Karnataka High Court Weekly: Tech Sector in Focus with Ola CEO Case, and Procedural Flexibility in Cross-Border Testimony

Bengaluru, India – The Karnataka High Court's recent proceedings have cast a spotlight on the intersection of corporate accountability, technological adaptation in legal processes, and the judiciary's role in overseeing administrative actions. High-profile cases involving Ola Electric's leadership, a landmark decision on remote testimony from the USA, and a ruling on a government welfare scheme have dominated the court's docket, offering significant insights for legal practitioners. Simultaneously, a nationwide administrative development concerning tax deadlines, spurred by judicial interventions including from the Karnataka High Court, provides relief to corporations and tax professionals.

---

Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal Granted Extended Protection in Employee Suicide Case

In a case with significant implications for corporate leadership and workplace culture, the Karnataka High Court has extended interim protection from arrest for Ola Electric CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and another senior executive, Subrat Kumar Das, until November 17. The two are facing an investigation for abetment to suicide following the tragic death of an engineer, K Aravind.

Justice Mohammad Nawaz, while extending the protective order, emphatically directed the petitioners to cooperate fully with the ongoing police investigation. The court's directive came after the Additional State Public Prosecutor, B.N. Jagadeesh, informed the bench that Aggarwal and Das had responded to police notices only with letters rather than appearing for interrogation. "Petitioners shall cooperate with the investigation of the case," Justice Nawaz observed, reinforcing an earlier direction that they should not be harassed "in the guise of investigation."

The case revolves around an FIR registered by Subramanyapura police on October 6, based on a complaint from the deceased's brother, Ashwin Kannan. The complaint alleges that workplace harassment and the denial of salary and other dues, detailed in a purported 28-page suicide note, drove Aravind to take his own life. The petitioners have sought to quash the FIR registered under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for abetment.

During the hearing, senior advocate M.S. Shyamsundar, representing the petitioners, raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the suicide note. He controversially suggested it might have been influenced or fabricated by the complainant, stating, “I have a strong doubt that it is the brother of the deceased who is the narrator of this death note.” He also highlighted the adverse impact of the case on Ola Electric's reputation and stock value.

This submission elicited a sharp rebuke from the complainant's counsel, P. Prasanna Kumar, who characterized the company's approach as being "worse than the East India Company." He argued, "Let the police investigate who has written it (suicide note)."

Justice Nawaz directed the police to conduct a "fair and impartial investigation" and file a final report, clarifying that the subsequent FIR based on the brother's complaint supersedes the initial Unnatural Death Report (UDR). This case continues to be closely watched by the corporate and legal communities for its potential to set precedents on executive accountability in cases of alleged workplace harassment.

---

Court Relaxes Video Conferencing Rules for US-Based Complainant in Cruelty Case

In a significant move demonstrating judicial pragmatism, the Karnataka High Court has permitted a woman residing in the USA to provide testimony via video conference from her residence in a cruelty case filed against her husband. This decision involved relaxing the stringent requirements of the Karnataka Video Conferencing Rules, 2020.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum exercised the High Court's discretionary power under Rule 18 to bypass Rule 5.3.1, which ordinarily mandates that evidence from outside India be recorded through an Indian Embassy or Consulate. The petitioner, who has accused her husband under IPC Sections 498A (cruelty) and 377 (unnatural offences), argued that the vast time zone difference made it practically impossible to coordinate her testimony through the embassy during Indian court hours.

The husband's counsel opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner should have approached the trial court first and raised concerns about potential technical disruptions during crucial cross-examination questions.

However, the court found the petitioner's practical difficulties compelling. Justice Magadum noted, "The insistence on routing the process exclusively through the Embassy would, therefore, cause undue hardship to the petitioner, and may even result in derailing the trial process."

To address the husband's concerns, the court secured an unequivocal undertaking from the wife that she would not abruptly disconnect the session. She further agreed that if any disconnection was her fault, her entire evidence could be discarded by the Magistrate. “In view of such an unequivocal undertaking, this Court is satisfied that the apprehension raised by respondent No.2 regarding disruption during cross-examination stands adequately addressed,” the court ruled.

The judgment distinguishes the complainant from a formal witness or an accused, noting her role as the individual who set the criminal law in motion. This ruling underscores the judiciary's willingness to adapt procedural laws to the realities of a globalized world, ensuring that justice is not hindered by logistical impediments, provided adequate safeguards are in place to protect the rights of all parties.

---

PIL for Laptop Scheme Deadline Extension Dismissed, But Individual Relief Kept Open

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Poonacha has refused to issue a blanket direction to extend the deadline for the government's 'Laptop and Braille Kit Scheme 2025' for visually impaired students. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL), filed by Advocate N Shreyas, sought a 60-day extension, arguing that visually challenged applicants face difficulties in procuring the necessary documents within a rigid timeframe.

The state had already extended the deadline twice—first from September 30 to October 15, and then to October 31. In light of these prior extensions, the court found no compelling reason to intervene further at a policy level. The bench orally remarked, “PIL petition is not to supplant over the authorities.”

However, in a crucial clarification, the court disposed of the petition while explicitly preserving the right of affected individuals to seek judicial remedy. The order states, “…this order will not preclude any affected individuals who have been unable to file his application on account of any difficulty to approach this court for seeking appropriate relief.”

This judgment illustrates the principle of judicial restraint in PILs concerning administrative timelines, especially when authorities have shown some flexibility. By leaving the door open for individual petitions, the court has balanced administrative autonomy with the need to address genuine, specific cases of hardship, ensuring that the welfare objective of the scheme is not entirely defeated by procedural hurdles.

---

National Update: CBDT Extends Tax Filing Deadlines After High Court Interventions

In a development providing widespread relief to companies and tax professionals across India, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has extended the deadlines for filing tax audit reports and Income Tax Returns (ITR) for the Assessment Year 2025-26. The due date for the tax audit report is now November 10, 2025, and the ITR filing deadline for audit cases is extended to December 10, 2025.

This decision follows a series of interventions by multiple High Courts, including those in Karnataka, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab & Haryana, and Himachal Pradesh. These courts had directed the CBDT to provide a reasonable gap between the two deadlines. For instance, the Karnataka High Court, responding to a petition by the Karnataka State Chartered Accountants Association (KSCAA), had previously ordered an extension for filing Tax Audit Reports to October 31. The latest CBDT circular honors the judicial sentiment that a one-month window between the audit report and ITR filing is necessary for proper compliance, providing much-needed breathing room for taxpayers and their advisors.