outside ambit of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC merely because no visible injury was recorded in the medical certificate or because both the mother and baby are currently healthy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393]

Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde was hearing the petition filed by four people charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives), 307, 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 (penalty for giving and demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, seeking to quash proceedings against them.

“Since, it is not in dispute that, at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Thus, the alleged assault on the abdomen by the petitioners cannot be said to be an act which is outside the purview of Section 307 of the IPC. Merely because there is no injury forthcoming in the medical certificate that, by itself, cannot be a reason to say that the case is out of the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC,” the High Court said.

Public Authorities Can't Shift Burden To Citizens: Karnataka High Court Directs Information Commission To Maintain RTI Implementation Data

Case title: RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13373 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394

The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Information Commission to prescribe a uniform format for the collection, maintenance and disclosure of information relating to the implementation of the RTI Act by public authorities in the State.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394]

The petitioner an RTI applicant had sought names of the Public Information Officer or Public Information Officers against whom penalty had been imposed under Section 20(1), the amount of penalty imposed and the amount recovered pursuant to such penalty.

For context, Section 20 prescribes the penalty imposed on PIOs who refuse to receive application seeking information within the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly give incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroy information which was the subject of the request or obstruct in any manner the furnishing of information.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Adding JD(S) Leader Suraj Revanna As Accused In Attempt To Murder Case

Case Title :  SURAJ REVANNA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION No.2796 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395

The Karnataka High Court has held that arraying a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is not a “frolicsome act” and must be supported by cogent evidence that establishes a much stricter degree of satisfaction than a prima facie case.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395]

Consequently, the High Court quashed a Sessions Court order arraying Member of Karnataka Legislative Council from Janata Dal (Secular) party Suraj Revanna, as an accused in a case for several offences including attempt to murder.

Section 319 of the CrPC, which corresponds to Section 358 BNSS, empowers a court to proceed against and try a person not named as an accused in the chargesheet if, based on the evidence, it appears to the court that the person has committed an offence.

No Limitation For Seeking Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC, Wife's Right Can't Be Lost By Delay: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  X v/s Y

Case Number :  REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 284 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no period of limitation for filing a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC and such a plea cannot be rejected solely on ground of delay.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396]

Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set aside a family court order which had dismissed a maintenance petition filed by a wife and her daughter solely on the ground of delay.

The High Court noted that the relevant provision does not mention a time period within which a maintenance plea must be filed, and that such a legitimate right to seek maintenance cannot be deprived merely because the wife or child failed to approach the court immediately upon neglect or refusal by the person bound to maintain them.

IO Can't Independently Record Victim's Further Statement After S.183 BNSS Statement Recorded By Magistrate: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  MURALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12214 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

The Karnataka High Court has held that once a victim's statement is recorded before a jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot independently record a further statement of the victim.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397]

“Even if the Investigating Officer had to record the further statement of the victim girl, after her statement was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he ought to have produced the victim girl before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording her further statement and he could not have proceeded to independently record her further statement,” Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty said, while allowing the criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail.

'Moral Consciousness Can't Overtake Legal Entitlement': Karnataka High Court Grants Parole To Murder Convicts To Get Married

Case Title :  SHRIDHAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Case Number :  WRIT PETITION NO. 105612 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted one-day parole to two life convicts who wished to marry each other, observing that “moral consciousness cannot overtake the legal entitlement to get married”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar)398]

Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the writ petition filed by the two convicts serving life term, seeking parole to get married. The two petitioners have been convicted for murdering the second petitioner's husband.

“The right to marry, subject to law, cannot be denied merely on the basis of moral considerations when there is no statutory prohibition against the same,” the High Court said.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others, the Court said, “As held by the Apex Court, one of the acceptable reasons for grant of parole is to ensure that the convict gets an opportunity for rehabilitation and prepares for realignment with society.”