Film actor Ranveer Singh visited Chamundeshwari temple in Mysuru on May 26, 2026.
| Photo Credit: Special Arrangement

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that consensual relationships do not grant licence for assault.

The case involves a serving Circle Inspector of Police who was accused by a social worker, also the wife of a police constable, of various crimes including assault and intimidation.

The relationship between the complainant and the accused began in 2017 when she visited the Bhadravathi Rural police station. By May 2021, the complainant lodged a complaint at the Women’s Police Station, alleging she was physically and sexually harassed by the inspector.

The situation escalated when the inspector allegedly threatened to harm her children if she did not withdraw her complaint, leading to additional charges under IPC sections 504 and 506 for insult with intent to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation respectively.

In November 2021, the inspector reportedly abducted the complainant, took her to a hotel where he assaulted her, and left her at Sagar Bus stop early the next morning. She sought medical attention for her injuries and filed another complaint, accusing him of offenses under various IPC sections including rape, kidnapping, wrongful confinement, attempt to murder, and assault.

The accused contested these allegations, claiming the relationship was consensual from the start and citing his acquittal in a related cheque bounce case under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Justice M Nagaprasanna, while acknowledging the consensual nature of the relationship, dismissed the charge of repeated rape under section 376(2)(n) but upheld other charges related to assault, intimidation, and attempt to murder.

The court remarked on the “gross misogynist brutality” inflicted upon the complainant, allowing the trial to proceed on these counts. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

The High Court of Karnataka restrained Bengaluru-based Institute of Chartered Tax Practitioners India (ICTPI) from enrolling candidates into any course, certifying any person to practise as an income-tax or goods and services tax practitioner and custom broker, etc., till further orders from the court.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the interim order on a petition filed by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI), which has complained that ICTPI is offering courses illegally.

The court specifically restrained the ICTPI from enrolling candidates in Post Graduate Diploma in Taxation, Professional Skill Qualification, Recognition for Prior Learning and similar courses in relation to tax practice, etc.

The court also restrained ICTPI from enrolling any person or body under the category of affiliates, associates, fellows, honorary and academic for the purpose of offering any courses relating to tax laws and related courses or for issuance of any licences, certificates, etc.

While contending that “ICTPI appears to have created fictitious courses to offer to the general public without any legal recognition,” the ICAI has said that the Ministry of Finance, the Registrar of Companies and the University Grants Commission have not taken any action against the ICTPI despite submitting several representations about the alleged illegal activities of ICTPI, which is a company registered under Section 8 (formulation of companies with charitable objects, etc) of the Companies Act, 2013.

“The courses offered by the ICTPI are in contravention of Section 15A of the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949, which restricts universities or bodies from offering courses in the field of education dealt with by the petitioner institute. The ICTPI is prescribing courses on its whims and fancy to mislead the general public that is, in fact, a legitimate degree offered by it to the students under a statute, which is not the case,” the ICAI claimed in its petition.

The ICAI has stated in the petition a large number of candidates are paying thousands of rupees from their head-earned monies in the form of fees to enrol for the unauthorised courses, being unaware of the courses offered by ICTPI.

Pointing out that the name of ICTPI is almost identical and similar to the name of the petitioner-institute, it has been stated in the petition that this gives a misleading impression to the public at large that ICTPI is related to or somehow affiliated/associated with ICAI.

Bengaluru:

Union Minister for Heavy Industries and Steel HD Kumaraswamy and his son Nikhil Kumaraswamy got relief from the Karnataka High Court in connection with the FIR registered against him based on the complaint by Lokayukta SIT ADGP M Chandrashekar.

The High Court bench passed the order on Wednesday while looking into the petition by Kumaraswamy seeking quashing of the FIR. ADGP Chandrashekhar has registered the complaint against Union Minister Kumaraswamy at Bengaluru’s Sanjaynagar Police Station.

The High Court has ordered that no coercive action be taken against him and granted him interim relief.

Senior counsel Hashmat Pasha, appearing for Kumaraswamy, argued that the police are attempting to cancel a 10-year-old anticipatory bail by reviving the case.

The High Court ruled that the FIR cannot be used to revoke old anticipatory bail. Additionally, the High Court recorded a statement from the State Public Prosecutor (SPP) that no coercive measures would be taken against Kumaraswamy in this matter.

Karnataka Police had registered an FIR against Kumaraswamy, on Tuesday as per the directions of a court.

Senior IPS officer Chandrashekar had accused Kumaraswamy of defaming and threatening him and his family.

Sanjaynagar police in Bengaluru had registered the FIR against Kumaraswamy.

The FIR is registered under Section 224 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) 2023.

The police have named Kumaraswamy’s son Nikhil Kumaraswamy as the second accused in the case.

C B Suresh Babu, the JD-S party floor leader in the Legislative Assembly is named as the third accused in the case.

The police had taken a non-cognisable miscellaneous case.

Chandrashekar had approached the court demanding registration of an FIR against Kumaraswamy.

Chandrashekar, in his complaint to the court, had alleged that he had been heading the SIT team probing a case of illegal mining in 2014 – case no. 16/2014 and after getting additional evidence in the case, the investigating team had sought sanction of prosecution from the Governor recently.

In response to this, HD Kumaraswamy held a press conference on September 28 and 29 – where the minister made malicious accusations, threatening the IPS officer and his family members.

The IPS officer, in his complaint to the court, alleged that Kumaraswamy orally threatened him that he would be shunted to another state cadre and also made ill-intended allegations against his family members.

In reply to the charges, Chandrashekar wrote a letter to his staff and refuted all allegations calling it false and malicious.

Chandrashekar concluded his letter by quoting George Bernard Shaw’s famous lines, “Never wrestle with a pig because you’ll both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”

Kumaraswamy expressed outrage on Tuesday, calling the FIR filed against him based on a complaint by a senior IPS officer, Lokayukta SIT chief, M. Chandrashekar as “ridiculous and malicious.”

Kumaraswamy responded to media questions, saying, “During this by-election, the Congress-led state government is targeting us out of sheer animosity. I will respond to this through the judiciary.”

“I have read the FIR and the complaint’s content. It is completely ridiculous and clearly malicious. The complainant has stated that I allegedly made accusations against him in a press conference and has asked for action. Did I provide false information about him? He can review my press conference video if he wants,” said the Union Minister.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Darshan has sought interim bail on the grounds that he is experiencing numbness in both feet and needs to undergo surgery.

Here are 10 points in this big story:

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court on Monday rejected three bail petitions filed by prime accused Prajwal Revanna, a former MP and grandson of former PM HD Deve Gowda, in the sensational sex video scam.

A single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order, denying the bail in connection with two rape cases and a case of recording of video of a victim of sexual harassment.

The court is yet to give its order on another rape case.

Prajwal Revanna is facing four cases in connection with the sex video scam.

Senior counsel Prabhuling Navadgi appeared for Prajwal Revanna and senior counsel Prof. Ravi Varma Kumar argued for the prosecution and submitted before the court not to grant bail in the case.

One of the victims from Hassan had filed a rape case against Prajwal Revanna in Bengaluru Cyber police station. The court had rejected the bail in the matter.

Another case is related to the sexual assault of a maid at the farmhouse in Holenarasipura. The disturbing video of the incident has gone viral on social media during the Lok Sabha election. The alleged videos of the aged maid pleading to spare her as she is an elderly lady, who served food to his father and other elders of the family as she was sexually assaulted had stirred outrage. The victim was kidnapped after the video surfaced on social media and the police arrested Prajwal Revanna’s father, JD-S MLA HD Revanna. Presently, he is out on conditional bail.

The police had also issued an arrest warrant against Prajwal’s mother Bhavani Revanna in the case. However, she managed to obtain bail. The bail order was challenged by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the Supreme Court and the apex court upheld the bail order by the Karnataka High Court.

Another case relates to forcing a woman from Hassan to strip and record her video when she approached Prajwal Revanna for her son’s admission to a reputed school. Both cases were registered at the Cyber police station in Bengaluru.

The High Court has stated that it would pass the order in connection with the rape case of a former ZP member in his office in two days. Prajwal Revanna has been lodged in the Bengaluru Central Prison for four months.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday quashed the criminal case lodged by the police against two persons in connection with allegedly raising “Jai Shri Ram” slogans inside a mosque.

The single division bench headed by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, looking into the appeal petition by the accused persons, while passing the order, mentioned that it was not understandable how the raising of “Jai Shri Ram” slogans would hurt the religious feelings of any community.

The accused were charged under the IPC Section 295A for allegedly raising ‘Jai Shri Ram’ slogans in a mosque.

They were also booked under Indian Penal Code (IPC) Sections 447 (criminal trespass), 505 (statements conducing to public mischief), 506 (criminal intimidation), 34 (common intention) and 295A (outraging religious feelings).

The bench noted that the complainant in the case had himself said that Hindus and Muslims were living in harmony in the concerned area.

Permitting of further proceedings against the petitioners would become an abuse of process of law, the bench underlined.

Referring to the Supreme Court order, the bench said any and every act will not become an offence under Section 295A of the IPC.

The police had charged that the accused persons had barged inside the mosque on September 24, 2023, at about 10.50 p.m. and raised slogans of “Jai Shri Ram”. They were also charged with threatening.

When the complaint was registered the accused were shown as unknown persons and later the accused were taken into custody.

However, challenging the allegations against them, the accused filed an appeal before the Karnataka High Court and quashed the case in this regard against them.

The bench also noted that the complainant mentioned that Hindus and Muslims lived in harmony in the area and also claimed shouting “Jai Shri Ram” slogans would flare up communal tension.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed ANI Technologies, the parent company of OLA Cabs, to compensate a woman with Rs five lakh after she allegedly faced sexual harassment by one of their drivers during a trip in 2019.

Justice M G S Kamal, presiding over a single-judge bench, also instructed OLA’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to initiate a proper inquiry in line with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act).

The inquiry is to be concluded within 90 days, and a report must be submitted to the District Officer.

Additionally, ANI Technologies has been ordered to pay Rs 50,000 to cover the petitioner’s litigation expenses.

The Court emphasised that all parties must comply with Section 16 of the POSH Act, ensuring confidentiality of the identities involved. The Court had reserved its order on August 20.

The petitioner, who was subjected to the harassment, had initially approached OLA with her complaint, but the company’s ICC, following advice from external legal counsel, declined to investigate, claiming it lacked jurisdiction.

The woman then sought relief from the High Court, requesting a directive for OLA to examine her complaint and for the Ministry of Women and Child Development to ensure the company adheres to POSH guidelines. She also urged the state to implement protective regulations for women and children using taxi services.

The Court has further directed the Karnataka State Road Safety Authority to expedite its proceedings regarding the notice issued to ANI Technologies, with a deadline of 90 days for completion. The state government has been ordered to pay a penalty of Rs one lakh for failing to respond adequately to the petition.

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel argued that OLA functions as a transport company, not merely a platform, and should bear responsibility for its drivers’ actions. The counsel for OLA, however, contended that the drivers are independent contractors, and not employees, and the company should not be held liable under labour laws. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah – battling vehement calls to quit over the alleged Mysuru land scam – counterattacked Friday, flagging Janata Dal Secular boss HD Kumaraswamy and asking why his party’s ally, the Bharatiya Janata Party, had not demanded his resignation too.

“Which government does HD Kumaraswamy belong to? There is an FIR… why did he not resign? He is a minister in Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cabinet,” he said Friday afternoon. Mr Kumaraswamy faces a police case over claims he provided “false information” before the Lok Sabha election.

The JDS boss is currently the Union Heavy Industries Minister. He lost no time in hitting back on X, beginning with a “‘uighe, uighe to your sidvilasa” – which translates roughly as mocking praise.

He pointed to attempts by Siddaramaiah’s earlier government to form an Anti-Corruption Bureau by clipping the state Lokayukta’s wings, and contrasted that with him now trying to ensure the Lokayukta, and not the CBI, a federal agency, conducts inquiries against him.

“Isn’t this karma, Mr Siddaramaiah? ACB was also dismissed by the High Court… and now you have sidelined the Lokayukta and closed the door for the CBI to enter the state…” he jeered, referring to a 2022 verdict that said the then state government could not set up an ACB as a Lokayukta is operating.

Mr. @siddaramaiah..
Ughe Ughe to your ‘Sidvilasa’

Then: To escape from scams, you build a ‘samadhi’ for Lokayukta and formed ACB!

Now: The same Lokayukta is a place you found to get rid of ‘Mudahagaran’!!

Isn’t it Karma Mr siddaramaiah?
ACB was also dismissed by the High Court…

— ಹೆಚ್.ಡಿ.ಕುಮಾರಸ್ವಾಮಿ | H.D.Kumaraswamy (@hd_kumaraswamy) September 27, 2024

Siddaramaiah’s jab at HD Kumaraswamy underlines the pressure – from the BJP, the JDS, and even by some within his own party – the Chief Minister faces in his battle to retain his post.

READ | “Request…”: Under-Fire Siddaramaiah Faces ‘Quit’ Calls From Within Party

So far, though, he is defiant. On Thursday, after a special court ordered a police case and directed the Lokayukta to finish inquiries in three months, he declared “I am not afraid”.

“I will fight. I am not afraid of anything. We are ready to face the investigation. I will fight this legally,” he said after a second setback in as many days. On Wednesday the High Court had quashed his challenge to Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot’s sanction to prosecute a sitting Chief Minister.

READ | “Governor’s Action As Per Law”: Big Setback For Siddaramaiah

The Chief Minister on Thursday also hit out at Mr Modi after the Prime Minister’s sharp comments about the Congress government in Karnataka at a rally in poll-bound Haryana.

Prime Minister @narendramodi, in his usual reckless manner, has claimed there is infighting within the Karnataka Congress. It seems the PM has either misread or deliberately twisted the recent media reports, confusing BJP’s internal chaos with Congress. I demand that he…

— Siddaramaiah (@siddaramaiah) September 26, 2024

In a lengthy post on X Siddaramaiah told the PM “don’t throw stones while sitting in a glass house”, pointing to what he said was infighting in his party’s state unit.

MUDA Land Scam Case  

Siddaramaiah faces an inquiry into claims his wife, Parvathi, was allotted multiple plots of land in an upmarket Mysuru area as compensation for land elsewhere – an exchange that allegedly cost the state losses of at least Rs 4,000 crore – taken for infrastructure projects.

He has firmly denied the charge; last month he said he had not done anything illegal in a political career of four decades, and expressed confidence the judiciary would absolve him.

READ | “In 40 Years Did Nothing Wrong”: Siddaramaiah Amid Land Scam Row

The Chief Minister, who has been firmly backed by his party; his deputy, DK Shivakumar; and members of his Cabinet, has also, so far, dismissed calls to summon the CBI, insisting the inquiry will be handled by the Mysuru branch of the state Lokayukta.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, his government withdrew general consent for the federal agency in a move many see as a pre-emptive measure in case the High Court orders a CBI probe.

READ | “CBI Biased”: Karnataka Withdraws Permission To Operate In State

The agency now cannot investigate in Karnataka without the state government’s permission.

Law Minister HK Patil refused any link between this move and the land scam allegations facing the Chief Minister, expressing, as many other opposition parties have, “concerns about the misuse of the agency”. “They are biased… that is why are taking this decision,” he said.

NDTV is now available on WhatsApp channels. Click on the link to get all the latest updates from NDTV on your chat.

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court has introduced strict guidelines for live-streaming of judicial proceedings to prevent unauthorised sharing of clips on social media platforms.

The incident stems from remarks made by a single judge recently. These comments, made during a live-streamed hearing, sparked widespread criticism after video clips went viral.

To address this, the High Court has issued a note titled, “Prohibitions and Restrictions on Usage of the Recording or Live Stream,” which is now displayed at the beginning of live-streamed sessions.

The note prohibits any unauthorised recording, sharing, or dissemination of live-streamed proceedings and archival data, including on social media and messaging platforms. Only authorised individuals or entities are permitted to handle such recordings.

The court also warned that anyone found violating these rules would face legal consequences under the Indian Copyright Act, 1957, the Information Technology Act, 2000, and contempt of court laws.

Further, the note underscores the court’s exclusive copyright over its recordings and mandates that the use of authorised recordings-allowed for news, educational, and training purposes-must not be edited or repurposed for commercial use.

Rule 10(2) of the Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, reinforces these restrictions by barring the use of recording devices by unauthorized individuals during hearings.

The changes come after Justice V Srishananda’s remarks, which led to public backlash, prompting the judge to express regret.

Following media reports, the Supreme Court has taken note of the issue and asked the High Court Registrar General to file a detailed report on the matter.

The Advocates’ Association of Bengaluru has also called for a temporary halt on live-streaming and urged judges to exercise greater sensitivity during proceedings.

They raised concerns that certain YouTube channels had exaggerated the judge’s comments, attaching misleading titles to the content.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)