The Karnataka High Court has upheld the State’s authority to relax age limits in compassionate appointments, noting that such discretion aligns with the welfare purpose of supporting families of deceased employees.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna partly allowed the petition filed by Saroja Kondai and quashed the corporation’s order rejecting her request.

The Court observed that compassionate appointments are exceptions to regular recruitment, intended to alleviate sudden financial distress faced by bereaved families.

It further clarified that while age relaxation is permissible, the applicant’s age at the time of consideration should not exceed 43 years.

[Saroja Kondai v Managing Director & Others]

The Karnataka High Court has sought the State government’s clarification on whether permission and the landowner’s consent are required to bury a dead body on private property.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed while hearing a plea by H. Gopala Gowda, challenging an endorsement by the Assistant Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division, which rejected his request to exhume his daughter-in-law’s body, allegedly buried unlawfully in his premises.

The petitioner argued the act violated Section 95 of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, which restricts burials within 100 metres of a dwelling. The Court warned that allowing such burials could set a “dangerous precedent.”

[H. Gopala Gowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court waived the ₹50,000 cost earlier imposed on a lawyer who had filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking to halt the release of the film Jolly LLB 3.

The Court had previously dismissed the plea as frivolous, observing that it had unnecessarily consumed judicial time. During the review hearing, counsel clarified that the petitioner, a newly enrolled advocate, was facing personal hardship following her father’s demise.

Taking note of these mitigating circumstances, the Court decided to waive the cost but cautioned the petitioner against misuse of PILs and reminded her of the responsibility attached to invoking judicial remedies.

The Karnataka High Court is hearing a petition filed by Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and others seeking to quash an FIR registered against them for alleged abetment to suicide of a former company employee.

The complaint accuses the management of creating unbearable work conditions that allegedly drove the employee to take his life. Aggarwal’s counsel argued that the allegations are baseless, lacking specific evidence of any direct instigation or intent to abet suicide.

The petitioners have also sought interim relief, requesting a stay on the investigation and a direction restraining the police from taking any coercive action against them until the matter is adjudicated.

[Subrat Kumar Dash & Ors v State of Karnataka & Anr]

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has stayed the State Government’s order dated October 18 mandating private organisations to obtain prior written permission before conducting events or meetings on government or public land.

The petitioners argued that the directive curtailed their fundamental rights to free speech and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) of the Constitution.

The Bench observed that the impugned order was prima facie violative of citizens’ fundamental rights and emphasised that such constitutional freedoms cannot be curtailed through mere executive instructions.

The Court further held that any restriction on these rights must have proper legislative sanction, not administrative fiat.

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a rape case filed by a woman against a man she met on the dating app Bumble, holding that the relationship appeared consensual.

 The complainant alleged that the accused forced himself on her after she withdrew consent during intercourse in a hotel. The Court noted the man’s claim that police ignored chat records which, though indecent, reflected mutual intimacy.

The Court underscored the importance of distinguishing consensual sexual relationships from rape allegations. Finding the prosecution unsustainable, and held that continuing the trial would cause a miscarriage of justice and quashed the proceedings.

[Sampras Anthony v State of Karnataka]

The Karnataka High Court orally remarked that the petition filed by fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya seeking disclosure of outstanding debts and recoveries related to Kingfisher Airlines and United Breweries Holdings Limited was not maintainable.

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti observed that Mallya should have approached the Company Court instead, noting that the writ petition resembled an RTI request rather than a legal challenge. 

The Court was informed that liquidation proceedings and a misfeasance petition against Mallya are already pending before the Company Court.

Granting time for the appearance of senior counsel, the Court indicated it would hear the matter on November 4 before issuing further orders.

[Vijay Mallya v Recovery Officer-II & Ors.]

The Karnataka High Court held that passport information of an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is personal and cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that disclosure could endanger the accused’s life and safety. The Court noted an exemption under Sections 8(1)(h) and 24(4), as information impeding investigation or about Special Branch units falls outside the Act’s applicability.

The petitioner had sought the accused’s passport and lookout circular. The Court rejected the petition, clarifying that procedural access could be sought in the NI Act proceedings. 

[Praskash Chimanlal Sheth v. State of Karnataka]

The Karnataka High Court, in a recent judgment, dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, observing that his grievances were trivial and resolvable through mutual understanding.

The Division Bench of Justices Jayant Banerji and Umesh Adiga noted that the husband’s expectation of an “obedient and sincere maid” instead of a life partner reflected an inherently flawed mindset.

The couple, married in 2015, lived together for only ten days before separating. The Court also considered the husband’s refusal to facilitate employee relocation and visa processes. The Court held that the trial court rightly rejected the divorce petition.

The Kerala High Court has held that retired members of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) are entitled to the liquor quota benefit available to other armed forces veterans.

The ruling came in two petitions filed by the CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association and retired personnel, challenging a 2024 order of the CISF Director-General that denied them access to the Canteen Liquor Management System (CLMS).

The Court observed that CISF officers perform critical duties at central installations and directed the authorities to extend the liquor quota facility to retirees on par with other veterans of the armed forces.

[CISF Ex-Service Welfare Association v Union of India & Ors]

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that properties mortgaged to banks can be attached under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) only if they are directly connected to the proceeds of crime.

The Court clarified that simply mortgaging a property does not make it subject to attachment unless the transaction itself involves laundered money.

The Court emphasised that funds advanced by banks constitute public money lent in good faith and could not be regarded as tainted assets, thereby safeguarding legitimate financial transactions from the arbitrary application of the PMLA.

[Deputy Director v Asadullah Khan]

The Karnataka High Court granted protective orders to a technology company and its officials following the death of a 38-year-old engineer in Bengaluru on September 28, allegedly due to workplace pressure.

The deceased’s 28-page note reportedly alleged mental harassment and non-payment of salary by senior management, with approximately ₹17.46 lakh credited to his account two days post-mortem, prompting concern from his family.

On October 6, Bengaluru’s Subramanyapura Police Station registered an FIR under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita against the company and its personnel.

The protective orders remain in force pending the ongoing investigation.

The Karnataka High Court recommended that the state government implement an electronic system for processing parole and furlough applications to expedite decisions and minimise procedural delays.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the current paper-based process necessitated physical follow-ups.

The Court emphasised that digitisation would enhance transparency and efficiency in prison administration, benefiting both inmates and authorities. 

The Court directed the DGP (Police IT) to submit a detailed project report within four weeks and suggested establishing a public dashboard to monitor applications, approvals, rejections, and reasons.

[Radhamma And State of Karnataka & Others]

The Karnataka High Court held that tax demands issued by authorities after the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are not legally enforceable.

The Court underscored that once a resolution plan is approved, it binds all stakeholders, including tax authorities.

The Court held that allowing fresh claims would have undermined the purpose of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, which aimed to grant the resolved entity a clean slate while securing finality and certainty for successful resolution applicants.

[OLIVE LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS]