Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: September 01 - September 07, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298Nominal Index: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298Judgements/OrdersCourt Can't Decide Station, Number Of Stops On Metro Line: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & OthersCase No: WP 23534/2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 1) dismissed a plea by residents of Chikkajala Village seeking a direction to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) to ensure that a metro station is constructed at the village on Phase 2B BlueLine Metro, which is to connect Krishnarajapuram with Kempegowda International Airport.A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi said, “The question whether a metro station is required to be constructed at a particular spot on the metro line is clearly a question that is not required to be examined by this court under Article 226 of Constitution of India.”Convict Entitled To Seek Remission Even If Sentence Exceeds 20 Years, Unless Order Specifically Bars Release: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 107708 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no embargo under Rule 164(v) of the State Prisons and Correctional Services Manual 2021 against the grant of remission, and merely because a detenue is sentenced to 21 years imprisonment, it cannot be said that he is not entitled to remission.In doing so, the court held that even if the order is for a specified term, a detenue would be entitled to remission unless the sentence makes it clear that the detainee shall not be entitled to premature release or remission or parole.Grounds 'Abandoned' At The Time Of First Quashing Petition Can't Be Exhumed To Prop Up Subsequent Plea: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295The Karnataka High Court has said that a second quashing plea under Section 482 CrPC/ BNSS 528 is neither maintainable nor entertainable unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance and the grounds which were manifestly available at the time of first plea cannot be exhumed later to prop up a second petition.Justice M Nagaprasanna said: "The second petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C./528 of BNSS is neither maintainable nor entertainable, unless founded upon demonstrable change in circumstance. Grounds that were manifestly available at the time of first petition, cannot be exhumed later, to prop up a second petition...Law cannot bend to repeated challenges, devoid of new substance nor it can ignore the gravity of allegations that undoubtedly wants an adjudication in a full blown trial.”S.112 Evidence Act | Compelling DNA Test To Determine Child's Paternity Without Imminent Need Violates Sanctity Of Marriage: Karnataka HCCase Title: Hareesh AND A S Umesh & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.20342 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296The Karnataka High Court has said that a DNA test must be permitted only in terms of Section 112 of the Evidence Act, after demonstrable non-access between the parents during the period of birth of the child is proved, as the presumption under Section 112 is rooted in public morality and societal peace.The court added that compelling such tests without a need for the same violates the sanctity of marriage as well as the fundamental right to privacy and dignity granted to a couple.Karnataka High Court Quashes Suspension Of Legislative Council Official Accused Of Not Keeping Ambedkar's Photo At Constitution Day EventCase Title: K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable ChairmanCase No: WP 19864/2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297The Karnataka High Court quashed the suspension of Deputy Secretary of State Legislative Council K J Jalajakshi, on the allegation that she failed to place the photograph of Dr B R Ambedkar at the Constitution Day function conducted on November 26, 2024.Justice H T Narendra Prasad on going through the records said: “Whether the petitioner is responsible for not placing the portrait of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during the Constitution Day function held on 26.11.2024 in the office of Respondent No.1 – Council, and whether the petitioner alone is responsible for the same, is a matter that requires to be decided by conducting an enquiry.”Karnataka High Court Upholds Lokayukta Enquiry Against Asst Public Prosecutor Accused Of Malpractices Prior To AppointmentCase Title: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: September 01 - September 07, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags