Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322Nominal Index: X & ANR AND Central Adoption Resource Agency & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314TTK Prestige Limited AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 315SHARADA ACHAR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 316PRAJWAL REVANNA AND STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 317X CORP AND Union of...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 314 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
Nominal Index:
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
Judgments/Orders
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Additional Solicitor General Aravind Kamath placed on record a fresh advisory issued on September 18 and said, “We have superseded the impugned instruction and acceded to the suggestions made.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: X CORP AND Union of India & Others
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 322
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that X Crop, formerly Twitter, being a foreign entity cannot challenge Indian laws regulating social media here invoking Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Justice M Nagaprassana said that a company which is faceless in India, cannot on the basis of “baseless allegations”, come forward and challenge the laws of the nation.
“In the same manner, X Corp being faceless in the nation, operating as an intermediary, cannot challenge any of the statutes of the nation under the umbrage of Article 19. Its presence is not there. It cannot raise a challenge to the statutes regulating social media. If it wants to operate in the nation, it has to abide by the laws, as simple as that,” the Court said.
In its ruling running into 351 pages, the Court observed that X Corp is not a Company incorporated under any of the Indian laws nor has a face here. It added that X Corp is a “faceless Company”, with not even a legally established office anywhere in India.
“Article 19 of the Constitution undoubtedly gives its protective umbrella only to citizens. Fundamental rights obtaining under Article 19 are citizen centric and not person centric. The petitioner is not even a person, it is a Company. The petitioner being a Company, on the face of it, cannot contend that there is violation of fundamental rights,” the Court said.
“What the petitioner (X Corp) projects is, that he has a right to challenge all that he has brought before this Court, under the umbrella of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The challenge is repelled while answering issue No.7. Even otherwise, a foreign company, standing under the umbrella of Article 14, cannot raise a challenge which in effect would lead to interpretation of Article 19, or drawing support even from Article 19 of the Constitution. This is exactly what the petitioner is wanting to seek, project Article 14, take the rights that is unavailable only to citizens under Article 19(1)(a), notwithstanding the rigour of 19(2),” the Court said.
Further, it observed that X Corp's has the status of an intermediary under the IT Act, 2000 and nothing beyond it. It said that the company is neither a citizen of India nor a natural person who can be permitted to sue on the protective umbrella of Article 19.