Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324Nominal 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...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
Nominal Index:
C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
State Bank of India AND M/s Swait Agencies & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
Vikas Kumar S J AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
X CORP AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
Krishnamurthy AND The Director UIDAI & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
Dror Shlomo Goldstein AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
X CORP AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
Judgements/Orders
Court Can't Decide Station, Number Of Stops On Metro Line: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: C Naveen Kumar & Other AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 23534/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 293
The 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.”
Case Title: Deepa Angadi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 107708 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 294
The 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.
Case Title: G Satyanarayana Varma AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.17876 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 295
The 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.”
Case Title: Hareesh AND A S Umesh & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.20342 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 296
The 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.
Case Title: K J Jaljakshi AND The Honourable Chairman
Case No: WP 19864/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 297
The 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.”
Case Title: Dadapeer Bhanuvalli AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.100890 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 298
The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a lawyer appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor against an order of the State Administrative Tribunal, which rejected his plea challenging the entrustment of an enquiry to the Lokayukta against him for alleged actions done prior to his appointment.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha dismissed the petition filed by Dadapeer Bhanuvalli. The Director of the Department of Prosecutions had issued a Notification on 16.05.2012 to fill up 197 Posts of Assistant Public Prosecutors cum Government Pleaders. The petitioner, having made an application pursuant to the said Notification, was selected and appointed to the post of APP cum Assistant Government Pleader on 17.06.2014, and he reported for duty on 30.06.2014.
Case Title: Mrs Maheshwari M AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WPHC NO. 81 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 299
The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 2 lakh on a 72-year-old woman for filing a habeas corpus petition with an ulterior motive to take revenge against the police, after being dissatisfied with the probe conducted by the police on a complaint given by her.
A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice Rajesh Rai K while dismissing the petition filed by Maheshwari M said “We are of the view that in order to curb frivolous and malicious invocation of habeas corpus to protect the judicial process, it is necessary to impose punitive costs on such litigants. In that view of the matter, we dismiss this petition by imposing costs of Rs.2,00,000 on the petitioner who has approached this Court with unclean hands by suppression of facts.”
Case Title: Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited AND Malathi B & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1577 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 300
The Karnataka High Court has said that pensionary and retiral benefits of a former employee cannot be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings on a future date.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi held thus while dismissing appeal by Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited against single judge's order directing the company to pay all retirement benefits–death-cum-retirement gratuity, entitlement for leave encashment benefit and other pensionary benefits along with interest from the date of retirement to one Malathi B. "We are not persuaded to accept that the pensionary and retiral benefits of respondent No.1 could be withheld indefinitely on account of a possible disciplinary proceedings at a future date," the bench said.
Case Title: SRI HONNESHWARASWAMY DEVASTHANA JEERNODHARA SEVA SAMITHI TRUST (R) AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 25313/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 301
The Karnataka government informed the High Court on Wednesday that it "will withdraw notice" a notice issued by the concerned jurisdictional police stipulating not to sacrifice animals and consume non-vegetarian food around the precincts of Sri Honneshwara Deity temple located in Shivanagere Village in Tumakuru district.
The state government said that it would issue a fresh notice within a week, "limiting it only to sacrifice of animals".
Justice B M Shyam Prasad accordingly disposed of a petition filed by the Honneshwaraswamy Devasthana Jeernodhara Seva Samithi Trust (R) had challenged the notice issued to it by the police dated July 13, 2024 stipulating that no one should sacrifice or consume meat for an area around 200 meters from the temple.
Case Title: Chandrappa AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 75 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 302
The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the act of sexual assault on a minor girl by a married man is unpardonable and has to be viewed strictly, not only in order to restore the confidence in the minds of children and women, but also to send a strong signal to society at large.
It held, “It is noticed here that, the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is so susceptible to persons like appellant, for the purpose of exploitation. Hence, it is high time to send a strong signal to the society at large to be more vigilant on women and children belonging to weaker sections of the society.”
Case Title: Sunil H Bohra & Others AND Assistant Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13448 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 303
The Karnataka High Court has recommended to the Union Government to revisit Section 9 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, which prescribes a ceiling of Rs 10,000 which can be ordered to be paid as maintenance to senior citizens by the Tribunal.
Justice M Nagaprasanna said “This Court deems it fit to recommend, with earnestness that the Union revisit Section 9 and revise the ceiling in tune with the cost of living index, so that the Act may not be reduced to a hollow promise, but remain a living guarantee of dignity in old age, as the Nation's wealth is not measured by its material progress, but by the welfare of the child and the care of the elderly-old.”
