Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: November 24 - November 30, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409Nominal Index:Alphonso Saldana AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA KANAWADE & Others AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 397T H Hosamani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 398Suresh Vathar AND Siddaramma & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399YANKAPPA R SAKRE @ VENAKATESH R SAKRE AND Principal Secretary. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 400SRI ADRUSHYA KADESHWARA SWAMIJI AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 401Sunil AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 402DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK AND STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 403Boman R. Irani v. The Official Liquidator of Ideal Jawa. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 404INTAK RAJU N AND KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 405X AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 406H P Ramesh & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 407K N SHANTH KUMAR AND ELECTORAL OFFICER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 408Sri J Ramesh Chand v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 409Judgements/OrdersMere Plea of Insanity Not Enough, Accused Must Prove Unsoundness Of Mind At Time Of Offence: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Alphonso Saldana AND State of KarnatakaCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3773 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 396The Karnataka High Court has held that in criminal cases, a mere plea of insanity is not sufficient, and that the onus is on the accused to prove it. It was stated that while considering such a plea, courts have to consider the state of mind of the accused at the time of commission of the offence and not whether the accused is of unsound mind as of today or not.Justice M. I. Arun, held thus while dismissing the petition filed by Alphonsa Saldana, a murder accused who had approached the court challenging the order of the trial court rejecting the applications filed by him.“Toil Without Wages Strikes At Heart Of Human Dignity”: Karnataka High Court Directs Release Of 19 Months' Pending Salary To Govt TeachersCase Title: ANIL S/O. MALLAPPA KANAWADE & Others AND THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 104367 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 397In a case concerning government teachers who had not been paid their salaries for 19 months, the Karnataka High Court recently said, “To force these teachers or indeed any employee, to toil without wages strikes at the very heart of human dignity and stands in stark violation of Article 23 of the Constitution of India, which proscribes begar in all its forms.”Justice M. Nagaprasanna made this observation while allowing a petition filed by four teachers of a government-aided school who were not paid their salaries for 19 months. The bench directed, “The second respondent to release the salaries of the petitioners from May, 2024 to till this date, on or before 04.12.2025. In the event, the salaries are not released on or before 04.12.2025, the petitioners become entitled to cost of litigation at Rs.25,000/- each.”Civil Rights Enforcement Cell Can't Take Up Suo Motu Investigation Over Validity Of Caste Certificates: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: T H Hosamani AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109449 OF 2017Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 398The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell does not have the power to take up suo motu investigation into cases related to validity of caste certificates."....the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell does not have the power to take up suo motu investigation into the caste certificate of the petitioner," Justice M Nagaprasanna said while allowing a petition filed by one T H Hosamani.“The statute is unambiguous with regard to the power of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell emerging only upon a reference being made by the District Caste Verification Committee. Therefore, the proceedings that have now emerged from the hands of the Civil Rights Enforcement Cell and all action in its aftermath would become a nullity in law," the Court said.Motor Accident Victim Seeking Compensation Must Lodge Complaint In Time: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Suresh Vathar AND Siddaramma & ANRCase No: MISCL. FIRST APPEAL NO. 200941 OF 2019Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 399The Karnataka High Court recently upheld an order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal which refused compensation to a claimant, observing that the possibility of planting or involving the offending vehicle in the alleged accident cannot be ruled out.A single judge, Justice P Sree Sudha dismissed the appeal stating, "the delay is not at all explained and injured not filed any certified copies of FIR complaint, spot panchanama, MV report, injury certificate and the charge sheet before the Court."Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Seeking Equal Qualifying Marks For OBC & SC/ST Students In KLSU 3-Yr LLB AdmissionsCase Title: YANKAPPA R SAKRE @ VENAKATESH R SAKRE AND Principal SecretaryCase No: WP...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: November 24 - November 30, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags