Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: August 11 To August 17, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

Nominal Index:

Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

Judgments/Orders

Civil Suit Seeking Corrections In Birth/Death Certificate Not Maintainable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Suhas L AND The Chief Registrar Births And Deaths & Others

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.2454 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil suit for seeking rectification of entries in a Death Certificate is not maintainable.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “This Court is of the considered view that the present suit, filed before the Civil Court seeking rectification of entries in the Death Certificate, is not maintainable. There exists a clear bar under Section 9 of the CPC, as the nature of the relief falls exclusively within the domain of the Registrar under Section 15 of the 1969 Act (Registration of Births And Deaths Act)."

Karnataka High Court Closes The News Minute's Plea After Trial Court Refuses To Extend 'Gag' Order In Dharmasthala Burial Case

Case Title: Spunklane Media Private Limited AND Harshendra Kumar D

Case No: Writ Petition No 23819/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

The Karnataka High Court was on Monday (August 11) informed that the trial court had refused to extend its July 18 ex-parte interim 'gag' order restraining various media entities and YouTube channels from publishing any "defamatory content" about Harshendra Kumar D and his kin, in connection with the Dharmasthala Burial case.

The development happened in a plea filed by Spunklane Media Pvt. Ltd., a company which owns and operates 'The News Minute' web portal, challenging the ex-parte interim 'gag order'.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Abetment FIR Against Wife Despite Husband's Suicide Note

Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100661 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

The Karnataka High Court quashed an abetment to suicide FIR lodged against a woman after her estranged husband allegedly committed suicide, noting that there was no act mentioned in his "death note" which had any nexus to his death.

Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed a petition filed by the woman booked for abetment to suicide (Section 108 BNS) observing that a reading of the complaint in the case would show that necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence were not found.

'PIL Not For Litigants To Vent Ideas': Karnataka High Court Fines Man ₹1 Lakh For Seeking Discussion On Bill Drafted By Him

Case Title: Murali Krishna Brahmandam AND Chief Secretary & Others

Case No: WP 23824/2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed a fine of Rs 1 Lakh on a litigant seeking direction to various government departments to discuss 'Karnataka Government Transformation Bill 2025' which was drafted by him.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar while dismissing a petition filed by one Murali Krishna Brahmandam said PIL (jurisdiction) is not for litigants to vent their ideas, however bright they may be.

The petitioner who claimed to be a political economist had approached the court seeking a direction to all the concerned principal secretaries, secretaries, and special secretaries of the 34 ministries and their 44 departments of Karnataka to discuss and propose the Karnataka Government Transformation Bill, 2025, which was drafted by him.

'How Can We Compel State?' High Court Rejects PIL Questioning Karnataka Govt's Decision To Stall National Education Policy

Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others Case No: WP 5838/2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 12) dismissed a PIL challenging Congress-led State government's 2023 decision to stall implementation of the Centre's National Education Policy 2020.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar observed that it cannot intervene in matters of policy unless the Petitioner establishes violation of any Fundamental/ statutory rights.

“How can we direct the government to follow a particular policy and not to follow a particular policy? Under which law can we compel them (State government) to accept or reject a policy?” the judges orally remarked during the hearing.

Karnataka High Court Rejects Pleas Against Mandatory Smart Electricity Meters, Says Identical Matter Pending Before Division Bench

Case Title: Jayalakshmi M AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 12535/2025 c/w WP 12987/2025

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

The Karnataka High Court today refused to entertain two petitions filed questioning State's decision mandating new electricity consumers to install smart pre-paid meters, the cost of which is higher than what is prevalent in neighbouring states.

Justice M Nagaprasanna had reserved orders in the matter on July 22. However, noting that a PIL raising similar issues is already pending before a division bench of the High Court, the judge said, "Judicial discipline demands, hierarchy and propriety requires this Court to show judicial hands off to the present petitions. Therefore the subject petitions are not entertainable."

Karnataka High Court Holds RTI Act Applies To Nirmiti Kendras, Slaps ₹50K Costs For Denying Information

Case Title: PIO & THE PROJECT DIRECTOR NIRMITI KENDRA AND THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 52581 OF 2017

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

The Karnataka High Court has held that Nirmiti Kendras qualify as 'public authority' in terms of Section 2(h) of the Right To Information Act and thus, they are bound to disclose available information under the Act.

For context, the object of Nirmiti Kendra is to develop skills in the construction area and carry out civil contracts assigned by the State.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the petition filed by the Public Information Officer of the Kendra, who had approached the court challenging an order of the State Information Commissioner directing it to provide necessary information sought for by the applicant.

Denial Of Admission To Student By A Private Unaided School Does Not Violate Article 21: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Muzammil Kazi & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.101767 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere non-admission of a minor student in a private unaided school would not amount to a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by Muzammil Kazi, who had approached the court seeking a direction to St. Paul's High School to admit his minor son to its school in LKG grade.

The bench said, “The mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21, inasmuch as the petitioners have access to various other schools where petitioner No.2 could apply and obtain admission.”

Labour Engaged Through Contractor For Maintenance, Repair Of Factory Premises Qualify As 'Employee' Under ESI Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Assistant Director, ESI Corporation AND M/s. Sansera Engineering P Ltd

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3687 OF 2016.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

The Karnataka High Court has held that labourers engaged through contractors for construction and repair works within a factory premises are treated as 'employees' within the meaning of Section 2(9) of the Employees State Insurance (ESI) Act.

Justice Ramchandra D Huddar added that in such a case, contribution under the Act will have to be paid by the company employing them. The bench reasoned, "Expression `Employee' under Section 2(9) of the Act has been defined in conclusive and expansive terms. It not only encompasses persons directly employed by the Principal Employer but, also includes persons employed through an immediate employer (such as a contractor) so long as they are engaged in connection with the work of the factory or establishment or work which is incidental or preliminary to or connected with the main work of the factory."

Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Subsequent Reference To Labour Court After Either Party Disputes Earlier Settlement

Case Title: Ramamurthy C K & Others AND Bosch Limited & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.17695 OF 2021 (L-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.12656 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.21703 OF 2021 (L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23395 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.23730 OF 2021(L) WRIT PETITION NO.23786 OF 2021(L-RES) WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2022

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

The Karnataka High Court has held that if a dispute is raised questioning the validity of a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, before a conciliation officer, the appropriate Government is required to assign reasons for referring it to adjudication.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde held thus while partly allowing the petitions filed by the Management of Bosch Ltd which had challenged the order dated 28.06.2021, passed by the appropriate Government, referring the dispute raised by around 160 workmen for adjudication before the labour court.

The bench said, “Where at least one of the parties alleges that settlement is recorded under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947, in the presence of the Conciliation Officer, and the other party disputes it, the standard of scrutiny required to be undertaken by the appropriate Government under Section 12(5) is couple of degrees higher, as compared to disputes not emanating from a settlement under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1947.”

Export Incentives Can't Be Denied For Inadvertent Error In Shipping Bill: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Louis Dreyfus Company India Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 9005 OF 2025 (T-CUS)

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

The Karnataka High Court held that export incentives can't be denied for inadvertent error in shipping bill.

The bench opined that, …there are situations where the assessee by inadvertence or even otherwise has uploaded certificate/forms or returns which contains some errors which would require correction. The said correction or amendment cannot be denied on the basis of the technological system which has been introduced by the Department to contend that the software does not allow for such amendment…