The Karnataka High Court on Thursday granted interim protection to 15 street vendors operating in Bengaluru's Krishna Raja (K.R.) Market, restraining civic authorities from evicting them until August 31.

The Court also directed the Joint Commissioner of the Bengaluru Central City Corporation to state whether the petitioners could be permitted to occupy their present vending spots.

A single judge bench comprising Justice B M Shyam Prasad was hearing a writ petition filed by the vendors challenging the eviction drive launched under the 'Safe Pedestrian Path Campaign', which commenced on July 1 across Bengaluru's reorganised City Corporations.

The Court directed that no precipitative action be taken against the petitioners, subject to the condition that they do not put up any temporary or permanent structures in the area occupied by them and do not hinder access for ambulances, fire engines, police or other official vehicles.

Further, the Court asked the Joint Commissioner to take a stand on:

(a) Whether the petitioners could be permitted to occupy the places as seen in the photographs produced before this Court; and

(b) Whether the petitioners could participate or are entitled to the survey exercise to be undertaken”, the court added.

At the outset, the Court queried the petitioners about whether their vending spots were located in the quadrangle, open area or on the footpath. It also asked whether they blocked access to ambulances or other emergency vehicles.

Advocate Angad Kamath, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the vendors were occupying open spaces in the vicinity of K.R. Market and had been vending pursuant to licences issued in 2017. Though the licences had expired, it was argued that the petitioners were entitled to renewal or relocation under the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 and the Karnataka Street Vendors Scheme, 2020.

It was submitted that the vendors could not be evicted unless their applications for renewal were rejected. The petitioners further contended that a Town Vending Committee (TVC) could be constituted only after completion of a survey and that evictions could not be carried out without completing the statutory process.

The Court noted that it had recognised a limited right of street vendors while issuing directions in a similar matter disposed of yesterday[WP 23709/2026].

It also recorded the civic authorities' stand in similar cases that the eviction exercise was aimed at clearing footpaths and open areas where vending hindered access for ambulances, fire engines and transport vehicles.

The authorities had further submitted that a temporary TVC under the 2014 Act and the 2020 Scheme would identify and specify vending areas in four constituencies around K.R. Market and relocate vendors who could not be permitted to continue at their existing locations.

The Court also noted the civic body's submission that all street vending certificates had been withdrawn due to alleged fabrication, duplication and misuse, and that fresh certificates would be issued after a proper survey.

The matter will be taken up again on August 31.

Case Title: Shri Manjunath & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No.: WP No. 26107/2026

The Karnataka High Court on August 20 (Thursday) allowed a petition filed by B. Nagendra, a Cabinet Minister in the Karnataka Government, permanently relaxing a bail condition imposed on him in a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case arising out of the alleged misappropriation of funds from the Valmiki Scheduled Castes Development Corporation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311]

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna deleted the condition imposed by the trial court requiring Nagendra to obtain prior written permission before leaving Karnataka. The Court, however, made it clear that he cannot travel outside India without the permission of the concerned trial court or the High Court.

“….in light of him being a minister in the cabinet, and holding the portfolio…. would necessarily require him to travel beyond the shores of this jurisdiction. In light of the said circumstances, while observing that petitioner cannot travel without the permission of concerned court or this court beyond the shores of this nation, petitioner is free to travel within the country, as not permitting him to travel within the court would curtail his liberty and the post he is holding today …The Criminal Petition is hereby allowed…. Condition No. (c) imposed in the bail order dated 14.10.2024 in Crl. Misc. No. 7892/2024, which reads "The petitioner shall furnish his passport to the Court and shall not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court," stands deleted …”, the court said.

The condition deleted by the Court had required the petitioner to surrender his passport and not leave the State without obtaining written permission from the Court.

The Court had earlier granted interim relaxation of the condition after Nagendra was inducted into the State Cabinet and given a ministerial portfolio. Making the relaxation permanent, the Court noted that the circumstances had changed since the grant of bail, as his responsibilities as a Cabinet Minister could require him to travel outside Karnataka.

When the matter was taken up today, Senior Counsel K.N Phanindra for the petitioner submitted that the present circumstance is fundamentally different [changed circumstances] from when the bail was originally granted. It was argued that as a Cabinet Minister holding a portfolio, the petitioner may be required to travel beyond the jurisdiction of the trial court frequently.

It was further contended by the counsel that approaching the concerned trial court every time for permission would be impractical given the time consumed by such applications, which are not decided ex-parte but after hearing the State, and following the requisite procedure.

The Additional Solicitor General (ASG), appearing for the respondent ED, opposed the petition on several grounds: firstly that the petitioner ought to have approached the concerned trial court itself for dilution of the condition rather than directly approaching the High Court, and secondly that while changed circumstances may entitle an accused to seek relaxation, the petitioner had, for the last two years, consistently sought ad-hoc relaxation from the trial court whenever he needed to travel. Having accepted the condition for two years, he cannot now approbate and reprobate by seeking its permanent deletion, ASG argued further.

ASG asserted that since the petitioner had availed the remedy before the trial court all throughout, the proper remedy lies before that court alone.

Hearing both sides, the court reasoned that the exigencies of his office require him to travel beyond the shores of the State's jurisdiction.

The petitioner was earlier granted bail by the trial court in a case where he is booked for offences punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

The petitioner, who was initially an ordinary citizen facing criminal proceedings, has since been inducted into the Cabinet of Ministers in the Government of Karnataka. This induction necessitated that the Court hear the matter urgently, the court had noted in the earlier interim order too.

Case Title: B Nagendra v. Enforcement Directorate

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 12007/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 311

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a batch of writ petitions challenging the blacklisting orders passed by KIC against multiple RTI activists.

The Court expressed serious concern over the alleged misuse of RTI Act, noting that a few individuals have filed thousands of appeals, clogged the system and affecting administration. To address the issue at hand, the court passed the following directions:

“…. Each of the petitioners is hereby directed to file a detailed affidavit before this Court within 30 days from today (i.e., on or before September 21, 2026). The affidavit shall specifically detail the following: i) the total number of applications/appeals filed, ii) the date on which each application was filed, iii) the authority before whom each application was filed, iv) the specific documents and information sought in each application, v) the reasons for which the information was sought and vi) the purpose/place for which the said information/documents are intended to be utilized.”

The additional directions issued are as follows:

“The Karnataka Information Commission is directed to furnish a complete list of all the appeals filed by each of the petitioners before the Commission. This list shall be furnished to the respective petitioners on or before August 28, 2026. In view of the submissions made by Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda that the petitioners are insisting on the disposal of their appeals despite the pendency of these writ petitions, it is clarified that the Karnataka Information Commission need not proceed with the hearing/disposal of the appeals that are pending before it, which are the subject matter of these petitions, until further orders of this Court….”

When the matter was taken up initially, the Court expressed strong reservations about the sheer volume of applications/appeals filed by the petitioners before the Public Information Officers and KIC. When one petitioner- Jagadeesh M-who is a lawyer and Zilla Parishad member, claimed to have filed 1,294 appeals over six years seeking information about welfare schemes, the bench remarked:

“…So, at the rate of one application a day. This dumping of applications is not good. The issue happening is that they are not able to work because they are only looking at your applications, some of the information available on website that also, you are applying for”.

Subsequently, the court also noted that one petitioner- Davalsab M- had filed 14,774 second appeals before the Commission, while another fortnightly magazine owner-G R Sudheendra- had filed 6,482 appeals.

The bench orally observed,

“…9600 grievances cannot be genuine. No person can have 9600 grievances, then he has a lot of trouble in life…. Firstly, it will affect the functioning of administrative mechanism. It is not just RTI applications, there are other works also…Secondly, genuine applications are pending…Thirdly, the benefit of legislation if its misused will go…Like any good legislation if its misused it will create problems, if your clients are resorting to this, we have to intervene at the behest of genuine people”, the court said.

Similarly, when Sudheendra claimed to be running a fortnightly magazine and filing applications for investigative journalism purposes, the bench questioned:

"Investigative Journalism is not RTI Journalism….You have to do investigative journalism, not like this. So, you are going to publish 6,700 articles [referring to similar number of RTI applications preferred by him]? How many pages does your publication have?"

The Court orally observed that while the magazine reportedly has 100-200 pages published every 14 days, the volume of applications raised serious questions about their genuineness.

The petitioners, primarily, contended in unison that since the information was not furnished initially, the petitioners filed first and second appeals before KIC in exercise of their legal rights. They argued that this exercise of legal remedy cannot be faulted, and consequently, the petitioners ought not to have been blacklisted.

However, the court also took note of the respondent counsel's submission that KIC currently has approximately 45,000 pending appeals. According to the respondents, if just four such petitioners presently before the court were weeded out, nearly 20,000 appeals would be disposed of.

Advocate G.B. Sharath Gowda, appearing for KIC further submitted that the petitioners' appeals are clogging the system and coming in the way of genuine appeals being heard. On similar lines, it was also told by the AGA for the state that the volume of applications is affecting the daily functioning of public authorities and coming in the way of proper administration.

The amicus curiae, Maitreyi Krishna, appearing in the matter submitted that there is no specific provision under the RTI Act empowering the Commission to blacklist applicants. However, the Court noted that this aspect of power of KIC to blacklist requires consideration.

The matter will be taken up again on September 28.

Case Title: G.R Sudheendra v. State of Karnataka & POther Connected Matters.

Case No: WP 17771/2026 & Ors.