Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: April 21 - April 27, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153Nominal Index:V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148K V Shankara And Siddaramiah. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue Intelligence. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 151Shiv Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 152High Court Legal Services Authority AND Principal Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 153Judgments/OrdersBalajiga Community Can't Be Classified Differently For Educational & Employment Purposes, State's Dual Standards Not Justified: Karnataka HCCase Title: V Sumitra AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15499 OF 2013Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 147The Karnataka High Court has held that a particular community cannot be classified for educational purposes under a different group than the classification made for the very same community for employment purposes under a different group.Justice Suraj Govindaraj said: "I am of the considered opinion that a particular class or category of persons cannot be said to be socially and educationally backward to classify them in Group-B for reservation under Article 15 (4) and consider the very same class to be more forward and adequately represented for the purpose of employment by classifying the same class in Group-D for purposes of Article 16(4). This dichotomy and the dual standards which have been used is not justified by the State in any manner".Invoking Act Prohibiting Transfer Of SC/ST Land For Second Time To Restore Site Already Sold & Resumed Is Illegal: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Rudramma & Others State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 29559 OF 2018Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 148The Karnataka High Court has held if lands already restored in grantee's favour, is again sold, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for the second time and seek resumption and restoration of the lands.It further said if such a procedure–of selling granted lands in contravention of the terms of the grant, then securing its resumption and thereafter, once again selling the resumed land before seeking its resumption again–is allowed, it would amount to a "mockery of the law, making the entire procedure of resumption a mere parody”.Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Election Of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah From Varuna ConstituencyCase Title: K V Shankara And SiddaramiahCase No: EP 13/2023.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 149The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the election petition filed against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's victory from Varuna constituency in the 2023 assembly elections..A single judge, Justice S Sunil Dut Yadav dismissed the petition filed by K M Shankara, a voter from the constituency who alleged that the Congress leader indulged in electoral malpractices. The Congress party's manifesto provided five guarantees to the people of Karnataka: 'Gruha Jyothi' - 200 units of free electricity to all houses, 'Gruha Lakshmi' - ₹2,000 every month to each and every woman head of a family, 'Anna Bhagya' - 10 kilograms of food grain per month to every member of a below poverty line (BPL) family, 'Yuva Nidhi' - ₹3,000 per month for two years to unemployed graduates and ₹1,500 per month for two years to unemployed diploma holders and 'Uchita Prayana/Shakthi' - free travel to all women throughout the state in regular KSRTC/BMTC Buses.S.379 BNSS | Court Must Apply Judicial Mind & Give Reasons Before Initiating Complaint For False Evidence, Forged Documents: Karnataka HCCase Title: K Ganesh Babu AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4132 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 150The Karnataka High Court has said that before initiating a complaint under Section 379 BNSS for offences affecting administration of justice–like giving false evidence or fabricating documents–a court must apply its judicial mind and come to a conclusion with reasons that it is necessary to hold a preliminary inquiry or initiate a complaint.The petitioner had approached the high court questioning session court's January 23 order wherein the office was directed to register a separate petition stating that the defendant/petitioner has tendered false evidence. This happened after respondent/plaintiff filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, stating that the petitioner/defendant "filed a false affidavit, which amounts to perjury".BREAKING | Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Actress Ranya Rao, Co-Accused In Gold Smuggling CaseCase Title: Harshavardini Ranya Rao AND Directorate of Revenue IntelligenceTarun Konduru Raju AND Directorate of Revenue IntelligenceCase No: Criminal Petition 5047/2025 c/w Criminal Petition...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: April 21 - April 27, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags