NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320 - 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334]

State of Rajasthan v Bhagwan Singh; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Maneesha; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

Anupama Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

Lekhraj v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

Rani Devi v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

Suresh Sharma v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v Sagar Mal Handala & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

Vikram & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 328

Chandra Kanta Pahariya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

Fateh Rai Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

Antima Jain v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 331

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Amita Sharma, and other connected appeals; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

Ajay Sarin & Anr. v MRF Limited & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

Rajasthan High Court Advocates Associates v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334

Bhuri v State of Rajasthan

Suo Motu- In Re- Structural integrity, safety and imminent peril to human lives arising from the Central Dome and allied defects in the Building of the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

Avinash Singh v Union of India & Ors.

Order/Judgments of the Week

Prior Sanction Required If Cognizance Taken After 2018 PC Act Amendment, Even If Chargesheet Filed Earlier: Rajasthan High Court

Title: State of Rajasthan v Bhagwan Singh

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 320

The Rajasthan High Court has held that requirement of taking prior sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “Act”) gets attracted even in a case where the offence was committed before the relevant amendment in 2018, but cognizance was yet to be taken in the case.

The bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur observed that the amended Section 19 created a statutory bar upon the competence of the Court to take cognizance until the previous sanction was obtained. The provision neither regulated the stage of investigation or the filing of the police report.

“The legislature has consciously chosen the stage of cognizance as the point at which compliance with the requirement of previous sanction becomes mandatory. Consequently, the date of commission of offence or submission of the charge-sheet cannot, by themselves, determine the applicability of the amended provision,” it held.

Suspension Order Not Invalid Merely Because It Doesn't Expressly State Inquiry Is Contemplated: Rajasthan High Court

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Maneesha

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321

The Rajasthan High Court has held that where the application of mind by the concerned authority was apparent in a suspension order, such that it reflected that disciplinary proceedings were warranted, then omission of specific terms like “in contemplation of inquiry” would not render the order illegal. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 321]

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana further stated that servicing of charge sheet to the concerned employee within 3 months of passing the suspension order was not a mandate but only a directive, and failure to issue the charge sheet within this timeline, did not make the suspension bad.

Rajasthan High Court Directs Reimbursement Of COVID-Era Medical Expenses Incurred At Non-Recognised Hospital

Title: Anupama Prasad v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 322

The Rajasthan High Court has directed the government to reimburse the medical claim of an ex-Associate Professor at University of Rajasthan, who underwent treatment at multiple hospitals during Covid-19, before finally succumbing to the illness.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that during unprecedented times of Covid 19, when immediate availability of medical care was of paramount importance, denial of medical reimbursement on the ground of non-recognised hospital and absence of any emergent condition, could not be sustained.

Rajasthan High Court Flags 'Systemic Fraud' In Murder Trial; Orders Inquiry Into Trial Court, Prosecutor

Title: Lekhraj v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 323

While hearing a bail application, Rajasthan High Court raised apprehension of a “systemic fraud”, involving the trial court as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor (PP), in the background of a lapse of almost two years between the examination in chief and the cross-examination of the star witness in a murder case.

The bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain has directed the Registrar (Vigilance) to inquire into the affairs of the trial court in relation to this delay, and place a report before the Court. Similarly, the Principle Secretary. Law and Legal Affairs has been directed to call for an explanation from the Additional PP and submit the inquiry report before the Court.

“Now, no one is there to protect the system when the persons in helms of affairs are indulged in destroying the system.”

Rajasthan High Court Grants Bail To 60-Year-Old Woman In NDPS Case Arrested Over Calls With Co-Accused Son-In-Law

Title: Rani Devi v State of Rajasthan

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 324

Rajasthan High Court granted bail to a 60 year woman, accused in an NDPS Case solely based on the confessional statements of the co-accused, who was her son-in-law as well as their call details that revealed conversations between the two.

The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand took note of the “special circumstances” of the relationship between the applicant and the co-accused. It opined that conversation between the mother-in-law and son-in-law was natural, which could not be made a ground to implicate the applicant.

The Court further highlighted that no recovery was made at the instance of the applicant, and she was in custody since the date of her arrest.

'Adopted Son-In-Law' Status Unknown To Law: Rajasthan High Court Rejects Compassionate Appointment Plea

Title: Jitendra Kumar v State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 666/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 325

The Rajasthan High Court has held that adoption creates a legally recognised relationship only between an adoptive parent and an adopted son or daughter, and that there is no legally recognised category of an “adopted son-in-law”.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sanjeet Purohit thus dismissed a special appeal filed by a man seeking compassionate appointment on the basis of an adoption deed executed by his father-in-law, observing that an adoption deed purporting to create the status of an “adopted son-in-law” seeks to establish a status “completely unknown to law”.

"Correspondingly, the only relationship capable of being brought into existence through adoption is that of an adoptive parent and adopted son or daughter. There is no legally recognized category of an “adopted son-in-law” or of the converse status of an “adoptive father-in-law” which can possibly be established through the institution of adoption".

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Charge-Sheets Against Two PWD Engineers Over 'Grave Deficiencies' In Construction Of New HC Building

Title: Suresh Sharma v State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 105/2026,

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 326

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld chargesheets issued against two PWD engineers in disciplinary proceedings initiated over "grave" deficiencies in construction of high court's new building at Jodhpur.

Noting that multiple incidents of roof collapsing have occurred, the bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja observed:

"once it is found that there were serious lapses in construction work, the issuance of charge-sheets by the respondents to the appellants who were working as Project Director and Project Officer, respectively, cannot be faulted."

Minister Had No Authority To Cancel Highest Bid, Housing Board's Post-Facto Approval Was 'Paper Formality': Rajasthan High Court

Title: Rajasthan Housing Board & Ors. v Sagar Mal Handala & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 327

The Rajasthan High Court has upheld a Single Bench order directing the Rajasthan Housing Board to accept the highest bid submitted by a bidder in an auction for a commercial plot, holding that the Minister of the Urban Development and Housing Department had no authority under the applicable rules to cancel the bid and that the subsequent approval by the Housing Board was merely a “paper formality.”

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bhuwan Goyal further held that once an e-auction is conducted without any illegality in the auction process, the highest bid cannot be cancelled merely on the ground that another plot in the same vicinity had fetched a higher price.

Existing Houses Near Kumbhalgarh Fort Can Be Repaired, Expanded; No New Construction On Fresh Foundations: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Vikram & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 328

Holding that persons residing near archaeological sites for generations cannot be ousted merely in the name of protecting such sites, the Rajasthan High Court has permitted residents of existing houses near Kumbhalgarh Fort to carry out repairs and additional construction over those structures, subject to requisite permissions.

The division bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed that residences in forts are not a new feature in Rajasthan and that people residing in and around forts for centuries cannot be ousted by refusing permission to carry out repairs and expansion.

The Court however clarified that its observations did not permit fresh construction involving new foundations.

Child Born Before Govt Service Not To Count Towards Maternity Leave Entitlement: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Chandra Kanta Pahariya v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 329

The Rajasthan High Court has granted relief to a woman government employee who was denied her second maternity leave during service on the ground that the child in question was her third biological child.

The bench of Justice Rekha Borana observed that the entitlement to maternity leave of a woman government employee cannot be construed in a narrow manner. Since the leave sought by the petitioner was only her second maternity leave during service, it could not have been denied merely because the child was her third biological child.

Passing Erroneous Quasi-Judicial Order Without Mala Fides, Corruption Not Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Fateh Rai Soni v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 330

The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed on a retired officer of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, who was accused of passing a wrongful decree in a tenancy suit and erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, opining that an alleged erroneous quasi-judicial order was not misconduct.

The bench of Justice Mukesh Rajpurohit observed that disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated against an officer exercising judicial/quasi-judicial powers merely because another authority formed a different legal opinion or considered the decision to be erroneous, unless there existed recklessness, mala fides, corrupt motive, or dishonest intention.

Failure To Substantiate Reserved Category Claim Doesn't Disentitle Candidate From Competing In General Category On Merit: Rajasthan High Court

Title: Antima Jain v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 331

The Rajasthan High Court has held that a candidate's failure to substantiate a claim for reservation does not disentitle them from being considered in the General category on their own merit.

While underscoring the aforementioned principle, the division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Ashutosh Kumar granted relief to the petitioner whose candidature was rejected after she failed to produce OBC category document, despite her marks being above the cut-off for General Category.

The Court opined that rejection of her candidature was the result of an erroneous compartmentalization of categories, wherein reservation was treated as a rigid slot that foreclosed considering on merit in the open category.

Unrebutted Communication From Competent Authority Prevails Over Information Received Via RTI: Rajasthan High Court

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Amita Sharma, and other connected appeals

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 332

The Rajasthan High Court has observed that a communication issued by a competent authority would prevail over information furnished under the Right to Information Act, particularly when there is no material on record rebutting the contents of the official communication.

A division bench of Justice Inderjeet Singh and Justice Sandeep Taneja made the observation while allowing a batch of appeals filed by the State against a Single Judge's order directing the appointment of the respondents to the post of Prabodhak.

Rajasthan High Court Quashes ₹2.25 Crore Security Bond Imposed 'Without Reasons' For Issuing Succession Certificate

Title: Ajay Sarin & Anr. v MRF Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 333

The Rajasthan High Court has held that while exercising discretionary powers under Section 375 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a District Judge must record at least some justification or reasons before imposing a condition requiring an applicant to furnish a security bond for the grant of a succession certificate.

The bench of Justice Sudesh Bansal set aside the order of the trial court as well as the appellate court that had imposed the condition of furnishing security bond of Rs. 2.25 Crores on the petitioners for issuance of succession certificate, without any reason mentioned in the relevant orders.

Lawyer Dies Of Heart Attack At Sessions Court: Rajasthan High Court Calls Lack Of Medical Facilities 'Alarming', Orders Immediate Action

Title: Rajasthan High Court Advocates Associates v State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19231/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 334

The Rajasthan High Court has called for immediate action from the State Government to provide basic medical facilities in the Sessions Court Complex at Jodhpur, after noting that a lawyer unfortunately passed away due to lack of primary treatment after suffering from a heart attack.

Calling the situation alarming, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand directed:

"The above narrated situation is alarming. The respondent- State being welfare State is duty bound to provide basic medical facilities to the Lawyers, Presiding Officers, litigants and the general public visiting the Sessions Court Complex on a day-to- day basis".

Other Developments

Rajasthan High Court Flags 'Menace' Of Fake Birth Certificates In Habeas Corpus Cases, Orders Steps To Prevent Illegal Issuance

Title: Bhuri v State of Rajasthan

The Rajasthan High Court has flagged the growing "menace" of forged and illegally issued birth certificates being produced in habeas corpus petitions to portray missing minor girls as majors, directing the State Government to ensure that such certificates are not issued without due verification of facts and in violation of statutory provisions.

The division bench of Justice Mahendra Kumar Goyal and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to issue necessary instructions to the authorities concerned not to issue birth certificates dehors the statutory provisions or in a casual manner without due verification. The Court also directed that appropriate disciplinary proceedings be initiated against erring officials.

Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Notice Of Structural Defects In Own Building After IIT Bombay Warns Central Dome May Collapse Any Time

Title: Suo Motu- In Re- Structural integrity, safety and imminent peril to human lives arising from the Central Dome and allied defects in the Building of the Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat, Jodhpur.

The Rajasthan High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the serious structural defects in its Principal Seat building at Jodhpur, including the Central Dome, after an ongoing structural audit by the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Bombay indicated that the Dome is at risk of imminent collapse.

A Division Bench of Dr. Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Praveer Bhatnagar noted that, according to the expert opinion of IIT Bombay, the Central Dome, situated at a height of approximately 21 metres, is in a state of imminent collapse and “may fall at any moment”, exposing persons within the premises to grave and irreversible danger.

The Court accordingly registered the matter as a suo motu PIL and directed several immediate safety measures, including preparation and circulation of a detailed safety and evacuation protocol to all stakeholders within 48 hours, followed by mock drills within 72 hours.

Rajasthan High Court Restrains Railways' Construction In Front Of Private Plot

Title: Avinash Singh v Union of India & Ors.

The Rajasthan High Court has restrained the Railways from carrying out any further construction in front of a private plot in Jaipur, after the petitioner alleged that a proposed boundary wall could block his access to a 200-feet-wide road shown in his registered lease deed and site plan.

Justice Anand Sharma passed the order in a writ petition filed by Avinash Agarwal, who claims to be the owner and occupant of the said plot.

It was submitted that, without following due process of law, the Railways had started raising a boundary wall in front of the plot, which could close the petitioner's access to the road shown in the site plan.

