December 31, 2025 3:16 pm
While referring to a Supreme Court rulling, Justice R Nataraj said that forcing a girl, who is a survivor of sexual assault, to continue with her unwanted pregnancy would violate her right to life and dignity.
December 29, 2025 3:57 pm
The court has sought a detailed, consolidated, and updated status report on uploading of information relating to assets of temples across the state on the Endowment Commissioner website.
December 26, 2025 10:32 pm
Byrathi Basavaraj’s counsel informed Karnataka HC that the MLA had been ready to cooperate over the past five months but had not been summoned by the CID for the investigation.
December 25, 2025 3:55 pm
The Karnataka High Court ruled that the state had provided no reasonable explanation for the prolonged inaction, and the acquisition could not proceed without a public purpose.
December 25, 2025 9:44 am
The court said that the amended Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act does not contain a reference to notional partition to widow and mother of a person who passed away, along with son, daughter.
December 25, 2025 8:38 pm
Karnataka High Court divorce ruling: The court said that in the presence of sacred fire, the bride and bridegroom clasp each other's hands and solemnly vow to uphold the fourfold purposes of life - Dharma, Artha, Kama, and Moksha by reciting the sacred pledge.
December 23, 2025 8:16 am
UAPA accused bail rejected: Justices K S Mudagal and Venkatesh Naik T observed that the accused were following a pattern of invariably filing consecutive applications for bail, interim bail, etc., and frequently changing advocates.
December 20, 2025 10:56 am
Karnataka Health and Family Welfare Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao said the government would challenge the HC order against the closure of Jan Aushadhi Kendras.
December 20, 2025 9:24 pm
The petitions called for the writ of habeas corpus, which would have declared the COFEPOSA detention order of the three accused illegal and ‘void ab initio’.
December 18, 2025 5:25 pm
The Karnataka High Court noted that the petitioner chose to accept Transferable Development Rights instead of regular compensation, and, as they were tradable, he could have sold them at any time.