It also opined, “The Court laments of neglected elders and resonates as a clarion call to the legislature that the aged must not be abandoned to indignity, that maintenance must match reality and the twilight of life must not be shadowed by want, but illuminated by care.”
Case Title: State Bank of India AND M/s Swait Agencies & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105775 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 304
The Karnataka High Court has said that once the property is said to be a secured property (secured asset), it would be subject to Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI) and cannot be made subject to rights of any third parties.
The court said that any person having any interest in the secured interest cannot agitate that claim before the magistrate exercising powers under Section 14, but he has to avail remedy under Section 17 by filing appeal before the Debts Recovery Tribunal.
Case Title: Vikas Kumar S J AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12352 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6267 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an attempt to murder case registered against an Indian Air Force Officer, who was involved in a road rage fight with a call centre employee in Bengaluru.
Notably the video of the fight between the accused Shiladitya Bose and one Vikas Kumar S J had gone viral on social media. Initially based on the complaint filed by Bose's wife Madhumita, who is a squadron leader and was driving the car when the incident occurred the Byappanahalli police, arrested Kumar under sections 115(2), 116(H), 117(1), 118(1), 126(2), 3(5), 324, 351, 352 OF BNS 2023.
However, acting on cross complaint filed by Kumar and on going through the CCTv footage the police had registered the case against the Air Force officer under Sections 109 (attempt to murder), 115(2) (voluntarily causing hurt), 304 (snatching for theft), 324 (crime of mischief), 352 (intentional insult with an intent to provoke breach of peace. Soon after the incident Bose had posted a video on social media claiming he was assaulted and verbally abused by a man in a road rage incident in Bengaluru, allegedly claiming that the biker assaulted him for not speaking Kannada.
Case Title: Prathap Simha v. State of Karnataka and Batch
Case No: WP 27595/2025 c/w WP 27692/2025, WP 27824/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court on Monday (September 15) dismissed pleas challenging State Government's decision to nominate author and Booker prize winner Banu Mushtaq as the Chief Guest for the inauguration of the upcoming Dasara Festival in Mysuru.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi after hearing the arguments said: "We are not persuaded to accept that permitting person of different faith to the function organised by the state violates any legal or constitutional right of petitioners or in any manner opposed to values enshrined in the Constitution of India. Accordingly, petitions are dismissed".
Case Title: Shaik Nowshera AND M/s 1-Help Technology And Software Solution Pvt Ltd & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6013 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6015 OF 2025 & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court recently held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of an offence under Negotiable Instruments Act, the proceedings cannot be quashed on a mere technical plea that the company has not been properly described in the cause title, unless it is demonstrably shown that no notice under Section 138(b) of NI Act, was served on the company.
A single judge, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said,“Where notice has been duly issued and served on the company through its CEO, MD or authorised signatory, the mere inversion or irregularity in the description of accused cannot be a ground to terminate the prosecution.”
It added “Service of notice on the officer who signed the cheque in his or her official capacity constitutes valid notice on the company itself. Conversely, where the company has been duly served, such notice, by operation of Section 141, is deemed notice to the Directors and officers responsible for the conduct of its business.”
Case Title: DR. SHIVANANDAPPA DODDAGOUDAR And THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 106571 OF 2025.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has said that medical reimbursement cannot be denied on the ground that a hospital which was earlier recognised by the Government in the list of private hospitals permitted to provide treatment to employees, changed its name.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Shivanandappa Doddagoudar an Associate Professor at Government First Grade College Ranebennur Taluka.
It said, “Medical reimbursement cannot be denied solely due to a change in the name of the hospital, even though it remains the same entity that was previously recognised.”
Case Title: K.S MANJUNATH GOWDA AND K.Y.NANJE GOWDA & Others
Case No: Election Petition 10 OF 2023.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the 2023 election of Congress Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) K Y Nanjegowda representing Malur constituency (Kolar district).
During the 2023 assembly election, Nanjegowda won by a margin of 248 votes against BJP candidate KS Manjunath Gowda.
Justice R Devdas, while allowing the petition filed by defeated candidate KS Manjunath Gowda said: “The elections petition is allowed in part directing recounting of votes and then to declare the results afresh. The election of Respondent no 1 to Malur Assembly constituency in Kolar District during the election held in May 2023, is hereby set aside.”
Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹50K Cost On Plea Seeking To Stall Release Of 'Jolly LLB 3' Film
Case Title: Syeda Neelfur AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27215/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed a public interest litigation filed seeking a direction to stop the release and exhibition of the film Jolly LLB 3 scheduled for release on September 19.
A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi dismissed the petition filed by Syeda Neelufur and imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for unjustifiable consumption of judicial time.
The court has directed the cost to be deposited with the court registry, failing which, the matter is to be listed again on October 4 for coercive steps against the petitioner.
Case Title: Sailen Das AND State By Kodigehalli Police Station & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.26873 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that criminal proceedings for cheating cannot be initiated against parties bound by a valid and subsisting contract.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Sailen Das, a Director in a private limited company.
The court said, “The admitted position remains that the parties are bound by a valid and subsisting contract and the controversy essentially pertains to the performance of obligations arising therefrom. Such disputes are, in their nature, civil and are amenable to adjudication before an appropriate forum in accordance with law.”
Case Title: M/s BEE JAY Engineers v. Commercial Tax Officer
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 106642 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has held that an officer below the rank of Joint Commissioner cannot, by himself, inspect the premises of the assessee without authorisation under Section 67 of the Central Goods and Services Tax.
The bench further stated that there is no requirement to provide a copy of the authorisation and details of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner, but the delegate who inspects or confiscates any document or goods would be required to provide the details of the authorisation to the taxable person.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj stated that it would, however, be required that the concerned Officer, who carries out the inspection in terms of Subsection (2) of Section 67 of the Act, at least inform the taxable person of the authorisation having been received from the Joint Commissioner.
Case Title: M/s NCS Pearson INC. v. Union of India
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court has stated that a failure to mention the correct value in returns or apply the correct GST rate is not suppression under section 74 of the Central Goods and Services Tax (CGST).
Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar stated that "...though the revenue alleged in the impugned SCN that the assessee failed to mention the value of services correctly in the GSTR-5A returns and apply the correct GST rate on the consideration received, the mere omission to mention the value of services correctly in the returns and/or apply the correct GST rate would not be tantamount to wilful suppression…"
The assessee/petitioner has a division “Pearson Vue” which is engaged in providing computer-based test administration solutions, and pursuant to its contract with GMAC, USA, the assessee conducts GMAT on behalf of GMAC for candidates in India.
Case Title: X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15957 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court recently drew an inference of the biological father's consent for the adoption of his minor son, after the father did not take a definite stand on whether his former wife can adopt the minor along with her now husband.
The mother (first petitioner) had approached the Central Adoption Resource Authority [CARA] for adoption of the minor. However, the State Adoption Resource Agency issued a communication calling upon her to provide consent of the biological father with whom her marriage had been dissolved.
Case Title: TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 27926/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Union Government on Monday informed the Karnataka High Court that it has relaxed the condition issued on September 9, mandating the declaration of revised retail sale price (MRP), on unsold stock manufactured/packed/imported, which would be effective from September 22, in addition to the existing retail sale price (MRP).
Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath placed on record a fresh advisory issued on September 18 and said, “We have superseded the impugned instruction and acceded to the suggestions made. They need not affix the sticker or stamping, it is a choice now and not mandatory.”
Case Title: SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2024 (GM - RES) with others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a Circular dated 03-09-2020, issued by the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Karnataka (KRERA), which mandated the levy of “delay fee” for belated submission of quarterly updates and annual audit statements by promoters, without distinction to scale of the project, the stage of development, or the peculiar circumstances surrounding it.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed a batch of petitions filed by promoters of various projects and said, “The circular purporting to impose delay fee is arbitrary, illegal and void, for the exactions made thereunder cannot be sustained in law and must in consequence, meet its inexorable fate - the fate of obliteration.”
Case title: PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: WP 29258/2025 and WP 29290/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) has refused to transfer the cases filed against former Hasan MP Prajwal Revanna for offences including sexual harassment, rape, etc, to another court after allegations of bias were raised by him against the presiding officer. Revanna had earlier been convicted for the offence of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment by the MP/MLA court.
Justice MI Arun held: "It is seen that the trial court intended to take the trial on a day-to-day basis. In the process any adjournments sought by the petitioner was frowned upon. The observations in the judgement may sound a bit harsh, but the same cannot be construed as bias on part of the presiding officer. Admittedly, the petitioner has tried to drag the case and resort to delay tactics, which has been frowned upon by the trial court."
Case Title: X CORP AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 7405/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 318
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (September 24) dismissed X Corp's plea seeking a declaration that Section 79(3)(b) of the Information Technology Act does not confer authority on Central government officers to issue information blocking orders, which can only be issued after following the procedure under Section 69A of the Act, read with IT Rules.
Justice M Nagaprassana while dictating the order said,
"Social media, as modern amphitheater of ideas, cannot be left in a state of anarchich freedom. Regulation of information in this domain is neither novel nor unique. United States of America regulates it. Every sovereign nation regulates it. And India's resolve likewise, cannot by any stretch of Constitutional imagination, be branded as unlawful. Unregulated speech under the guise of liberty becomes a license to lawlessness. Regulated speech by contrast, preserves both liberty and order, the twin pillars upon which the democracy must stand. No social media platform in the modern day agora may even seem the semblance of exemption from rigour of discipline of laws of the land. None may presume to treat the Indian marketplace as a mere playground where information can be disseminated in defiance of statute or disregard to legality, and later adopting a posture of detachment or a hands off...The content on social media needs to be regulated and its regulation is a must, more so in cases of offences against women in particular failing which right to dignity as ordained in the Constitution of a citizen gets railroaded. We are a society governed by laws. Order is the architecture of our democracy. Every platform that seeks to operate within the jurisdiction of our nation, which they do must accept that liberty is with responsibility and the privilige of access carries with it the solemn duty of accountability."
Case Title: Krishnamurthy AND The Director UIDAI & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 105596 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 319
The Karnataka High Court has held that UIDAI can be directed to provide details of usage of Aadhaar card and the location where it has been used to the police for investigating a missing person's complaint.
A single judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “When during the course of investigation by police authority or any investigating authority in the event of usage of Aadhaar card including authentication, etc. are required, an application can be made before the High Court in terms of Section 33 of the Act of 2016---Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) and the High Court could examine the same after providing an opportunity to the UIDAI Authority and pass such orders as just and necessary, including providing of details of usage of Aadhaar card and the location where it has been used.”
Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.21783 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 320
Disposing of a plea by an National Law School India University (NLSIU) student seeking alternate subject/exemption from studying Economics in view of her disability, the Karnataka High Court asked the varsity to have a liberal approach enabling the student to pass her first year course in case is clears all other subjects except Economics.
Justice R Devdas disposed the petition of a student who is stated to be suffering from specific learning disability known as 'Dyscalculia' resulting in difficulty in learning or comprehending Arithmetics, difficulty in understanding numbers, difficulty learning how to manipulate numbers, to perform mathematical calculations and difficulty in applying and analyzing such applications in/of Mathematics.
Case Title: Dror Shlomo Goldstein AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 22042/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 321
The Karnataka High Court on Friday permitted the Union of India to issue necessary travel documents to enable a mother and her children, who were found living in a cave in the state's Uttara Kannada district (Gokarna), to travel back to Russia.
Justice B M Shyam Prasad disposed of the petition filed by Dror Shlomo Goldstein, who claims to be the father of the children and had approached the court seeking to restrain the government from proceeding with the "sudden deportation" of his minor daughters from India to any other country.
Case Title: Syed Parveez Mushraff AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1493 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 323
Quoting Mahatma Gandhi who had said, "The day a woman can walk freely on the road at night, that day we can say that India has achieved independence”, the Karnataka High Court rejected a man's bail plea who is accused of facilitating the co-accused to commit rape on 19-year-old girl.
Justice S Rachaiah, rejected the appeal filed by appellant Syed Praveez Musharaff who along with co-accused has been booked under BNS sections 115(2)(Voluntarily causing hurt), 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 351(criminal intimidation), 64(rape), 3(5)(common intention) and provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, noting that the appellant also had the intention to commit rape upon the victim.
Case Title: DODDAGIRIYAPPACHARI AND The Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14207 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 324
The Karnataka High Court has differed from the view of a co-ordinate single bench which had held that that if land already restored in grantee's favour is sold again, the grantee is then not entitled to invoke Karnataka SCST (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) (PTCL) Act for a second time seeking resumption and restoration of the lands.
Justice R Devdas held PTCL Act does not prohibit filing of an application even if granted lands are transferred after being resumed and restored in favour of grantee or his legal heirs in an earlier round of litigation.
For context, in April Justice N S Sanjay Gowda in the case of Smt. Rudramma and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others had held that Section 4 of the Act is attracted only when the granted lands have been transferred for the first time in contravention of the terms of the grant and that it does not govern transfer made after the lands have been resumed and restored to the grantee.