Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022

Mahantesh v. Netharavati, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

Kasturi Rajupeta V. Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Judgement/Order/Reports

1: Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati Case No: M.F.A. No.100096/2019 (MV)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The Karnataka High Court has said that the insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation, if a heavy goods vehicle is driven by a person holding a light motor vehicle license. A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, owner of a tipper lorry said, "The vehicle in question which is categorised as a heavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the offending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay the compensation."

2: 'Hijab Not Essential Religious Practice In Islam':Karnataka High Court Dismisses Muslim Girls' Petitions Against Hijab Ban In Classrooms

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Wearing of hijab is not a part of Essential Religious Practice in Islamic faith and thus, is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held today. A Full Bench of the High Court further held that prescription of school uniform by the State is a reasonable restriction the students' rights under Article 25 and thus, the Government Order issued by the Karnataka government dated February 5 is not violative of their rights.

3: Karnataka Education Act Empowers Government To Prescribe Uniform: Karnataka High Court In Hijab Case

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Government order dated February 5, providing for prescription of dress code in educational institutions.

A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishan S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "Section 133(2) of the (Education) Act which is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions to give effect to the purposes of the Act or to any provision of the Act or to any Rule made thereunder."

4: Hijab Ban | Prescription Of Uniform Dress Code For All Students Serves 'Constitutional Secularism': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in government colleges, observed that prescription of a uniform for all students will promote a sense of "constitutional secularism" within the institution. "The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism", the Court observed.

5: Holy Quran Does Not Mandate Wearing Of Hijab; Islam Does Not Cease To Exist If Hijab Is Not Followed : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court, while declaring that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an 'essential religious practice' in Islamic Faith, said that, "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women". The Court also observed that the prescriptions in suras regarding Hijab are not mandatory. "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the above sūras, we say, is only directory , because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab, the linguistic structure of verses supports this view", the Court observed.

6: Hijab Ban| Insistence On Wearing Purdah, Veil Or Headgear In Any Community May Hinder Emancipation Of Women : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, has said that the insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. That militates against our constitutional spirit of 'equal opportunity' of 'public participation' and 'positive secularism'."

7: Hijab Issue - Speedy Investigation Needed Against "Unseen Hands" At Work To Create Social Unrest : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court in its judgement upholding the ban on wearing hijab has said it expects a speedy & effective investigation into the matter against 'unseen hands' who are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony. A full bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said, "From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent – Pre – University College at Udupi and the material placed on record, we notice that all was well with the dress code since 2004."

8: 'Intermediary Not Liable For Actions Of Vendors': Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 'Snapdeal' For Sale Of Drugs Without License

Case Title: Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka,  Case No: CRL.P.No.102191/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against Snapdeal Private Limited and its directors Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal for allegedly allowing sale of drug - Suhagra tablets, on its online portal without possessing a valid license.

Justice MG Uma said, "Intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place and that the Snapdeal/accused No.2 could not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Act on its platform by accused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18(1)(c) of the Act not having been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act."

9: Private Complaint Is Maintainable If Forgery Took Place Outside Court Before Producing Document As Evidence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.692/2019

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 77

The Karnataka High Court has said that a private complaint made before the magistrate court alleging offence under section 191 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable, if the forgery of document took place outside the Court before the document was produced as evidence in the court proceedings. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order of the magistrate court dismissing a private complaint and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It said,

10: Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Has Power To Determine Boundary Of A Survey Number Or A Holding: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka Case No: WA 468/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while setting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said, "Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."

11: Karnataka High Court Quashes Seat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College

Case Title: Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: W.P.No.200365/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 79

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the revised seat matrix issued on January 31, for postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2021-22, by which only Telugu Linguistic minority students residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are allowed to apply in a Linguistic minority institution located in that region.

A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 and revised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).

12: No Need For Trial Court's Permission To Renew Passport When Criminal Proceedings Are Stayed By Higher Court : Karnataka HC

Case Title: KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

The Karnataka High Court has held that the permission from a trial court is not necessary for renewal of passport when the proceedings are stayed by a higher court. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider a woman's application for renewal of her passport without insisting upon a facilitative order from the concerned Criminal Court before whom a case registered against her is pending.

Other Reports:

1: In A First, 183 RERA Cases Disposed Of At National Lok Adalat In Karnataka

In the National Lok Adalat held on March 12, for the first time cases pending before Karnataka Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Real Estate Appellate Authority cases were taken up for disposal in Lok Adalat and a total of 183 cases came to be disposed off and Rs. 8 Crores is paid as compensation. As per the press release issued by the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, a total of 3,67,575, cases (pending and pre-litigation cases) were disposed of by a total bench of 989 benches.

2: Bengaluru Potholes | 'Every Death Caused Due To Bad Road Condition Makes Us Feel Guilty': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department Case No: WP 42927/2015

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to fill up/ repair potholes in the Central Business District (CBD) area of Bengaluru City, within 15 days. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar said, "The memo has been filed by respondent in compliance of earlier order, giving a work plan to repair potholes in the CBD area of Bengaluru city. We are not satisfied with the said work plan. We have discussed the problem with the Chief Commissioner (BBMP) and Chief Engineer, and want the filling up/repair of potholes in CBD district to be done on war footing and the roads in this area shall be repaired within 15 days."

3: "Terrorist Act" : UAPA Conviction For Man Who Placed Explosive-Laden Bag At Mangalore Airport

Case Title: The State of Karnataka v. Adithya Rao Case No: Sessions Case No.70/2020

A sessions court in Mangalore has convicted a 37 year old man named Adhitya Rao for the offence of "terrorist act" under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Explosive Substances Act for placing an explosive laden bag at the the departure gate of Mangalore International Airport, in the year 2020.