Those top judges shouldn’t have brought the issue to the public, says Santosh Hegde

Agencies
January 13, 2018

Bengaluru, Jan 13: Former Supreme Court judge N Santosh Hegde today "wholly" condemned the action of four senior judges in going public over internal matters of the judiciary, saying it affected the reputation of the institution and may amount to contempt of court.

Questioning their action, he said internal matters of the judiciary should not have been brought to the public for discussion because neither the public nor the government or the executive can give any relief to them. "I wholly condemn the press meet yesterday held by the four judges of the Supreme Court. My complaint is these things should not have been publicly discussed, consequent to which the reputation of the judiciary has been affected," he told PTI.

In an unprecedented move in the country's judicial history, Justices J Chelameswar, Ranjan Gogoi, Madan B Lokur and Kurian Joseph had held a press conference yesterday and mounted a virtual revolt against Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra, questioning him on the 'selective' allocation of cases and certain judicial orders passed by him.

Hegde, a former Lokayukta of Karnataka, said their action would not benefit anybody other than drawing public attention. He said institutions like the judiciary survive on the confidence of the people. "Once the confidence of the people is lost, the institution will be useless," he said. Agreeing that the judges' intention was to 'bring the muck out of the system, he disapproved of their approach as it would set a new precedent where judges of High Courts and the Supreme Court would start bringing their differences into the public domain.

On whether their action was liable for impeachment, Hegde said he does not want to go to that extent, though he felt it can be possible, given the fact that a Calcutta High Court judge was impeached for contempt of court. He, however, felt that their action may amount to contempt of court. "Yes, it may amount to contempt of court but I am not talking about that...I don't want to take the issue to another direction. I am only questioning the action of the four judges who came out saying that the Chief Justice is giving cases according to his whims and fancies. "Yes, that is the jurisdiction given to him. And why not? That bench before which the case is posted does not have the only person. There are two other judges there." "That means you are suspecting the three judges. Let us not denigrate the institution," said Hegde.

Comments

s
 - 
Sunday, 14 Jan 2018

oh should they have gone to govt or police? to get killed?

Abu Muhammad
 - 
Sunday, 14 Jan 2018

The contempt of Court may be punishable, but what about the Contempt of Judicial system and contempt of Justice by CJI? It will never be questioned rather rewarded. Atleast now public come to know that Judiciary too infected with.............virus. Public had the doubt, now four senior most judges confirmed it. God save India!!! SATYA MEVA JAYATE!!

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
May 22,2020

Bengaluru, May 22: Karnataka reported 138 fresh cases of coronavirus on Friday, taking the state tally to 1743.

26 patients have been discharged on Friday and in total, 597 people have been discharged in Karnataka while total number of active cases in the state is 1,100. 41 people have succumbed to the virus, informed the state health department.

Out of the 138 cases, 111 are returnees from Maharashtra.Out of the 138 cases, 47 are from Chikkaballapura alone, 10 cases from Raichur eight cases each from Bidar and Mandya, five cases each from Bengaluru Rural and Bengaluru Urban, and 14 are from Hassan.

From Bengaluru Rural, three patients are returnees from Maharashtra. A fifty-five year old female from Bengaluru Rural, has contracted the virus and has been diagnosed with a history of SARI. She is currently under observation at a designated city hospital.

Five patients have tested positive from Bengaluru Urban. A 42-year-old woman tested positive in Bengaluru Urban and has been diagnosed with a history of Influenza-like Illness (ILI). She is currently under observation at a designated city hospital.

Two men, who have tested positive from Dharwad are returnees from Delhi. Both of them are currently under observation at a designated hospital in Hubli. A seventy-five year old male who has contracted the coronavirus has returned from Jharkhand.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
February 19,2020

Bengaluru, Feb 19: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Karnataka High Court, seeking a stay on Anand Singh functioning as Minister of Forests, Environment and Ecology contending that there are criminal cases filed against him by the Ministry.

"A stay be granted prohibiting Anand Singh from functioning as the Cabinet Minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology. Any other order that the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity," the PIL prays.

The petition, filed by advocate Vijay Kumar, said that the Chief Minister has allocated the portfolio of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology to Singh without considering the fact that there are several criminal faces filed against him by the Ministry.

It said that the allocation of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology portfolio to Singh is in the conflict of interest.

"The holding of the post of Cabinet minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology is against public interest and completely in conflict of interest as he has business for which the subject Ministry is the overseeing authority and further he will also have access to the case files which again is in conflict of interest," the PIL said.

PIL adds that "it is pertinent and absolutely necessary" to deny the incumbent from accessing files related to his cases and from taking any decisions which may provide him with pecuniary benefits through his businesses.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.