Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: December 16 - December 22, 2024
Mustafa Plumber
23 Dec 2024 9:25 PM IST
Citation 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513 to 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
Nominal Index:
Satish Jarkiholi AND Dilip Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513
ACTION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 514
Syed Ajaz Ahmed AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515
SHIVAPRASAD AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517
State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Mahaveen Oswal and Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 519-
Prakash Ramachandra Hegde. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
Karnataka Employers Association & Others AND All India Trade Union Congress & OThers. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 523
Sachin R & ANR AND Karnataka State Law University & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 524
ABC And State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Satish Jarkiholi AND Dilip Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8574 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 513
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a defamation case registered against Congress Leader and Member of Legislative Assembly Satish Jarikholi, who was charged under Section 500 and 153 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging to have hurt the sentiments of Hindus as he made a statement that the word “Hindu” has a dirty meaning.
A single judge Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Jarkiholi and said, “This is a case where 'not' a definite class of people is alleged to be defamed but an indefinite class. The very concept of defaming an indefinite class cannot lead to the offence punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, as the purport of Section 499 and the Explanation is that it should be against a definite class of people.”
Case Title: ACTION FOR COMMUNITY ORGANISATION, REHABILITATION AND DEVELOPMENT AND Union of India & Others
Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 833 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 514
The Karnataka High Court has said that an order rejecting an NGO's application for renewal of license under Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) is to be challenged in revision before the appellate authority and an appeal questioning the order before high court is not maintainable.
Justice K Natarajan held thus while dismissing an appeal filed Action for Community Organisation, Rehabilitation and Development under Section 31/31(2) of the Act appealing against a March 30 order by which the Union dismissed its FCRA certificate renewal.
Case Title: Syed Ajaz Ahmed AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 33213/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 515
Dismissing a PIL for setting aside a government circular which suspended mutation of farmers and private khata properties to the waqf board after complaints were received regarding the same, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) said that directions were issued in public interest.
The court was hearing a PIL by one Syed Ajaz Ahmed which prayed for setting aside the directions issued by the State government vide its letter dated November 9, withdrawing the notices issued to change the khata as waqf properties. It further sought directions to the respondents including the State to conduct a judicial enquiry into encroachments of the wakf properties in the state by appointing a retired high court judge of Karnataka to oversee the enquiry pertaining to the encroachments by the government bodies and private individuals and the disposals of properties under the Karnataka Inams Abolition Act and Karnataka land reforms act.
Case Title: SHIVAPRASAD AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 19700/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 516
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man booked for allegedly printing a message on his own wedding invite which read 'the gift that you would give me in the marriage is vote for Narendra Modi'.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order on a petition filed by one Shivaprasad. It said “Allowed and quashed.”
The detailed order is awaited. Earlier, the court had while issuing notice to the respondents said, “There shall be an interim order of stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.238/2024, qua the petitioners, till the next date of hearing”
Case Title: B Y Vijayendra AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRL.P 13192/2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 517
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (December 17) allowed the petition filed by then Vice President and now BJP State President BY Vijayendra and quashed proceedings pertaining to an FIR registered against him for allegedly extorting money under the guise of electoral bonds.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition following its judgment passed on December 3 in the petition filed by former BJP State president Naleen Kumar Kateel who was a co-accused in the case. Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is also an accused in the FIR.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Kalandar Shafi & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.13459 OF 2024 C/W WRIT PETITION No.33526 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 518
The Karnataka High Court has held that as per Section 187 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the 15-day police custody must be sought within the first forty days in cases of offences which are punishable upto ten years of imprisonment
It clarified that the phraseology used in Section 187 BNSS is an offence punishable "for ten years or more", explaining that 10 years or more would mean that the threshold punishment is 10 years and not a punishment up to 10 years. The court said that if the punishment term is between 1-10 years then Section 187(3) BNSS cannot be pressed for police custody as probe for offences punishable upto 10 years must be completed in 60 days.
Case Title: Principal Secretary To Government & ANR AND Mahaveen Oswal and Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.200165 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 519
The Karnataka High Court has said that an urban development authority would have the right to decline a plea for approval of layout plan of land, only if a notification is duly published as per law for acquisition of the lands for formation of a scheme or a layout.
A division bench of Justice R Devdas and Justice G Basavaraja held thus while dismissing an appeal by the State government challenging an order of the single judge which allowed the petition filed by Mahaveer Oswal and others and which had directed the Vijayapura Urban Development Authority, to consider seeking approval of a layout plan.
Case Title: Prakash Ramachandra Hegde
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.107291 OF 2024 (CS-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.107287 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 520
The Karnataka High Court has recently said that an officer posted as in-charge of a post can discharge the functions/duties of the said post, including statutory functions.
Justice C M Poonacha held thus while dismissing a plea by Prakash Ramachandra Hegde, who had questioned the order of Assistant Registrar Co-Operative Societies (ARCS), Kumta, who being the officiating/in-charge officer had on November 27 stayed the order of disqualification of one Vivek Subraya Bhat. Bhat was earlier disqualified on November 25 by the Assistant Commissioner.
Case Title: Charulata Somal AND Shriya Muddanna Shetty
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 664 OF 2016
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 521
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order of the Magistrate court directing the registration of a defamation case against the Assistant Commissioner of Kundapura who while discharging quasi-judicial function, allegedly acted erratically and became furious and shouted at a senior lawyer and a member of Kundapura Bar Association, appearing before him.
Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by Charulata Somal and set aside the order passed by the Magistrate court in 2015.
He said, “The revision petitioner is not an official who was discharging an official function. The facts of the case would depict that the revision petitioner as on the date of the incident was discharging the quasi-judicial function. Therefore, she could be treated as a Judge, as per definition of the word 'Judge' found in Section 2 of the said Judges (Protection) Act.”
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND G Ramachari
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 699 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 522
The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order discharging a public servant of graft charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act as the Lokayukta police sent the voice sample of the conversation between the official and the complainant wherein he allegedly demanded a bribe, to a private agency instead of sending it to government Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis.
The court said that by sending the sample to a private agency and placing the report on it as "gospel truth" used for filing the chargesheet affected the public servant's rights.
Justice V Srishananda dismissed the State's petition challenging the trial court's December 16, 2016 order by which the court had discharged G Ramachari who was booked for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (2) of the PC Act.
Case Title: Karnataka Employers Association & Others AND All India Trade Union Congress & OThers
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.23 OF 2024 (L - MW) C/W WRIT APPEAL Nos. 53/2024, 54/2024, 78/2024, 82/2024, 87/2024, 88/2024, 90/2024, 92/2024, 93/2024, 107/2024, 113/2024, 139/2024, 141/2024, 142/2024, 148/2024, 156/2024, 159/2024, 160/2024 , 161/2024 , 162/2024, 165/2024, 166/2024, 170/2024, 177/2024, 216/2024, 316/2024, 413/2024, 438/2024, 502/2024, 511/2024, 533/2024, 542/2024, 543/2024, 545/2024, 553/2024, 565/2024, 567/2024, 570/2024, 572/2024, 573/2024, 574/2024, 575/2024, 576/2024, 577/2024, 578/2024, 579/2024, 580/2024, 581/2024, 583/2024, 644/2024 AND 905/2024.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 523
The Karnataka High Court has said that while fixing or revising the Minimum Wages to be paid to employees, employers which is a stakeholder and which will be affected in the exercise, should have their say and the stand before the notification is passed by the Government.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while allowing the appeal filed by employers associations including the Karnataka Employers Association and others, challenging a single judge order dated September 26, 2023 said:
“The class of the employers is a stakeholder and a party who would be affected as their obligations would arise as an end result of the exercise of fixing and revising the minimum wages. When it is a question of revising the minimum wages, a variety of factors would govern the ultimate act of issuance of Notification and incorporating the conditions and stipulations therein, in which, it is legitimate to conclude that the employers should have their say and the stand.”
Case Title: Sachin R & ANR AND Karnataka State Law University & others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 34457 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 524
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that law students who have already attended classes for Indian Penal Code and have failed in the examination, it cannot be expected that those students take up the examination for Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, which has never been taught to them in the course structure.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while quashing a notification issued by the Karnataka State Law University of December 6 by which the University has proposed to have the supplementary examination for the petitioners Sachin R and others would be in 'Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita' (BNS) instead of IPC.
Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.14909 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 525
The Karnataka High Court as an interim measure directed the National Law School of India University (NLSIU) to provide a reservation of 0.5% to transgender persons (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment in State) with fee waiver, until it implements the 2014 directions of the Supreme Courts by formulating a reservation for transgender candidates.
In 2021 the State government provided a 1 per cent (horizontal) reservation to Transgender candidates in government jobs to be filled through the direct recruitment process. The reservation is applicable to transgender candidates in each category of General merit, SC,ST and in each of the OBC categories.
Justice Ravi V Hosmani directed, "NLSIU is directed to implement directions issued by Hon'ble Supreme Court in NALSA's case (NALSA v. Union of India) by formulating reservation along with measures for providing financial aid to TGs in education before commencement of admission process for next academic year. Until then to provide a reservation of 0.5% (half the percentage of reservation provided for TGs in employment under State) as interim reservation with fee waiver and for which NLSIU may apply to State/Central Government for appropriate grant".