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

NOMINAL INDEX

Swamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

Srushti v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 291

Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

Fr. Elias Daniel & Ors. vs. Department of Internal Administration & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS v UNION OF INDIA & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294

Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295

SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296

PROF DR KAUSHIK MAJUMDAR v/s INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299

Hindu Jagarana Vedike v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 301

MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Duo Accused Of Assaulting Lodge Owner After Mistaking 'CSK Comforts' For IPL Team Reference

Case Title: Swamy & Anr. v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition (Crl.P) of 2026 (under Section 483 BNSS)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287

The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to two persons arrested for allegedly assaulting a lodge owner over his decision to name his lodge 'CSK Comfort'- a name the accused believed was a reference to the 'Chennai Super Kings' cricket team of IPL (Indian Premier League). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 287]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the bail petition filed by Swamy and Suprith, accused in a crime registered by Tilak Park Police Station, Tumakuru.

According to the FIR, on June 1, 2026, there was an IPL match between Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) and Gujarat Titans (GT). The complainant was running a lodge in the name of 'CSK Comforts'.

After the match ended, the accused allegedly came near the said lodge, and enquired why he had kept the name 'CSK' for the said lodge. Though the proprietor-complainant explained that 'CSK Comforts' does not refer to the 'Chennai Super Kings' cricket team, the accused allegedly abused and assaulted him, and caused damage to his property.

Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts During Investigation Under Section 106 BNSS: Karnataka High Court In Jar Gold Case

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. JAR Gold Retail Private Limited & Connected Matters

Case Nos: Crl.P. 5929/2026, 5930/2026, 5935/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288

The Karnataka High Court has held that investigating officers are empowered to freeze bank accounts during investigation under Section 106 of the BNSS and are not required to invoke Section 107 for attachment of property in every case. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 288]

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna made the ruling while allowing criminal petitions filed by the State of Karnataka against JAR Gold Retail Private Limited and setting aside orders of the jurisdictional court directing the defreezing of the company's bank accounts.

The Court held that Sections 106 and 107 of the BNSS operate in distinct fields and that interpreting Section 107 as the sole mechanism for securing bank accounts would render Section 106 ineffective.

“…Section 106 and 107 of the BNSS deals with different situations. An interpretative exercise that breathes life into one provision by suffocating the another is one that this Court could never undertake. The submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent[Jar Gold] would tumble down under the weight of the statutory text, binding precedents, legislative intent and inevitable consequence of the interpretation canvassed hereinabove…”, it observed.

ALSO READ-'Money Flies' In Cybercrimes; Police Need Not Obtain Prior Magistrate Approval To Freeze Bank Account During Probe: Karnataka High Court

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain NEET Student's Plea Alleging Marks Mismatch After NTA Says Screenshot Of Website Is Forged

Case Title: Srushti v. Union of India & Ors.

Case No: WP 23373/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289

The Karnataka High Court on Monday [August 10] refused to entertain a NEET aspirant's plea who had alleged a "massive discrepancy" between her online marks and her official scorecard, after the National Testing Agency (NTA) contended that the document in question [screenshot allegedly taken from the website] was forged and did not originate from its website.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 289]

The Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerjee and T.P Vivekananda was hearing a plea filed an 18-year-old student from Vijayapura, who claimed that while a screenshot she possessed showed her securing 454 marks, her official scorecard reflected only 191 marks.

During the proceedings, the NTA, represented by Senior CGC Vinay Venugopal refuted the petitioner's claims. The testing agency submitted that the screenshot relied upon by the student was never generated from its official portal and amounted to a fabricated document.

Hearing this, the court orally expressed strong displeasure over the manner in which the petition was pursued. The bench cautioned the parents of the petitioner for exploiting the court's leniency towards minors.

'Police Can't Conduct Roving Enquiry In Guise Of Inquest': Karnataka High Court Quashes Notices To Hospital, Staff In Unnatural Death Case

Case Title: Dr. Vinuta B. & M/s Kids Clinic India Ltd. (Cloudnine Hospital) v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: WP 19927/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290

The Karnataka High Court has on August 10 [Monday] quashed the multiple notices under Section 94 and Section 179 of BNSS issued by the police to Cloud Nine Hospital and its staff-including its female employees, in connection with the unnatural death of a patient following a polypectomy procedure. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 290]

“….when the petitioners have responded to every notice, furnished every document sought, cooperated throughout the enquiry, and yet continue to be subjected to successive requisitions wholly disproportionate to the object of an enquiry under Section 194 of the BNSS, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned notices amount to a patent abuse of the process of law. Their continuation would not advance the object of the inquest; it would only legitimise an exercise of power that the statute itself does not sanction”, the single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted in the order while quashing the notices issued by the police.

'Omnibus Statement' To Elicit Different Views Not Blasphemous: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against News Anchor Over Remarks On Prophet

Case Title: Sri Ajit Hanumakkanavar v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.7417 of 2019

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 291

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against Suvarna News anchor Ajit Hanumakkanavar for allegedly making disrespectful remarks about Prophet Mohammad during a televised debate. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 291]

The single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani, while allowing the petition, observed that another complaint was registered against petitioner and Manager of Suvarna News 24/7 News Channel, in an FIR (Crime no.292/2018) lodged for offences under Sections 153A and 505(2) IPC which had been quashed.

The court observed that the main grounds of challenge were in respect of very same incident, wherein another FIR registered on similar allegations was quashed as the registration of multiple complaints was illegal and complaint "did not disclose essential ingredients for offences alleged".

Mere Ownership Of Land Where Transformer Is Installed Insufficient To Prosecute For Electrocution Death: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Smt. Nagarekha v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.104228 of 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292

Clarifying the criminal liability for electrocution deaths, the Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor who was charge-sheeted for the death of a labourer due to electrocution on her agricultural land. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 292]

The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanth Hegde held that mere ownership of property where a transformer is installed cannot attract criminal liability Section 304A IPC, unless there is an overt act or specific allegation of negligence against the owner.

“…In the complaint, it is stated that the electricity connection to the bore well was taken by…. accused No.2 and 3. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken any electricity connection to the bore well. There is no allegation that the petitioner has taken illegal electricity connection…. That being the position, in case the electric wire passing through the land of the accused No.1, the owner of the property cannot be accused unless an overt act on the part of the petitioner is established or pleaded. No such allegations are made…”, the court said while allowing the FIR quashing plea.

State Can't Appoint Special Public Prosecutor At 'Specific Request' Of Complainant: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Fr. Elias Daniel & Ors. vs. Department of Internal Administration & Ors.

Case No: WP No.1452/2024 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293

The Karnataka High Court has held that while State may on its own appoint a Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) where a case needs special knowledge, it however cannot appoint an SPP on the specific request of the complainant as it goes against principle of fairness required in a criminal trial. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 293]

In doing so the court quashed a State Government's notification appointing Advocate Sadashiva Murthy as SPP in the murder case of Fr. Thomas K.J., the erstwhile Rector of St. Peter's Pontifical Seminary in Bengaluru.

The petitioners, Fr. Elias Daniel, Fr. William Patrick, and Carmel Pete have been booked for offences under Sections 302, 201, 149 r/w Section 120B of IPC, for the murder of Fr. Thomas K.J. on March 31, 2013.

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held:

“…. An accused has no right to choose, or to object to, the prosecutor who is to prosecute him. In the same way, a complainant can have no right to choose the prosecutor who is to prosecute the accused, and much less to have a particular person appointed by name. It is one thing for the State, on its own, to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor where the case needs special knowledge that the regular Public Prosecutor may not have. It is quite another thing for the State to appoint a named person at the specific request of the complainant. The first may be proper; the second is not, and it goes against the fairness that a criminal trial requires.”

26th Constitutional Amendment Abolishing Privy Purses Doesn't Alter Succession Law For Former Rulers' Estates: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: CHADURANGA KANTHARAJ URS v UNION OF INDIA & others, WRIT PETITION NO. 53075/2015

VENKATRAO Y. GHORPADE & another v UNION OF INDIA & others,

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.3221 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the vires, applicability of Section 5(ii) Hindu Succession Act–which exempts Act's applicability on estates passing to a single heir under a covenant between an erstwhile Ruler and the Indian Government or under a law enacted before the Act came into force–on personal properties, impartible estate of former rulers.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 294]

The Court held that the provision is not rendered redundant merely because Articles 291 and 362 of the Constitution— which guaranteed privy purse, rights and privileges to former Rulers — were deleted by the 26th Constitutional Amendment.

Justice MGS Kamal said:

“Articles 291 and 362 were only with respect to guarantees and assurances made by the Dominion of India with regard to payment of Privy Purse, personal rights, privileges, dignities and titles of erstwhile Rulers of Princely States of India and not with respect to their personal private properties and "Gaddi", impartible estate

The provisions of Section 5(ii) of the Act, 1956 will have its relevance to the extent of providing rules of succession to an 'impartible estate”, to be according to law and custom in view of covenants contained in instruments of merger at Article IV of Annexure-D and Article 5 of Annexure-F.

'Making Retired People Run Around': Karnataka High Court Raps State Over Delay In CM Housing Scheme, Orders Refund

Case Title: Smt. Lakshmamma vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: WP No. 33179/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295

The Karnataka High Court has rapped the State authorities for failing to complete a housing project under the Chief Minister's 1 Lakh Bengaluru Housing Scheme, despite receiving payment from a beneficiary, observing that the authorities were “making retired people run around”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 295]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj made the observation while allowing a petition filed by a woman seeking refund of the amount paid towards a flat under the scheme.

The Court directed the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation to refund the amount paid by the petitioner, along with 6% interest per annum calculated from the respective dates of payment until repayment. It orally remarked,

“…Retired people, you are making them run around”.

Lawyer's Professional Conduct Can't Be Criminalised Merely Because It Displeases Adversary: Karnataka High Court

SRI MAYUR D BHANU v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

WRIT PETITION No.16181 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296

While flagging the "disturbing trend" of criminal proceedings being lodged against lawyers for carrying out professional obligations, the Karnataka High Court remarked that as long as advocates act professionally their conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his advise displeases the adversary.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 296]

In doing so the court quashed a FIR against a lawyer over allegations of cheating and criminal intimidation where the lawyer, who appears for a co-accused, was accused of issuing a telephonic threat to the complainant.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:

"This Court has, of late, witnessed an increasing and disturbing trend where Advocates, merely because they discharge their professional obligations in representing litigants or legally assisting them, are sought to be implicated in criminal proceedings. Their only perceived offence is that they stood beside their clients, articulated their cause before judicial fora and performed the duties which the legal profession demands of them. Such attempts strike at the very independence of the Bar, an institution that forms one of the indispensable pillars sustaining the administration of justice.

So long as the Advocate acts within the bounds of law and professional ethics, his or her conduct cannot be criminalised merely because his representation or advise displeases the adversary. If criminal prosecution becomes the inevitable consequence of fearless advocacy, the legal profession itself would be reduced to one of apprehension rather than independence. The majesty of the Bar cannot be permitted to be diminished by disgruntled litigants wielding the criminal process as a weapon of retaliation or intimidation against officers of the Court".

Karnataka High Court Directs Statistical Institute To Construct Disabled-Friendly Quarters Within 2 Yrs, Irrespective Of Fund Availability

Case title: PROF DR KAUSHIK MAJUMDAR v/s INDIAN STATISTICAL INSTITUTE

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 12748 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

The Karnataka High Court has directed Bengaluru's Indian Statistical Institute to complete the proposed construction of disabled-friendly accommodation within two years, notwithstanding the availability of funds.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 297]

The court passed the order in a plea by a specially abled Associate Professor working with the institute who had sought various reliefs including direction to ISI Administrators to provide appropriate infrastructural facilities to the persons with physical disabilities in general and to the Petitioner in particular, including suitable accommodation, transportation and other facilities.

The plea further sought direction to ISI to constitute a permanent committee, within the ISI, at each of its Centres to deal with the issues confronted by disabled persons; to formulate appropriate policies providing for reservation for candidates with disabilities/physically handicapped persons in recruitment and promotions; as contemplated in Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights & Full Participation) Act 1995.

Renukaswamy Murder Case: Karnataka High Court Rejects Darshan's Plea To Be Heard In Co-Accused's Application To Turn Approver

Darshan v. State of Karnataka & Ors

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (August 13) dismissed a petition filed by Kannada actor Darshan, Accused No. 2 in the Renukaswamy murder case, challenging the trial court's refusal to allow him to file objections to a co-accused's application to turn approver.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 298]

Justice M Nagaprasanna held that a co-accused has no right of audience at the stage when a court is considering an application by another accused seeking pardon and permission to turn approver under Section 307 CrPC.

“….You are nobody. An accused is a nobody to say another co-accused turning an approver and his application for the same should seek the other accused's approval, or else, the application is not maintainable," the court orally observed.

Darshan had approached the High Court against an order of the trial court rejecting his request to file objections to the application filed by Pradosh Rao, Accused No. 14, seeking permission to turn approver in the high-profile murder case.

'Past Service In Different Cadre Cannot Be Counted For Career Progression Benefits, Mere 'Continuity' Not Enough: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr. Mohammed Shakeel Ansari v. Union of India & Anr.

Case No: Writ Petition No.6821 of 2023 (S-CAT)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition filed by a lecturer of the National Institute of Unani Medicine (NIUM) who sought counting of his past service as Clinical Registrar for extending benefits under the Dynamic Assured Career Progression (DACP) Scheme. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 299]

The Division Bench comprising Justice S.G. Pandit and Dr. Justice K. Manmadha Rao affirmed the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bengaluru Bench, which had earlier rejected the petitioner's claim.

“Much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that the petitioner entered the post of Lecturer by way of lateral entry without break in service.…Continuity of service is distinct from entitlement to count past service rendered in another cadre for promotional or financial benefits. Unless the governing Rules or the Scheme specifically provide for such reckoning, no such right can be claimed merely because there was no break in service…”, the Court clarified.

Can't Stop Independence Day Celebrations On Apprehension Of Communal Tension: Karnataka High Court Permits Hindu Body's Torchlight March

Case Title: Hindu Jagarana Vedike v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No. 25036 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (August 14) quashed the police's refusal to permit a torchlight march proposed by Hindu Jagarana Vedike in Mysuru, observing that citizens cannot be prevented from celebrating Independence Day over apprehensions of communal tension. [2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 300]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the authorities to permit the organisation to conduct its 'Akhanda Bharatha Sankalpa Diwas' torchlight march from RMC Ganesha Temple to Doddagadiyara Circle in Mysuru between 5:30 PM and 7:30 PM on August 14.

“…Independence Day is required to be celebrated by every citizen of India. Such being the case, the Independence Day is being proposed to be celebrated, there cannot be any issues raised as regards communal tension or otherwise… The last submission made by AAG is that as regards to some of the organising members, FIRs and chargesheets are filed, and there is a possibility of them involving in unlawful activities which could disturb public peace. Merely because chargesheets have been filed against certain persons does not mean they cannot be allowed to participate in Independence Day celebrations…”, the court observed

'Calculated Assault On Public Health': Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR Against Company Allegedly Re-Labeling & Selling Expired Food Products

Case Title: Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.9114/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)301

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Earth Recycler Pvt. Ltd. and its directors seeking quashing of the FIR registered against them for allegedly collecting expired food products, re-labelling them, and selling them to the unsuspecting public. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 301]

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the allegations of re-labelling expired food products and pushing them back into the market constitute a 'calculated assault on public health', and cannot be viewed as a mere regulatory infraction.

“…The re-labelling of expired food products and their re-entry into the stream of commerce is not a mere infraction of food-safety regulation; it is a calculated assault on public health. An expiry date is not an ornamental inscription on a package, capable of being erased and replaced at the whim of a trader. It marks the outer boundary beyond which the safety and quality of the product for human use can no longer be assured. Once that boundary is crossed, deterioration, microbial contamination, chemical alteration and loss of nutritional integrity may set in, sometimes silently and without any visible warning. …To erase an expiry date, affix a fresh label and place such a product back on the shelf is, therefore, to dress decay in the garb of freshness and deception in the attire of trade.”

Courts Must Strictly Follow 45-Day Timeline Under BNSS For Disposal Of Seized Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MUKESH JAIN v STATE OF KARNATAKA

WRIT PETITION No.5267 OF 2026 (GM - RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

The Karnataka High Court has held that courts dealing with seized property under Section 497 BNSS must strictly adhere to the prescribed timelines for its disposal, requiring preparation of the property's statement within 14 days of its production before the court and an order regarding its disposal, destruction, confiscation or delivery within the subsequent 30 days.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 302]

Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that Section 497(2) and Section 497(5) BNSS collectively prescribe a 45-day period from the date of seizure for the concerned court or Magistrate to pass an order regarding disposal of the seized property.

“The timeline for disposal of property that is confiscated is under two provisions of law. One is under Section 497 (2) of the BNSS where preparation of statement of all properties brought before the Court must be done within 14 days from the production of properties and two, under Section 497(5) of the BNSS which mandates the concerned Court to pass an order for disposal of the property within 30 days from the date of preparation of the statement under Section 497(2) of the BNSS. Therefore, in all, the concerned Court is required to pass an order within 45 days from the date of the seizure,” Justice M Nagaprasanna observed.