Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 27– May 03, 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164- 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170Nominal CitationM/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 167H.D.Revanna V. State Of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 168Mr. Santosh Kumar .R.S. V. Mr. Aditya Dhar & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 169Shri Ranveer Singh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 170Judgments/ OrdersHigh-Rise Buildings Lacking Fire NOC Can't Risk General Public: Karnataka High Court Upholds Demolition Of Construction Blocking DrivewayCase Title: M/s. Vishnu Sri Builders and Developers vs The Commissioner, BBMP & OrsCase No: Writ Appeal No. 1637 Of 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 164The Karnataka High Court has upheld a single judge's order directing demolition of construction on the driveway space adjacent to a residential block in Bengaluru's Rajarajeshwari Nagar, after noting that the sanction plan did not conform to the fire safety norms.In doing so the court observed that high rise buildings regardless of the luxury they provide cannot stand at the risk of General Public particularly the residents of the building and others in the vicinity. The court thus directed the builder to keep the modified sanction plan in abeyance until fire safety norms are fulfilled.While dismissing the builder's appeal against the single judge's order, a division bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice T.M. Nadaf, observed that the fire safety violations identified during the spot inspection by the Fire Safety Department were detrimental.'You Don't Leave Women Safe Anywhere': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Instagram Account 'Bangalore Metro Chicks' OwnerCase Title: Mr B K Diganth V. State Of Karnataka & Anr.Case No: Crl.P 5218/2026Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 165The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea filed by the alleged owner of 'Bangalore Metro Chicks' Instagram account, who had sought quashing the criminal proceedings against him over posting objectionable, non-consensual videos of women travelling in the Bengaluru Metro.During the hearing Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while refusing to entertain the plea, orally expressed discontent over denial of safe environment to women.“...The complaint when read alongside the charge sheet, paints a disquieting picture. Women commuting in the anonymity of public transport were subjected to covert surveillance; their images and videos captured without consent, focusing upon various parts of their bodies and thereafter, disseminated in public digital platform for voyeuristic consumption. The investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, reveals that the petitioner's mobile device contain further incriminating material of a similar nature, reinforcing the allegation”, the court noted in the order.Special Marriage Act | Marriage Registration Not Mandatory To Maintain Divorce Petition: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: Smt. Rathna P v. Sri Chikkamanchaiah S.M.Case No: Writ Petition No.33261 of 2025 (GM-FC)Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 166The Karnataka High Court has recently held that marriage registration under the Special Marriage Act is not necessary for maintaining a petition for divorce under Section 27 of the aforesaid Act.The single judge bench of Justice K.Manmadha Rao was considering a plea filed by the wife against the Family Court order that rejected her application to dismiss the divorce petition filed by the husband on account of non-registration of marriage under the aforesaid Ac“There is no specific provision in the Special Marriage Act, 1954 which contemplates that a petition for a decree of divorce is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered under the Act….Section 15 of the Special Marriage Act only prescribes the conditions required for registration of the marriage and do not declare that registration of the marriage is compulsory or that petition for divorce under Section 27 of the Act is not maintainable unless the marriage is registered…,” the court observed in the order.Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against TV9 Channel Over 2012 Court Violence, Says Decriminalization Of Cable TV Act Is RetrospectiveCase Title: TV9 Karnataka Pvt Ltd & Ors v. CBI & AnrCase No: Criminal Petition No.17138 OF 2025Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 167Quashing proceedings against TV9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd. and its ex-correspondents in the 2012 City Civil Court complex violence case, the Karnataka High Court said that offence under Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 was decriminalised by a 2023 central amendment and its beneficial effect must be applied retrospectively.A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by TV9 News Channel and its correspondents, striking down the criminal proceedings before the CBI Special Court registered in 2025...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 27– May 03, 2026

Sebin James

Tags