Karnataka High Court: Costs State for Non-Filing Objections

• The Karnataka High Court imposed ₹2,000 in costs on the State Finance Department for repeated non-filing of objections.
• The penalty arose from a petition by BJP MLA Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti, who is currently a BJP MLA for the Jamkhandi constituency, alleging discriminatory fund allocation under the CMIDP.
• A division bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman, who assumed office as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court on March 21, 2024, and Justice KS Bharath Kumar, who was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka, directed the State to pay the costs to the Advocates Clerks Association.
• The court warned that continued failure to file responses would result in orders being passed in favor of the petitioners.
• The CMIDP, a ₹8,000 crore program announced in the 2025–26 State Budget, is at the center of the fund allocation dispute. The program is ongoing, with projects worth ₹8,600 crore undertaken and ₹4,000 crore planned for 2026–27.

This ruling serves as a strong reminder to legal practitioners, especially those representing government entities, about the critical importance of timely filing of responses and affidavits in court proceedings.

The Karnataka High Court recently imposed a financial penalty of ₹2,000 on the State Finance Department, citing its persistent failure to submit a formal response to a petition. This significant ruling, which saw the Karnataka High Court costs State non-filing objections, stemmed from a plea filed by a BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) alleging discriminatory allocation of funds under the Chief Minister's Infrastructure Development Programme (CMIDP). The court's decision underscores the judiciary's firm stance on procedural discipline, even for governmental entities.

A division bench, presided over by Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice KS Bharath Kumar, issued the directive. Justice Anu Sivaraman assumed office as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court on March 21, 2024. Justice K.S. Bharath Kumar was appointed as an Additional Judge of the High Court of Karnataka. They mandated that the imposed costs be paid directly to the Advocates Clerks Association. The Karnataka State Level Advocates Clerks' Association is an existing organization that has been involved in legal proceedings concerning welfare schemes. Furthermore, the court explicitly instructed the State to provide proof of this payment, in the form of a receipt, alongside its eventual statement of objections. This specific instruction regarding the payment recipient highlights the court's intention to ensure accountability and support legal community infrastructure.

During the proceedings, the High Court expressed strong disapproval of the State's conduct, stating unequivocally that there was "absolutely no justification" for the repeated delays in filing objections, despite numerous extensions granted. The bench, led by Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice KS Bharath Kumar, emphasized the critical importance of governmental accountability once a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is taken cognizance of by the court. It clarified that when the State is directed to file a response, its official affidavit must be duly placed on the court record without further procrastination.

The court issued a stern warning regarding the potential repercussions of continued non-compliance with its directives. It stated that if the government fails to present its response as instructed, the court would proceed to issue orders in favor of the petitioner. This judicial stance, directly addressing costs for government non-compliance court orders, highlights the court's determination to ensure timely and substantive engagement from state authorities in legal proceedings, preventing undue delays and upholding the principles of justice. The bench remarked that without such compliance, it would begin allowing these PILs, indicating the serious consequences for the State's position in such cases.

The petition that precipitated this judicial action was lodged by Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti, a BJP MLA representing the Jamkhandi constituency. Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti is currently a BJP MLA from the Jamkhandi constituency, having won the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly election. His core allegation centers on an alleged pattern of discriminatory fund allocation within the Chief Minister's Infrastructure Development Programme. Specifically, Gudagunti claims that constituencies represented by MLAs from the ruling party received disproportionately higher financial allocations compared to those represented by opposition legislators, pointing to CMIDP fund allocation discrimination.

The CMIDP, a substantial initiative valued at ₹8,000 crore, was initially announced as part of the 2025–26 State Budget. The Chief Minister's Infrastructure Development Programme (CMIDP) was implemented to accelerate infrastructure development, with works worth ₹8,600 crore undertaken, and further projects totaling ₹4,000 crore planned for implementation in 2026–27. The allegations of biased distribution under such a significant program raise fundamental questions about equitable development and political impartiality in resource allocation. The Karnataka High Court's decision to impose costs for the State's non-filing objections in this context, including the Advocates Clerks Association costs payment, reinforces the judiciary's vital role in scrutinizing governmental actions and ensuring procedural fairness, especially in matters of public interest and resource distribution. This ruling serves as a strong reminder to legal practitioners, especially those representing government entities, about the critical importance of timely filing of responses and affidavits in court proceedings.

This ruling serves as a strong reminder to legal practitioners, especially those representing government entities, about the critical importance of timely filing of responses and affidavits in court proceedings. Failure to comply with court directives, even for the State, can lead to imposition of costs and adverse orders, reinforcing procedural discipline.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet.