Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

NOMINAL INDEX

ROBIN KHANDELWAL VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SRIKRISHNA RAMESH @ SRIKI VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

SANJAY, PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

PRITESH BARI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

SRI MAHABALESHWAR AND ANOTHER VS. SRI MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

X v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

MAHENDRA KUMAR MITRA VS SECRETARY, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

Mubarak Shariff & Ors. v. State by K.R. Pet Rural Police & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Doctor Chinmaya Mission Hospital & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

ZAINUL ABDEEN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

SATTEPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

THE PRESIDENT SHRI VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE KALENJA VS THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENT FUND & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

B v. Smt. A , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

M/S.WELLNESS FOREVER CHEMISTS AND LIFESTYLE STORE VS ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER - 3(P) AND LICENSING AUTHORITY , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

Arnab Goswami AND State of Karnataka and Anr & Amit Malviya AND State of Karnataka and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

Abdul Samad & Anr. v. State by Vitla Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

Nagendrappa T v. State of Karnataka ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To 'Hacker' Sriki In Cryptocurrency Scam Case, Says No Immediate Chance Of Trial Completion

Case Title :  ROBIN KHANDELWAL VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SRIKRISHNA RAMESH @ SRIKI VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13669 OF 2026, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13670 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to 'hacker' Srikrishna Ramesh @ Sriki and his accountant Robin Khandelwal in a PMLA case pertaining to alleged cryptocurrency scam, observing that chances of the trial being completed soon were remote given that prosecution documents run into thousands of pages and the case remains at a pre-cognizance stage. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422]

Reportedly, the ED has alleged laundering of funds generated by Sriki by hacking of multiple cryptocurrency exchanges, poker, and gaming websites. As per reports, ED filed a prosecution complaint against Sriki, hKhandelwal, as well as other accused.

“The present case is at pre-cognizance stage before the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that documents in the present case runs upto 8103 pages and 10 charge-sheet witnesses have been cited. Therefore, chances of trial being completed and case being disposed of in the near soon is very remote,” Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, while allowing the petitions filed by the two men, accused of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, seeking regular bail.

Rejecting the respondent's argument that the accused might shift or misuse undiscovered proceeds of crime if enlarged on bail, the High Court noted, “The present case is registered in the year 2021 and petitioners were arrested only on 08.05.2026. If the petitioners or other accused have parked the sale proceeds safely and if they intended to misuse or shift the same, they could have very well done the same before they were arrested in the present case.”

It added, “There is no allegation against the petitioner that they have misused the bail conditions in any one of the cases registered for the predicate offences. Therefore, the apprehension now expressed by the learned Counsel for the respondent as aforesaid, does not appeal to the mind of this Court.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP Leader Over Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says Remarks Were Not Made Against Complainant

Case Title :  SANJAY PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3888 OF 2025

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 423

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case against former BJP MLA Sanjay Patil over a remark allegedly made against then Women and Child Welfare Minister during the Lok Sabha campaign for the Belagavi constituency in 2024. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 423]

It held that a Congress worker who merely heard the remark was not an “aggrieved person”, and that the statement did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“Admittedly, the complainant is not the person against whom the specific statement is made. Therefore, the complainant cannot become an aggrieved person as she has only heard such alleged filthy statement made by the petitioner against her party leader and the statement so alleged cannot become the ingredients of the offence under Section 509 of the IPC,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna said while allowing the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.

Bank Can't Lodge FIR Against Home Loan Borrower Over Dues Where Builder Shelves Project & Sells Flat To Third Party: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  PRITESH BARI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3230 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a home loan borrower whose loan stood outstanding because the builder failed to complete the project and sold the flat to a third party, holding that an outstanding loan or failure of an underlying transaction “by itself” cannot be treated as a criminal offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed:

“A financial institution, particularly a public sector bank, is expected to act with due care and circumspection before invoking the criminal process against a customer. The existence of an outstanding loan or the failure of the underlying transaction, by itself, cannot be treated as constituting a criminal offence. The circumstances of the present case make the course adopted by the Bank all the more difficult to appreciate. The petitioner has neither obtained the apartment for which the loan was sanctioned nor derived any benefit from its subsequent sale. The petitioner is left without the apartment and without the benefit of the transaction, while the Bank seeks to proceed against him for recovery of the very amount which, under the terms of the tripartite agreement, was contemplated to be recovered from the builder in the eventuality which has, in fact, occurred”.

Karnataka High Court Frames Contempt Charges Against 3 Govt Officials For Wilfully Disobeying Order

Case Title:  SRI MAHABALESHWAR AND ANOTHER VS. SRI MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

Case Number:  CCC NO. 1148/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere opposition of family members to a proposed matrimonial alliance cannot, by itself, disclose the ingredients of offences such as rape or abetment against them.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425]

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed criminal proceedings against the mother and sister of the principal accused in a rape case, while refusing to quash the proceedings against the man accused of engaging in a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.

“Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of a familial relationship with the principal accused or on the basis of opposition to a matrimonial alliance,” Justice Govindaraj said.

Karnataka High Court Closes Minor Rape Survivor's Plea After State Notifies SOP For Early Identification, Timely Response To Underage Pregnancies

Case Title :  X v. State of Karnataka

Case Number :  W.P. No. 19282 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

The Karnataka High Court has recently disposed of a writ petition filed by a 16-year-old survivor of sexual assault who sought medical termination of her pregnancy, after the State notified a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Early Identification and Timely Response to Underage Pregnancies. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 426]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav disposed of the petition filed through the survivor's mother as guardian. The mother had initially sought directions to the Hospital to admit and examine the petitioner, and take necessary medical steps to terminate her pregnancy.

The petitioner, a 16-year-old school student became a victim of sexual assault, and thereafter suppressed the factum of the same to the single mother until the pregnancy couldn't be concealed.

The Court had in July permitted termination of pregnancy subject to the opinion of doctors. The single judge bench had also directed that if the foetus was alive after the procedure, steps were to be taken for its healthy growth.

'50% Ceiling Breached' : Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Raising SC/ST Reservation In Education & Govt Jobs

Case Title :  MAHENDRA KUMAR MITRA VS SECRETARY & OTHERS

Case Number :  WRIT PETITION NO. 200448 OF 2025 (SC-ST-PIL)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

The Karnataka High Court on Monday struck down the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022, which had increased reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes (STs) from 3% to 7%.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that the legislation—which pushed the aggregate reservation in the State from 50% to 56%—violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court ruled that the 50% ceiling limit is a binding rule, and that a mere increase in population or proportional representation does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" required to breach this constitutional threshold

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against 17 Accused Of Provoking Riots Near Dargah, Says No Independent Witnesses Except Cops

Case Title :  Mubarak Shariff & Ors. v. State by K.R. Pet Rural Police & Anr

Case Number :  WP No: 6999/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the chargesheet against 17 men accused of forming an unlawful assembly near a Dargah and making provocative remarks with the intent to cause riot. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428]

It was alleged that in the chargesheet that on 27.10.2019, the petitioners formed "an unlawful assembly" near Ghouse Peer Qadri Dargha wherein petitioner no. 1 Mubarak Sharieff stated to be a member of PFI told the assembled people that "power of Islam Religion Organization should be shown by unity and everyone should indulge in illegal activities which would result in paralyzing the social tranquility".

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor, Hospital Management Booked Over Amputation Of Infant's Finger

Case Title :  The Doctor Chinmaya Mission Hospital & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr

Case Number :  CRL.P. No. 4983 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against management of a hospital and its doctor over alleged accidental amputation of a 6-month-old infant's little finger before discharge, observing that the four-hour period in which infant was kept in emergency ward after the incident needs investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 429]

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said:

"Prima facie, there is no dispute that the baby was admitted in a hospital for some ailment and she was being treated in the hospital and allegedly the nurse was removing the drip administered to the baby as the doctor had advised for discharge of the baby. However, it appears that while removing the drip administered to the baby, the little finger of the baby is chopped off and the baby was kept in emergency ward for four hours.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cow Slaughter Case After Police Conduct Raid Before Registering FIR

Case Title :  ZAINUL ABDEEN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 593 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a cow slaughter case, holding that the police violated the mandatory requirement of registering an FIR before conducting a raid and seizure after receiving information about a cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 430]

Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the failure to register the FIR before undertaking substantial investigative steps, including searches, seizures and recording witness statements, vitiated the proceedings against the accused.

The case arose from a suo motu complaint lodged by a Police Inspector of Hunsur Town Police Station on February 26, 2023. Acting on information about the alleged illegal sale of beef without a licence or permission, the police conducted raids at several shops and godowns in Shabbeer Nagar.

'Serious Allegations': Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Accused Of Rape, Caste-Based Abuse

Case Title :  SATTEPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100390 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a practicing advocate accused of repeated rape, unnatural sexual assault, and caste-based abuse, observing that the allegations were serious in nature required an investigation.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 431]

The court noted that it was also alleged that there were private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, which had to be investigated.

Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the trial court order that had rejected his anticipatory bail plea.

“Looking into the allegations in the complaint filed by the victim/respondent No.2, as there are serious allegations made against this appellant and having regard to the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 as well the victim/respondent No.2, and looking into the gravity of the offence as it is alleged that, the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 377 of IPC as well the offences under the SC & ST Act, further it is stated that there are private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, all these have to be investigated by the Investigating Officer and further, as the allegation against the accused/appellant is serious in nature, for these reasons this Court is of the opinion that, the accused/appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail,” the High Court said.

Temple Mismanagement: Karnataka High Court Says Subordinate Officer Can't Further Delegate Inquiry Under Hindu Religious Institutions Act

Case Title :  THE PRESIDENT SHRI VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE KALENJA VS THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENT FUND & OTHERS

Case Number :  WRIT APPEAL NO. 919 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

The Karnataka High Court has held that once Commissioner of Religious Institutions and Endowment Fund department authorises a subordinate officer to conduct enquiry over allegations of temple mismanagement under State Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, then that officer cannot sub-delegate the task.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 432]

Consequently, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha set aside the Single Judge order which had held that proceedings regarding the mismanagement of the Shri Vishnumurthy Temple under Section 42 of the Act were not bona fide because they were initiated without any material. The High Court restored the matter to the stage of an enquiry under Section 43(6) of the Act

Wife's Remarriage Material Factor In Determining Permanent Alimony But Not Automatic Bar To Her Entitlement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  B v. Smt. A

Case Number :  MFA No. 1557 of 2023 (FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

The Karnataka High Court has recently reduced the permanent alimony awarded to a divorced wife from Rs 25,00,000 to Rs 10,00,000, after she remarried during the pendency of the husband's appeal.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 433]

The court observed that alimony cannot be converted into a 'windfall' or a continuing entitlement not affected by subsequent changes in marital and financial circumstances. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421]

A Division Bench of Justices D K Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan held,

“Alimony Cannot Become a Windfall upon Remarriage. Alimony is intended to secure the financial support and reasonable sustenance of a spouse in appropriate circumstances; it is not a prize, bounty or continuing entitlement divorced from the circumstances in which it was granted….”, the court said in its order.

Pending Partition Suit Doesn't Necessarily Mean Subsequent Criminal Allegations By Family Member Are False: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3999 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere pendency of a partition suit does not, by itself, show that any subsequent criminal allegations are false or manufactured to give the dispute a criminal colour.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434]

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which were initiated on a complaint registered by his paternal uncle alleging assault.

“The pendency of the partition suit may show that there is a pre-existing family dispute between the parties. However, the mere existence of such a dispute does not mean that every subsequent criminal allegation is necessarily false or has been given a criminal colour,” the Court observed.

Karnataka High Court Grants Visitation Rights To Father, Rejects Wife's Plea Over Non-Payment Of Maintenance Amount To Her

Case Title :  X v/s Y

Case Number :  WRIT PETITION NO. 103228 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a man to meet his 4-year-old child, while rejecting his estranged wife's argument that visitation should be barred due to the non-payment of maintenance amounts due towards her.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 435]

Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde was hearing a petition filed by the wife challenging a trial court order that had allowed the husband to meet the child twice a month alongside a 10-minute video call from Monday to Friday.

The wife had argued that the husband cannot seek visitation right as he unilaterally bifurcated the maintenance amount of Rs 60,000 and paid only Rs 25,000 toward the child while leaving her portion unpaid.

Drug Licence Can't Be Suspended Along With Show Cause Notice: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  M/S.WELLNESS FOREVER CHEMISTS AND LIFESTYLE STORE VS ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER - 3(P) AND LICENSING AUTHORITY

Case Number :  WRIT PETITION NO. 30910 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Show Cause Notice-cum-suspension order suspending a pharmaceutical license can be treated strictly as a Show Cause Notice, observing that an order of suspension or cancelling license can be passed only after licensee is given opportunity to explain why such action should not be taken.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 436]

For context, Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, allows a licensing authority to suspend or cancel a license if the licensee fails to comply with the license conditions or the legislation. To do this, the authority must first give an opportunity to the licensee to show cause why such an order should not be passed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIRs Against Amit Malviya, Arnab Goswami Over Congress Party's Turkey Office Claim

Case Title :  Arnab Goswami AND State of Karnataka and Anr & Amit Malviya AND State of Karnataka and Anr

Case Number :  CRLP 7425 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the FIRs registered against former BJP IT Cell chief Amit Malviya and Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami over an alleged false claim made in a television programme that Turkey's Istanbul Congress Centre is the international office of the Indian National Congress.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 437]

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the criminal petitions filed by Malviya and Goswami, quashing the proceedings registered under Sections 192 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Mere Participation In A Protest Can't Be Equated With Participation In Every Connected Offence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  Abdul Samad & Anr. v. State by Vitla Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District

Case Number :  Criminal Petition No. 8032 of 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against two men for allegedly blocking a highway during a protest following a fatal accident, holding that mere participation in a gathering, which was prompted by a genuine grievance, cannot automatically be equated with participation in every offence alleged in connection with it. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 438]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a plea filed by two residents of Bantwala, who sought to quash an FIR registered against them by Vitla Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused were provisions such as Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2), 126(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint etc.

“…The fact that the protest was prompted by a fatal accident does not, by itself, justify blocking a public highway... A highway is meant for the movement of the public, and preventing vehicles from passing can cause considerable inconvenience and may also affect public safety. The grievance of the villagers could have been brought to the attention of the authorities through other means. The Court does not approve of the method adopted by the protesters… However, the impropriety of the method adopted does not, by itself, establish that every person present at the gathering committed the offences alleged”, the court noted in the order.

Karnataka High Court Directs State To Set Up District-Level Committees To Deal With Illegal Immigrants Within 3 Months

Case Title :  Nagendrappa T v. State of Karnataka

Case Number :  WP 24641/2026 & connected criminal petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [October 16] allowed a batch of criminal petitions and quashed the crimes registered against a Bengaluru-based doctor who was arrested on complaints allegedly lodged by illegal Bangladeshi immigrants whom he had helped identify before the authorities.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 439]

While doing so, the court has also directed the State to establish district-level committees to deal with illegal immigrants in terms of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs' Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the orders in the criminal petitions and the connected writ petition filed by Dr. Nagendrappa T.

The Court, while dictating the operative portion of the order, stated:

“….Criminal petitions are allowed. Crimes registered in... stand quashed. Writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the State to establish district-level committees to deal with illegal immigrants as directed in the SOP. The said committee shall be put in place within 3 months…”

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP's Amit Malviya Over X Post On Rahul Gandhi

Case Title: Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case Number :  CRL.P No. 7425 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [October 16] quashed the FIR registered against Amit Malviya, former in-charge of the National Information & Technology Department of the Bharatiya Janata Party, over his posts on X (formerly Twitter) concerning Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 440]

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the criminal petition filed by Malviya, and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 133/2025 registered by the High Grounds Police Station, currently pending before a Bengaluru Court. [Detailed Order Awaited]

The petitioner BJP leader is stated to have posted an edited photo of Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha) on his 'X' handle, and also posted that, despite the clarification given by the DGMO, Rahul Gandhi is speaking the language of Pakistan and its beneficiaries.

Private Aided Educational Institution Employees Can't Claim Monetary Benefits From State For Non-Grant Period: Karnataka High Court

Case Title :  State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr.

Case Number :  WRIT APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 (S-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that employees of private aided educational institutions cannot claim monetary benefits from the State for the non-grant period.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441]

The respondent was serving as an Assistant Teacher at W/A Hemavathi High School, which is a private aided educational institution. The Institution was taken in grant-in-aid. Therefore, Assistant Teacher filed a writ petition. He claimed arrears of salary and other monetary benefits from the State for the period preceding the admission of his post in grant-in-aid. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition.