Congress will retain power, if polls held now: survey

Bengaluru, Feb 4: Karnataka High Court on Monday reserved order on plea, seeking cancellation of bail granted to Nithyananda for skipping the trial and fleeing the country.

After hearing the arguments, the court has reserved the matter for further orders which will be pronounced on February 5.

The plea, which was filed in the high court on January 23, was heard by Justice John Michael Cunha.

The counsel for the complainant Lenin put forth arguments that the self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda had fled the country to escape the trial. "Nityananda has been claiming to be in India in his exemption petitions filed before the trial court but during that time he sought asylum in Ecuador and is having a second passport," said Lenin.

The prosecutor informed the court that they do not need his presence for the trial at this time.

Nithyananda, accused of rape and child abuse, has been absconding since November 2018.

In December 2019, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the passport of Nithyananda was cancelled and a fresh application of the same was denied as he did not get the requisite clearance from police and several criminal cases have been lodged against him.

Police in Ahmedabad had arrested two woman administrators of the ashram, allegedly owned by Nithyananda, and freed two boys who were held captive there.

Two of his disciples, Pranpriya and Priyatattva, were arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by one Janardhan Sharma who alleged that his daughter was held captive in Nithyananda's ashram.

The police took the two women to Nithyananda's ashram in Hathiajan for an investigation and seized laptops, mobile phones among other things.

New Delhi, Mar 6: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to entertain a plea seeking framing of a proper mechanism to deal with alleged misuse of the sedition law by the government machinery. A bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar dismissed the plea filed by a social activist and said it was open for the petitioner to approach the appropriate authority.

At the outset, the apex court told advocate Utsav Singh Bains, appearing for the petitioner, that he could not seek quashing of an FIR in a sedition case filed against the management of a Karnataka school for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA and anti-NRC drama.

Bains told the bench that he was not just pressing for a prayer to quash the FIR but the petitioner has also sought a direction for framing of a proper mechanism to deal with the alleged misuse of the sedition law.

"Let the affected party come and we will hear them. Why it should be done at your instance," the bench said, refusing to entertain the petition.

The petition had sought quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124A (sedition) and 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

The plea had also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

The plea had sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticising CAA, NRC and NPR."

The petition had claimed that the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of the fourth, the fifth and the sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint by social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on 26 January.

The complainant alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens.