NOMINAL INDEX

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

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

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.