Disposed¶38

Smt. K. Nagarathnamma v. the Advocate General

Karnataka HC3 Feb 2026WP/2170/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, WP No. 2170 of 2023 (GM-RES), decided 03-02-2026 by M.G.S. Kamal J. Keywords: Advocate General consent criminal contempt; Section 15(1)(b) Contempt of Courts Act 1971; Section 15 Contempt of Courts Act; non-justiceable consent; Consent Application No.11/2022; Annexure-B1; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; writ petition quash AG order; liberty to move Contempt Court; condonation of delay; Bengaluru West Division; Kamakshipalya Police Station. Disposition: petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty; no opinion expressed on merits; no precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

Leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the Contempt Court; time consumed in prosecuting the petition to be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay, if sought for. ¶38

Smt. K. Nagarathnamma Vs the Advocate General — Contempt of Court | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the Contempt Court; time consumed in prosecuting the petition to be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay, if sought for.

¶38

Issue for consideration

Validity of the opinion given by the Advocate General, as required under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, declining to grant consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶34

Court's answer

Consent given or declined by the Advocate General is a non-justiceable order, and that does not prevent parties from initiating the proceedings as contemplated under law.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Time consumed in prosecuting the petition may have to be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay, if sought for.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 2170 of 2023 (GM-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M.G.S. Kamal, J.), decided 03-02-2026. Three petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by Respondent 1, the Advocate General of Karnataka, on Consent Application No.11/2022 (Annexure-B1), whereby consent was declined - as required under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Respondents 2 to 5 (police officers of Bengaluru West Division / Kamakshipalya Police Station) alleged to have committed criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Act. The Court observed that it is a settled position of law that consent given or declined by the Advocate General is a non-justiceable order and does not prevent parties from initiating proceedings as contemplated under law. On the request of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to move the Contempt Court, the time consumed in prosecuting the petition being available for consideration towards condonation of delay, if sought for. No opinion was expressed on the merits or otherwise of the case.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:6096 WP No. 2170 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 2170 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. K. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE M. SOMASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 453, 8^TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶11

SMT. SUMATIDEVI D/O. K. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 453/49, 8^TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYAOUT, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

SMT. NANDINI W/O. PUNITH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.453, 8^TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR R.,ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE ADVOCATE GENERAL STATE OF KARNATAKA, CHAMBERS AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:6096 WP No. 2170 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

DR. SANJEEV M. PATIL, IPS., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 009.

¶22

SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶23

SRI. PRASHANTH. M., THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶24

SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU. B., THE SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 079.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5)

¶27

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 ONE PASSED BY THE R1 ON AN CONSENT APPLICATION NO.11/2022 WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B1 AND THEREBY TO ALLOW THE GRANT TO INITIATE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE R2 TO 5 AS WHO COMMITTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMP OF COURTS ACT, 1971.

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:6096 WP No. 2170 of 2023

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

This petition puts in issue the validity of opinion given by the Advocate General, as required under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, declining to grant the consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents.

¶35

It is settled position of law, consent given or declined by the Advocate General is non-justiceable order. That does not prevent parties from initiating the proceedings as contemplated under law.

¶36

Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at this juncture seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the Contempt Court. However, he submits that the time consumed in prosecuting this petition be exempted for the purpose of limitation.

¶37

Submission is taken on record.

¶38

Petition is disposed of as sought for, time consumed in this matter may have to be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay, if sought for.

¶39

No opinion is expressed on the merits or otherwise of the case.

¶40

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶41

RL/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9

Smt. K. Nagarathnamma v. the Advocate General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. K. Nagarathnamma v. the Advocate General

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chanana Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. a Velumurugan Vs the District Caste Veification Committee

Ramesh Naik L Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.K.G. Govindaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Puravankara Projects Limited Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Deepali K J Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.