“Otherwise, we will start allowing these PILs”: with that warning, the Karnataka High Court has put Rs 2,000 Costs On State, payable by the Finance Department, for repeatedly failing to file objections to a BJP MLA’s public interest litigation on the allocation of funds.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Bengaluru: Despite repeated opportunities, the State Finance Department had filed no statement of objections in a PIL alleging discriminatory allocation of funds under the Chief Minister’s Infrastructure Development Programme (CMIDP), and the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed costs of Rs 2,000 on it and granted two weeks as a final opportunity [Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti v. State of Karnataka].
A Division Bench of Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K S Bharath Kumar directed that the costs go to the Advocates Clerks Association, and that the State produce the receipt along with its statement of objections.
“Then you will know”
The Bench wanted to know why a specific direction to file a response had not been complied with. Its position was that once a court has taken cognizance of a PIL and told the government to reply, the affidavit has to be on record.
“Once a Court takes cognizance and asks you to file a reply, your affidavit must be on record. Otherwise, we will start allowing these PILs. Then you will know”
The Bench added that where parties avail more than four opportunities without filing objections, costs would be imposed and the amount could be recovered from the person responsible for the non-filing.
Almost a year without a reply
By an order dated October 29, 2025, the Bench had directed the State to file a counter affidavit or statement of objections. The matter was listed several times and none was filed. A final opportunity was granted on February 17 this year, and “even though the matter came up on four occasions thereafter, no objections are on record”, the Bench noted. On Tuesday, the government advocate sought two weeks to file the counter affidavit.
“There is absolutely no justification on the part of the respondents-State in not filing the objections in spite of repeated time being granted”
What the petitioner alleges
The PIL was filed by Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti, BJP MLA from Jamkhandi, who alleges that constituencies represented by ruling party MLAs received higher allocations than those represented by opposition legislators. As per the petition, under the Rs 8,000 crore CMIDP announced in the 2025-26 State Budget, opposition constituencies were allocated Rs 25 crore each, while those of ruling party MLAs were allocated Rs 50 crore each. These are the petitioner’s allegations; the Court has not adjudicated them, and the State’s response is yet to be placed on record.
What the order means
The High Court is enforcing timelines against the State itself in public interest litigation. A case pending since October 2025 without a government response cannot stay open-ended, and the Bench has signalled that costs, recoverable from the person responsible for the delay, will follow where more than four opportunities are used.
The merits of the funding allegations remain untested. The State’s final two weeks will decide whether its response is on record before the Court examines the allocation of the CMIDP funds.
Case Title: Jagadeesh Shivayya Gudagunti v. State of Karnataka (PIL on CMIDP fund allocation)
Bench: Justice Anu Sivaraman and Justice K S Bharath Kumar, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 6, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Anish Jose Antony for the petitioner
