The bench acted after two videos of Justice Srishananda stirred outrage on social media. In one clip, he was seen referring to Gori Palya, a Muslim-dominated area in West Bengaluru, as “Pakistan,” while in another clip, the judge made a gender-insensitive remark to a woman advocate, insinuating that she might even know the colour of the opposing counsel’s undergarments.

During the hearing, CJI Chandrachud addressed Attorney General R. Venkataramani, suggesting the need to establish basic guidelines regarding judicial conduct in light of the comments. “Attorney General, we may lay down some basic guidelines and seek a report from the secretary general of the High Court,” the CJI remarked, indicating the need for caution in an age where judges’ actions are under close public scrutiny due to social media.

As per a report in the LiveLaw, the Supreme Court directed the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to submit a detailed report to the Supreme Court after obtaining administrative directions from the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The matter has been scheduled for further consideration on Monday.

Acknowledging the increasing influence of social media, the CJI noted, “In this age of social media, we are closely watched, and we have to act accordingly.” The comments highlight the judiciary’s recognition of its public role and the expectation of decorum, especially given the viral nature of the videos and the backlash they generated. The case is being closely followed as it raises issues of judicial accountability, gender sensitivity, and communal harmony within the legal system.

Details of the first video:

Justice V Srishananda Islamophobic comment has sparked outrage on social media after a video of his anti-Muslim comment made in open court, referring to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru, Gori Palya, as “Pakistan.” In the video, the judge could be heard stating, “Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India,” while discussing a case related to insurance. The statement, captured in a video clip of the hearing, has since gone viral and ignited widespread criticism online.

The comment was made during a hearing on August 28, 2024 concerning the Rent Control Act. Justice Srishananda, while discussing the law’s provisions, deviated into a broader commentary about public safety and rule enforcement, particularly regarding road traffic violations. He pointed out how, in foreign countries, vehicles are required to strictly follow lane discipline, while in India, these regulations are often ignored. The judge remarked that in foreign countries, even slow drivers are moved to appropriate lanes by the police, while in India, violations are rampant, with offenders often escaping severe consequences. He expressed frustration with the lack of enforcement in India, criticising schools for allowing students to flout traffic rules, and lamented the absence of accountability, especially from the police.

It was during this broader critique of law enforcement and public behaviour that Justice Srishananda made the ‘Pakistan’ remark. Referring to the Gori Palya locality, he commented on how rules are disregarded in the area, stating, “Every auto rickshaw has got 10 people. It is not applicable because the Mysore flyover right up to the flower market from Gori Palya is in Pakistan, not in India. This is the reality. No matter how strict a police officer you put there, they will be beaten up.” The remark, implying lawlessness and invoking Pakistan as a reference, has been widely condemned for its communal undertone.

Karnataka High Court judge refers to a locality in Bengaluru as Pakistan, sparks outrage on social media. #KarnatakaHighCourt #Bangalore pic.twitter.com/QOrpDkHWoN

— Bar and Bench (@barandbench) September 19, 2024

Supreme Court lawyer Sanjoy Ghose took to social media to express his shock, stating, “A judge of an Indian Constitutional Court referring to fellow citizens of a different faith as Pakistani! Astonishing!”

A judge of an Indian Constitutional Court referring to fellow citizens of a different faith as Pakistani! Astonishing!

pic.twitter.com/DuxE1Ufujp

— sanjoy ghose (@advsanjoy) September 18, 2024

The judge’s remarks have drawn sharp criticism for equating a Muslim-majority neighbourhood with Pakistan, reinforcing harmful stereotypes and questioning the loyalty of Indian citizens based on their faith. The incident fuelled debates around judicial accountability and communal biases within the legal system. Calls for action against such remarks gained momentum, with many questioning how such statements from a constitutional authority align with the values of impartiality and secularism enshrined in the Indian Constitution.

Details of the second video:

Hours after the first video of Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in West Bengaluru as “Pakistan” went viral on social media, another controversial video of the judge has emerged, this time featuring a gender-insensitive remark. In the second video, Justice Srishananda is seen making an inappropriate comment directed at a woman lawyer during a court hearing.

The incident occurred while the judge was addressing a male advocate about a case involving cheque bouncing, asking whether the person referred to in the case was an income tax assesse. Before the male advocate could answer, the opposing counsel, a woman lawyer, responded that the person in question was indeed an income tax payer. Justice Srishananda, visibly irritated, interrupted her and asked why she was answering, saying, “Wait amma,” a term used for addressing women in Kannada. The woman lawyer immediately apologised. What followed has ignited further outrage. Smiling, Justice Srishananda quipped, “You know everything about him. If asked tomorrow, you will tell what colour of undergarment he wears,” in Kannada, while gesturing toward the woman lawyer.

The comment elicited smiles from the advocates present in the courtroom, highlighting the male-dominating culture. However, the video remark, which has now gone viral, has drawn strong criticism on social media for its sexist tone and the trivialisation of the woman lawyer’s professional input.

Senior Advocate Indira Jaising took to X (formerly Twitter) to express her dismay, sharing the video clip and calling for action. She tweeted, “We call upon the Chief Justice of India to take suo moto action against this judge and send him for gender sensitisation training.” Jaising’s post has added fuel to the growing demands for accountability, with many echoing her call for gender sensitivity training for Justice Srishananda.

We call upon the Chief Justice of India to take suo moto action agsinst this judge and send him for gender sensitisation training. pic.twitter.com/MPEP6x8Jov

— Indira Jaising (@IJaising) September 19, 2024

The need for gender and communal sensitivity in the judiciary:

The back-to-back controversies have raised concerns about the conduct of judicial officers in India, sparking debates about the need for more robust gender and communal sensitivity training within the judiciary. The calls for action are intensifying as both videos circulate widely, prompting demands for the judiciary to address the inappropriate behaviour of Justice Srishananda, who, as a high-ranking member of the legal system, is expected to uphold the principles of impartiality, professionalism, and respect in the courtroom.

The Supreme Court has taken cognizance of these incidents, bringing to light the pressing need for a more robust approach toward gender and communal sensitivity in the judiciary. To truly address these ingrained biases, there must be sustained efforts to provide ongoing gender and communal sensitivity training, starting from the foundation of legal education and continuing throughout judicial careers. Judges, as the guardians of justice, must uphold the highest standards of fairness and respect, not just in their rulings but also in their conduct. Without a proactive and comprehensive framework for sensitising the legal arena, the judiciary risks perpetuating harmful stereotypes and eroding public confidence in the justice system. True accountability requires more than written directives—it demands a cultural shift that reflects the values of equality, inclusivity, and impartiality enshrined in the Constitution.

Related:

Supreme Court warns against ‘bulldozing the rule of law,’ affirms that legal process, not allegations, must govern punitive actions

Balancing Countervailing Rights: SC lays down guidelines for portrayal of Persons with Disabilities in visual media

Bombay HC chastens Maharashtra Police for shoddy investigation in cases involving sexual assault against minors and women

The post Supreme Court takes action amid outrage following Karnataka Judge’s anti-Muslim and gender-insensitive comments in court appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is essential to note that a writ petition was moved to the High Court of Karnataka on the said matter. The petitioner had sought parole for his daughter’s wedding on September 3, 2023. He had highlighted that Fyzee on ‘Outlines of Muhammadan Law’, Fourth Edition at page 93 suggests that the presence of father in the performance of Nikah of his daughter is desirable.

Through the said order, the bench upheld the reformative approach of punishment that the criminal justice system of India deems to follow. In its order, the court observed that although sporadically, a convict has to keep in contact with the civil society so that their societal roots do not dry up as they languish in the jail for long periods. In the order, it was stated: “In matters like this humanistic approach needs to be adopted qua the convicts; a convict has to keep in contact with the civil society although sporadically, so that his societal roots, do not dry up when he languishes in the jail; otherwise, when he returns from the prison after completing the term of sentence, he may be a total stranger and life may prove hard to him; this is not a happy thing to happen in a Welfare State.” (Para 3)

The court also provided that “ordinarily every Muslim Marriage involves certain rituals that are done with the participation of the parents.” Through the order, the bench also remarked on the importance of presence of parents on a day as important as a wedding. The order stated “When a young daughter is getting married, the presence of her father is desirable, consistent with the humanitarian considerations which inhere in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” (Para 3)

The court further opined that conviction and imprisonment “does not render the convict destitute of all liberty & dignity; in matters like this humanistic approach needs to be adopted qua the convicts.”

Thus, the Court directed the authorities to release Rehman on furlough, subject to usual precautions, for a period of seven days commencing from September 2. The bench also stressed that “The main purpose of releasing a serving convict on parole is to afford him an opportunity to solve his personal & family problems and to enable him to maintain his links with the civil society, there may be cases of health grounds too.”

Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by the court.

The order can be read here:

Related:

Provide medical facilities, grant parole: Committee for the Defence and Release of Dr. G N Saibaba

Inform prisoners about rights, parole provisions: Rajasthan HC

Bail order cannot be cryptic and casual, needs to be backed by reasons considering vital aspects: Supreme Court

Supreme Court punishes judge for denying bail, sends him to judicial academy

SC warns judicial officers, prosecuting agencies against violating bail orders; threatens action and re-education

The post Karnataka HC: ‘Humanistic approach to be adopted to ensure that convicts maintain connection with civil society’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Reading the operative portion, the HC said, “In the above circumstances this petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs and accordingly it is. Petitioner is levied with an exemplary cost of ₹50 lakh payable to the Karnataka State Legal Service Authority, Bengaluru, within 45 days. If delay is brooked, it attracts an additional levy of ₹5,000 per day,” as reported by Livemint.

“I am convinced with contention of the Centre that they have powers to block tweets and block accounts,” the judge further said while dismissing Twitter’s petition.

“Your client (Twitter) was given notices and your client did not comply…Punishment for non-compliance is 7 years imprisonment and unlimited fine. That also did not deter your client. So you have not given any reason why you delayed compliance, more than a year of delay…then all of sudden you comply and approach the Court. You are not a farmer but a billion-dollar company,” the Bench further stated while pronouncing the verdict, as reported by Livelaw.

As further reported by LiveLaw, the Court had framed eight issues in the matter. First, on the issue of locus standi, which has been answered in Twitter’s favour. The second issue was whether there is nexus between blocking order and the reasons behind such order, which the Bench held to be in against Twitter. “On proportionality whether blocking should be tweet specific or period specific, I have held against you,” Justice Dixit had said.

The bench also refused to issue Guidelines to Centre, as sought by Advocate Manu Kulkarni for Twitter, for exercise of its powers under Section 69A.

Arguments made by Twitter:

Twitter contested the blocking of 39 URLs out of a total of 1,474 accounts and 175 tweets. According to the platform, the directive to block all accounts violates Section 69A of the Information Technology Act. Twitter has argued that the banning orders “demonstrate an excessive use of powers and are disproportionate” and are “procedurally and substantially deficient of the provision”.

As provided in the Bar and Bench report, the platform further argued that the Central government lacked the authority to issue general orders requesting the disabling of social media accounts and that such orders must include justifications that should be made known to users. Moreover, it also specified that only when the nature of the content complied with the requirements set forth in Section 69A of the IT Act could a blocking order be issued.

Arguments made by the Centre:

The central government disagreed with Twitter’s request to have the Indian government’s blocking orders overturned, claiming that the directives were made for “national and public interest” and to “prevent incidents of lynching and mob violence.”

Speaking on behalf of the Central government, Additional Solicitor General of India R Sankaranarayanan stated that the government is dedicated to “providing its citizens with an open, safe, trusted, and accountable internet and that its powers to block information have a limited scope,” as provided in the Bar and Bench report.

The judgment can be read as follows.

Background/Timeline of the case:

• Last year, after the blocking orders had been issued, Twitter argued that in accordance with section 69A of the IT Act, account holders were to be notified before having their tweets and accounts deleted, however the Ministry failed to provide these account holders any notices.
• On June 4, 2022, and again on June 6, 2022, the government sent letters to Twitter’s compliance officer requesting that they come before them and provide an explanation for why the Blocking Orders were not followed and why no action should be taken against them.
• On June 9, 2022, the Twitter had responded by saying that the content for which it had ignored the blocking orders did not appear to be in breach of Section 69A.
• On June 27, 2022 the Government issued another notice stating Twitter was violating its directions.
• On June 29, 2022, Twitter replied asking the Government to reconsider the direction on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality.
• On June 30, 2022, the Government withdrew blocking orders on 10 account-level URLs but gave an additional list of 27 URLs to be blocked.
• On July 1, 2022, 10 more accounts were blocked. Compiling the orders “under protest,” Twitter approached the HC with the petition challenging the orders.
• Justice Dixit had completed hearing the arguments and reserved the judgment on April 21, 2023. The operative portion of the judgment has now been pronounced in the court on June 30, 2023.

Related:

Twitter suspends filmmaker Ashoke Pandits account for issuing threats to Raghuram Rajan

Twitter acts against hate speech, locks hate monger’s account

False Twitter post claims Muslim man killed Hindu wife: Local News Channel Sets Record Straight

Hate Watch: Twitter suspends Kreately Media’s account after CJP complaints

‘Twitter Can’t Protect its Data’: Whistleblower Tells US Congress

Centre opposes Twitter’s plea to set aside blocking orders under Section 69A of the IT Act

Twitter moves Karnataka High Court against MeitY order to take down over 1,400 accounts

The post Karnataka HC: Petition by Twitter contesting centre’s blocking orders dismissed, Rs. 50 lakh fine imposed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar sitting at Kalaburagi quashed the proceedings stating, “Section 196 of Cr.P.C. specifies that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 153-A of IPC and Section 295-A of IPC, except the previous sanction of the State Government. In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has taken the cognizance for the aforesaid offences without there being previous sanction by the State Government. Hence, in the absence of previous sanction, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the above said offences, is one without authority of law.” (Para 9-10)

According to the police charge sheet, the accused was the chief guest on an event organised on the occasion of Shivaji Maharaj Jayanti and the inauguration of the Sri Ram Sene’s office on February 25, 2017. The accused allegedly made offensive remarks while addressing the crowd in the presence of a Police Sub Inspector, who was the complainant, and three constables. He allegedly stated that those who murder the cow must have their hands cut.

After accepting the charge-sheet, the Magistrate had taken cognizance of the aforementioned offenses and issued summons.

During the hearing, the petitioner-accused had sought for quashing of charges, arguing that the Magistrate’s cognizance for the aforementioned offenses, in the absence of sanction as stipulated in Section 196 of the Cr.P.C., is one without legal authority. Furthermore, it was asserted that the testimonies of the independent witnesses were not recorded, and that in the absence of any material to prove the claims against the accused, the charge-sheet submitted on the basis of the police witnesses’ statements is devoid of substance.

The said plea was opposed by the prosecution. However, after having perused the charge sheet, the bench said “Except the statements of the police personnel, the statements of independent eyewitnesses have not been recorded. Though the statement of the person who is alleged to have video graphed the function is recorded, no data is retrieved from the video camera to substantiate that the accused has made inflammatory statements.” (Para 8)

In accordance to these observations, the Court quashed the proceedings.

The order can be read as follows:

Previous proceedings against Muthalik that had resulted in acquittal due to lack of evidence

In the year 2018, a local court had acquitted Pramod Muthalik and 30 others in the pub attack case of January 2009 for want of evidence. Citing lack of evidence from the prosecution, the magistrate had acquitted Muthalik and 30 others belonging to the said organisation of Sri Ram Sene, who had been charged by then BJP government in the state.

This acquittal had sent shockwaves as the violent attack on the men and women in the Mangaluru pub had happened in broad daylight and the entire episode was filmed. Sri Ram Sene, then a non-descript Hindu chauvinistic outfit, had even claimed the responsibility for the attack. Over 30 Sri Ram Sene activists had allegedly barged into the pub on January 24, 2009, and assaulted the women and men, claiming they were violating traditional Indian values. The incident had generated national outrage after the video clip of the attack went viral. It depicted several men allegedly dragging women at the pub by their hair, slapping and roughing them up and accusing them of “loose morals”.

Who is to be blamed for this quashing of charges?

In the current case, even after an FIR has been filed, based on which a charge sheet had been submitted, the proceedings could not be sustained due to the statements of independent eyewitnesses not being recorded and no data being retrieved from the video graphed speech to substantiate that the accused has made inflammatory statements. Even though this essentially does not mean that no inflammatory, derogatory and offensive statements were made by the accused, a lacunae in the performance of duties led to justice being denied and the accused getting their name cleared. Who should be blamed for the non-deliverance of justice in this case? The quashing of the case against Pramod Muthalik, a hate speaker who is known for targeting the religious minority communities of India and instigating Hindu youth to commit acts of violence, shows the sorry state of our criminal justice system, and will only lead to the accused giving more inflammatory statements with impunity.

But the question that arises is whether any action would have been taken against Muthalik, which has the right-wing forces supporting him, even if the statements had been recorded? In the beginning of this year only, citizens, majorly women, had stated a protest in front of the office of the Director General of Police (DGP), Karnataka, demanding for his arrest after he had made a highly derogatory and violent anti-women statement. In February, in his speech, Pramod Muthalik had urged Hindu men to “get 10 Muslim girls for losing one Hindu girl to Love-Jihad”, and declared that such Hindu men would be provided security and employment by his organisation. With evocative banners, women protesters have raised questions regarding the inaction of the police against hate speeches. Citizens had called for the filing of a suo moto FIR against Muthalik, reminding the senior Karnataka police officer of the Supreme Court’s guidelines on hate speech, which state that police can take suo moto action against those who incite hatred through their speeches. Notably, no action was taken even then.

It is to be seen if the newly elected Karnataka government that has vowed to tackle hate speech and divisive politics seeks to correct the lacunae in prosecution and proceed with cases against Muthalik in the near future.

Related:

Worship Swords instead of books or pens: Pramod Muthalik

Pramod Muthalik stirs the Hanuman Chalisa vs Azaan pot

Demolish Gadag Jumma Masjid to build Venkateshwara temple: Pramod Muthalik

Women protest at Karnataka DGP headquarters, say ‘Why no action against Muthalik?’

Get 10 Muslim girls for losing 1 Hindu girl, says Sri Ram Sene in Karnataka

Karnataka: Controversy over decision to build colleges for Muslim girls

The post Karnataka HC: Proceedings against Pramod Muthalik for delivering offensive statement quashed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Justice Hemant Chandangoudar quashed the case after hearing Senior Counsel Amit Kumar Deshpande on behalf of Shaheen School Management. Notably, the prosecution initiated against them was under sections 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 505(2) (Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes), 124A (sedition), 153A (promoting, attempting to promote disharmony) and 34 (common intent) of the Indian Penal Code.

A detailed order copy is awaited.

Brief Background of the case:

In January 2020, the students had performed a play on the CAA and NRC, following which an FIR was registered at the Bidar New Town police station based on a complaint by activist Nilesh Rakshala. The charge of sedition was levied against the school authorities for performing “anti-national activities” and “spreading negative opinion” about parliamentary laws.

It was alleged by the complainant that the school used the students to perform a drama whereby Modi was “abused” for introducing Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and National Register of Citizens (NRC).  The complainant alleged that the play was spreading misinformation by saying that Muslims in India have to leave the country because of NRC. This message was shared on social media to spread misinformation, the complaint said. The complainant said, “The management tried to create ‘fear’ among the Muslims that they would have to leave the country if the CAA and NRC are implemented”.

Pursuant to the FIR, Fareeda Begum, headmistress of Shaheen Primary and High School and Nazbunnissa, the mother of a girl student, who had uttered a dialogue, which was treated by the police as insulting Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were arrested on January 30, 2020. They were later released by a Sessions Court in February 14, 2020.

Shaheen Group of institutions had contested the allegations and said that the Police were treating the children as “anti-nationals” and visiting the school daily.

On August 17, 2021, the Bangalore Bench of the Karnataka High Court made a statement stating that the Juvenile Justice Act of 2015 and children’s rights were violated by the presence of armed police officers while questioning children in connection with the same case.
The current MLA of Mudigere constituency, Nayana Jyothi Jhawar, filed had this current petition in relation to children’s rights. The petition claimed that 85 students, some of whom were as young as nine years old, had to endure police questioning, which had an adverse effect on children’s psychology.

As has been reported by the Hindustan Gazette, Dr. Abdul Qadeer, Chairman Shaheen Group of Institutions, had expressed his belief in the court’s ability to deliver justice. He thanked his advocates, the media, and other friends for their support during challenging times.

Police visiting school and questioning children

The first visit of the police to the school was on January 28, which had garnered widespread criticism for putting the kids through trauma after they were seen investigating children. They had then visited the school on January 31, but this time in plainclothes. Again, in an investigation on February 1, they interrogated 60 students. On February 4, 2020, as had been reported by SabrangIndia, four policemen in plainclothes along with two female members of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) had visited the Shaheen School for the fourth time as part of the investigation in the case of sedition registered against the school authorities for staging a play where some characters allegedly ‘insulted’ Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The policemen and the members of the CWC were joined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Basaveshwara Hira, who had then allegedly proceeded to grill seven students, six of whom were not part of the play. The questioning had lasted two hours and some of the students questioned were not part of the play. It was reported that the investigating officers asked the same students that were asked in previous investigations – who gave the students the script, who taught them the dialogues, and where the rehearsal had taken place.

Tauseef Madikeri, CEO of Shaheen Group of Institutions, had said, “I cannot understand why the police are repeatedly subjecting the children of 9 to 12 age group to mental torture. The harassment will affect them in the long run. The police don’t understand if we tell them.” He also said, “This is mental harassment of the students who are 9 or 10 years old and also of the parents. Some students who took part in the play have not turned up at school because of this. Is this because we are a minority institution?”

Related:

Sedition charge on Karnataka school for anti-CAA skit

How & Why India’s Law Commission has urged a cap on Free Speech: Sedition

Supreme Court will soon hear pleas challenging constitutional validity of sedition law

SC Order putting sedition law on hold to continue

Sharjeel Imam granted bail in the 2019 Sedition Case

If Sedition goes, so must criminalising provisions of UAPA: CCG

Landmark ruling: SC orders Sedition law to be kept in abeyance

The post Karnataka HC: Sedition charges quashed against Shaheen school for performing anti-CAA skit appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Advocate’s Association, Bengaluru has written to Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud flagging how interim anticipatory bail application of BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa was listed and decided within a day by the Karnataka High Court. The Association raised “serious concerns” over this matter. The Lokayukta had found Rs. 6 crore cash in Virupakshappa’s house while his son was caught taking a bribe of Rs. 40 lakh. Virupakshappa, from Channagiri constituency, was granted anticipatory bail by Justice K Natarajan and ordered that the bail would stand until the petition is decided and directed Virupakshappa to appear before the authority for investigation and inquiry. He had gone missing since he was booked in the case and surfaced after this protection from arrest was granted to him.

The letter says, “the usual practice in the High Court of Karnataka is that new matters like Anticipatory bail take several days and weeks for posting. But, however, VIP matters are entertained overnight.” The Association was dismayed that such practice would lead to a common man losing faith in the judicial system. Hence, the Association has pleaded that the High Court direct the registry to list all anticipatory bail matters within one day so that “common man is treated as a VIP”.

The complaint concludes by stating, “It is essential that the temple of justice should be equal to all and any VIP must have to wait just as the common man and in this regard the Advocates Association expresses serious shock and concern over the matter”.

The letter bears the signatures of the President, Vivek Subba Reddy, General Secretary TG Ravi and Treasurer, Harisha MT.

Virupakshappa is confident of being acquitted in the case, as he claimed to reporters. He claims that the money seized is income from agriculture and legitimate businesses run by his family. “Rs 4-5 crore can be found even at the house of a common man. As we have a lot of businesses, Rs 6 crore is not a big deal for us. I will submit all the relevant documents to the Lokayukta,” he told the media. The complaint with the Lokayukta is believed to have been filed by Shreyas Kashyap of Chemixil Corporation stating that Rs 81 lakh bribe was asked of him regarding a tender.  After his son was booked Virupakshappa resigned from Chairmanship of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd (KSDL).

Related:

More than 1100 days in prison: Gulfisha Fatima awaits bail

Could Sonu Mansuri be yet another victim of this authoritarian regime?

Bombay HC quashes order rejecting bail plea of Navlakha by special court, orders expeditious rehearing

Pawan Khera granted interim bail after being arrested by Assam police over Modi jibe

The post Treat common man also like VIP: Adv Association writes to CJI appeared first on SabrangIndia.

By declaring the blocking of the @INCIndia and @BharatJodo Twitter handles “punitive action,” a division bench of the High Court of Karnataka has overturned the lower court’s order in a copyright infringement case.

The party was required by the high court to submit screenshots of the Twitter handle and the other social media accounts before the controversial content was deleted. The High Court issued the following ruling:  “We are of the opinion that prayer deserves to be allowed to set aside impugned order, subject to appellant taking down offending material,” as reported by the News Minute. 

The order is subject to the Congress party removing the offending content before noon on Wednesday, November 9. Before Wednesday noon, Congress agreed to delete the 45-second clip that featured the song that was protected by copyright from all of its social media sites.

On November 7, the lower court had issued the order in a case brought by MRT Studios, who claimed that 45 seconds of music from KGF Chapter 2 that was protected by copyright had been used by the Congress party in a song called “Bharat Jodo.”

The plea filed by the Congress was considered in an urgent hearing on Tuesday night, November 8, by the division bench of Justices G Narendar and PN Desai. Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi presented the case for the party contesting the lower court’s Monday order. Allowing the appeal, the HC said, “Appeal is allowed in part, subject to appellants (INC) removing it from their social media accounts. This order shall not come in the way of the plaintiff making any request to court to protect their copyrights.”

Prior to that, the senior lawyer in his arguments emphasized that the Commercial Court had no urgent need to give the interim order and that Twitter would delete the party’s accounts if it wasn’t stayed. He said that the party was prepared to remove the 45 seconds of the disputed clip that violated MRT’s copyright. To block Twitter accounts for the 45-second clip has ulterior motives, he told the court. “Blocking Twitter handles will not help the respondents unless they have any ulterior motive,” he told the court. as reported by News Minute.

“There is no commercial purpose in using the audio clip. A disproportionate order could not be passed by blocking the national party accounts and affecting my freedom of expression, even when the Bharat Jodo yatra is ongoing,” the advocate further claimed. 

The MRT Studios’ counsel also made submissions arguing that the blocking order was appropriate. The High Court did point out that Congress was prepared to take the video down from its Twitter handles and stop using it, admitting that it had violated the copyright. Thus, the High Court declared that directions of the lower court were punitive.

Furthermore, the lower court’s appointment of a Commissioner to look into the matter, according to the court, was a hasty action.  “Once the mistake is admitted, where is the question of investigation into it? If you have filed an FIR, where is the question of appointing a technical expert as commissioner? You want the Commissioner to do the police’s job?,” the High Court said.

Brief about the case: The alleged infringing music clip was posted on the account’s Twitter page as early as October, but the copyright owner didn’t report the incident until November 2. It was then heard on November 5 and the lower court issued its ruling on November 7. He informed the division bench that an ex-parte injunction was issued without giving notice or providing a justification.

Related:

Rohith Vemula’s Mother Joins Rahul Gandhi, Extends Solidarity:Bharat Jodo Yatra

Two days on a yatra; that tiny glimmer

From a former Chief of the Indian Navy, Admiral Ramdas to Rahul Gandhi

The post Karnataka HC overturns lower court’s order blocking Congress Bharat Jodo Yatra Twitter accounts appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On October 21, the High Court of Karnataka denied “default bail” to an accused in the murder of renowned journalist Gauri Lankesh. The accused, a businessman from Aurangabad, Maharashtra had sought to challenge the lower court ruling on the issue. Hrishikesh Devdikar, a businessman from Aurangabad of Maharashtra had been detained and placed in judicial custody in January 2020. Later, he submitted an application to the Special court for “statutory/default bail” under section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Devdikar claimed that no supplementary charge sheet was filed against him even 90 days after his arrest before the high court. However, the petitioner fled and was impossible to nab throughout the investigation, according to the special public prosecutor. The SPP reports that several new charge sheets have been submitted in the case. He noted that the petitioner was named in the initial charge sheet from 2018—even before the arrest. The court therefore rejected the statutory bail application of the accused. Pursuant to this, he appealed to the High Court to challenge he lower court’s order.

On October 21, Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed the plea, finding that the charge sheet had already been filed when the accused was detained. Therefore,he found the accused not eligible for seeking reliefs under Section 167 of the CrPC, subsection (2).

“An accused would not be entitled to the benefit under Subsection (2) of Section 167 of CrPC, in the event of charges sheet having already been filed before his arrest,” the judge said.

“I am of the considered opinion that in the present case, charge sheet having been laid against the petitioner even prior to the arrest of the petitioner, the petitioner having been arraigned as an accused and charged with certain offence, I am of the considered opinion that the benefit of Subsection (2) of Section 167 of CrPc would not arise,” he added.

“In my considered opinion as dealt with hereinabove, the fact of the accused absconding or delaying the investigation during the period of he being absconding would not be relevant for consideration of application Subsection (2) of Section 167 of CrPC,” the court further noted.

Background of the case:

Gauri Lankesh was highly respected for not only her fearless journalism, but also her work in advocating communal harmony, the rights of women, and persons from historically oppressed communities. Her killers, all allegedly affiliated to different right wing extremist organisations, wanted to silence her for her secular views and her stand against hardline groups that spread communal hate.

The trial in her assassination case began on July 4 before a special Karnataka Control of Organised Crime Act (KCOCA) court. As per directions of Special Judge CM Joshi, hearings take place every second week of the month for five days. Hearings are all set to resume this month.

Gauri’s sister Kavitha Lankesh who is a poet and filmmaker was one of the first people to testify in the case. Other witnesses who have testified so far include a cable operator who arrived at the spot shortly after Gauri Lankesh’s assassination, a neighbour who saw the shooters fleeing the spot, a witness who told the court about a meeting between some of the accused, a forensic science lab technician and a police officer.

The probe, the chargesheet and the arrests:  The probe was conducted by the Karnataka Special Investigation Team (SIT) who filed two chargesheets. The primary charge sheet was filed against KT Naveen Kumar, a 37-year-old member of the Hindu Yuva Sena on May 30, 2018. On November 23, 2018 the supplementary charge sheet running into 9,235 pages was filed. 18 people were named in the charge sheet, including alleged shooter Parashuram Waghmare, and alleged masterminds Amol Kale, Sujith Kumar alias Praveen and Amit Digwekar. It was in this charge sheet that the Sanatan Sanstha was mentioned for the first time. So far, 17 people have been arrested while one of the accused remains absconding.

According to the Karnataka Special Investigation Team) SIT, the plot to kill Lankesh was hatched a year before the assassination. Amol Kale, a former Hindu Janjagruti Samiti (HJS) convener, allegedly hired killer Parshuram Waghmare. Waghamare was allegedly a member of the Sri Ram Sene. Kale took him to an isolated spot in Khanapur, Belgaum to practice using an air pistol. Waghmare allegedly did a recce of Lankesh’s house in Rajarajeshwari Nagar in July 2017. On September 5, he and another back-up gunman Ganesh Miskin arrived outside Lankesh’s house on a black motorcycle. Waghmare fired four times at Lankesh and the duo fled the scene.

However, the group responsible came together in 2010-11 suggesting that this was a wider conspiracy planned over a longer period aiming to eliminate more rationalists, journalists and activists. In a press release the SIT had said, “The investigation so far has revealed that all the 18 accused are active members of an organised crime syndicate. This syndicate was formed in 2010-11, under the leadership of Virendra Tawade alias Bade Bhaisaab. One former editor of ‘Sanatan Prabhat’ provided financial support to this syndicate. The members of this organisation targeted people who they identified to be inimical to their belief and ideology. The members strictly followed the guidelines and principles mentioned in ‘Kshatra Dharma Sadhana’, a book published by Sanatan Sanstha.” The statement further added, “In August 2016, in a meeting of the syndicate, the main members identified Ms. Lankesh as a “durjan” as told in the ‘Kshatra Dharma Sadhana’, based on her speeches and writings. They jointly hatched a conspiracy to murder her.”

On March 2, 2018, the SIT arested right-wing activist K. T. Naveen Kumar, of Maddur, who in 2015 founded the Hindu Yuva Sene. Kumar who reportedly confessed to Lankesh’s murder had previously been arrested in February 2018 in relation to a case involving illegal arms. Kumar allegedly obtained the bullets that were used to kill Gauri Lankesh, and that he allegedly supplied logistical support to her killers and directed them to her residence and office in Bengaluru.

In late May 2018, the SIT arrested four more people with ties to right-wing group Sanatan Sanstha for a January 2018 conspiracy to kill K. S. Bhagwan. The four individuals also had ties to Sanatan Sanstha’s sister outfit, the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti (HJS), and were also connected to Kumar, in 2017 had attended multiple HJS meetings. They were Amol Kale alias Bhaisab, an HJS activist from Maharashtra, Amit Degwekar alias Pradeep, a Sanatan Sanstha activist from Goa, Manohar Edave of Karnataka, and Sujeet Kumar alias Praveen, an activist with Sanatan Sanstha and the HJS from Mangalore.

On June 11, 2018 the sixth accused in the case, 26-year-old Parashuram Waghmare, was arrested. On Thursday, June 14, police reportedly interrogated Waghmare and the previously arrested Amol Kale. Waghmare had allegedly claimed that Kale instructed him to carry out the killing, and gave him a country-made pistol.

Sharad Kalaskar was arrested on August 10, 2018 by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) after a tip off from the Karnataka Special Investigation Team (SIT) which was probing the Gauri Lankesh murder case. The ATS claims that Kalaskar was also one of the two gunmen who shot and killed Narendra Dabholkar in August 2013. According to the ATS, the weapon used to kill Gauri Lankesh and other rationalists was also procured and manufactured by Kalaskar.

A note on how to make bombs was also recovered from him. Kalaskar was arrested along with Vaibhav Raut and Sudhanwa Gondhalekar from the Nallasopara home of Raut who is the convener of the Hindu Govansh Raksha Samiti. 20 crude bombs and two gelatin sheets were recovered during this raid. Meanwhile, Gondhalekar is a member of Shiv Shivapratishthan Hindustan, an organisation run by none other than Shambhaji Bhide, one of the two main accused in the Bhima Koregaon violence.

In July 2019, Uma Devi, wife of slain rationalist MM Kalburgi identified the gunman who shot her husband. Earlier the SIT had arrested Praveen Chatur, a Belgavi resident who had allegedly ferried this gunman in the Kalburgi murder. While police had initially suspected Amit Baddi, a friend of Ganesh Miskin, of being the biker, sketches prepared by police artists did not match eye witness descriptions. When the SIT probed the matter again, interrogation of Amol Kale pointed them towards Chatur. Chatur was also wanted in a petrol bomb attack on a theater screening Padmavat in Belgavi in January. He has now turned state’s witness in the Gauri Lankesh case. In his statement he has reportedly admitted to attending training camps in Jalna and Mangaluru.

Rishikesh Dewarkar was the last one to be arrested in the case so far. Dewarkar who also went by the alias Rajesh was arrested from Katras town in Dhanbad district of Jharkhand in January 2020. He had been on the run ever since the assassination and had been laying low, working at a petrol pump in Katras for several months under an assumed identity.

Proceedings at previous hearings: As SabrangIndia had reported previously, Gauri Lankesh’s sister Kavita Lankesh, who is a filmmaker and poet, made her statement before the court when the hearings began on July 4, and said that just days before her murder, Gauri Lankesh had seen some men “loitering suspiciously” near her home in Bengaluru. She also said that it was she who discovered Gauri’s bullet ridden body in a pool of blood.

But the counsel for the defence wanted to spin an entirely different narrative. During her cross examination, Kavita was asked about family feuds instead. She was also asked about Gauri’s alleged “Naxalite connections”. At one point the defence counsel also mentioned Gauri Lankesh’s connections to the activists who have been dubbed the “tukde-tukde gang”, namely Jignesh Mewani and Kanhaiya Kumar. But this line of questioning was shot down by the court.

In July, the court also examined other witnesses including a cable operator who had been called to rectify the cable in Lankesh’s home, but found her dead outside her door instead. Another eye-witness, a mason whose wife was employed as a security guard in the building opposite Lankesh’s residence was also examined. He told the court, he heard gun shots when he came back home from work that day, and rushed to the spot, reported The New Indian Express. 

When the hearing ended on July 8, the counsel for the accused told the court that they had not been given footage from CCTV cameras outside Lankesh’s residence yet. It was this footage that had helped the Special Investigation Team (SIT) to identify and apprehend the shooters. On Monday, July 18, the Special Public Prosecutor handed over the footage from two CCTV cameras outside slain journalist Gauri Lankesh’s house to the legal team of the accused. 

In August, four witnessed deposed before the court. A neighbour (names of witnesses withheld as per directions of the court) of Lankesh testified that he was cooking at home when he heard the gunshots. Times of India quoted excerpts from his testimony: “I ran to the front door and opened it. When I was near the gate, I saw two men riding away on a black Passion Pro motorbike in Subhash Park direction. The rider and the pillion were wearing full-face helmets.” The neighbour also identified the bike used by the assailants that had been seized by the police. He told the court that when he and his roommate rushed outside the bike borne assassins fled, but that’s when a cable operator arrived. This is the same cable operator who had deposed before the court previously.

Another witness told the court that he had met key accused KT Naveen Kumar (A-17) at a park in Vijayanagar, and that two of the accused – Naveen Kumar and Sujith Kumar – had discussed a plan to murder the journalist, reported Hindustan Times.

Other witnesses to depose before the court included a woman staffer from a lab in Shantinagar and two policemen. The lab technician told the court that the police had given them CCTV footage on a DVR on September 6, and the lab downloaded the visuals and returned the DVR the same day.

Another witness to depose before the court was Head constable Shivaswamy H, who reportedly told the court that it was “police inspector Shiva Reddy took a written statement from Kavita Lankesh at the spot” and then gave it to him. He then handed it to sub inspector Laxman who drafted the First Information Report (FIR).

Related:

Gauri Lankesh case: Neighbour identifies bike used by shooters

Gauri Lankesh case: Hearings to resume before KCOCA Court today

Gauri Lankesh case: CCTV footage shared with counsel for the accused

Gauri Lankesh case: Why is the Defence harping on alleged “Naxalite connections”, family fued?

Gauri Lankesh case: SC restores KCOCA charges against Mohan Nayak

Gauri Lankesh case: SC reserves order on plea to keep KCOCA charges against accused

Gauri Lankesh case: SC to decide on keeping KCOCA charges against accused

Gauri Lankesh case: CJP assists sister Kavitha move SC

The post Gauri Lankesh Assassination: Accused denied bail by Aurangabad HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a woman who allegedly, with a view to take revenge and mar another fellow, woman co-artist’s chances in getting roles in dramas, threw acid on her face.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan , on September 9,2022, allowed the petition filed by Swathi and directed the committal court to release her on bail in case registered by Nandini Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326A, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000, with two sureties for the like sum reports LiveLaw.

The Petitioner is named as the third accused in the FIR. According to the prosecution (Swathi v. State of Karnataka), she colluded with accused no. 1 and 2 and the trio decided to throw acid on the victim’s face to make her ‘ugly’. In pursuance of this, it is alleged that the trio drove to her house where accused No.1 threw cleaning acid on her face and the back while she was sleeping and ran away.

After verifying the CCTV footage, accused Nos.1 to 3 were arrested and they are in custody.

Findings:

While the Court did remark that it is unfortunate that a woman, in order to take revenge against another woman, threw acid on her through accused Nos.1 and 2 to disfigure her as a competition, it however allowed the bail plea. Keeping in view the “superficial injury” sustained by the victim and the duration of the petitioner’s custody, she was ordered to be released. The Court also said that investigation in the matter is complete and a charge-sheet has been filed.

“This petitioner is also a woman, a co-drama artist and in custody for almost more than five months. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the co-accused are already arrested and they are in jail, therefore, by imposing certain stringent conditions, if bail is granted to the petitioner, no prejudice would be caused to the case of the prosecution.“

Related

K’taka HC to consider mediation only if parties agree to it

Every crime against SC/ST cannot be offence under the Atrocities Act: K’taka HC

The post Karnataka high court grants bail to theatre artist accused of acid-throwing on colleague appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Twitter has moved the Karnataka High Court alleging that it is being virtually arm-twisted into taking down accounts without being given adequate reason to do so by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology (MeitY).

Last month, MeitY had instructed Twitter to comply with its orders to block certain accounts by July 4, or lose safe harbour protection under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethic Code) Rules, 2021, reported the Indian Express.

In the past year alone, MeitY has reportedly issued 10 blocking orders to Twitter, ordering them to take down over 1,400 accounts and 175 tweets under Section 69 A of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Section 69 (A) of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2000, allows the Centre to issue directions for blocking of social media content “in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of the State, friendly relations with foreign states or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of any cognisable offence relating to above.”

Twitter has now filed a petition to the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, July 5, 2022, seeking that the blocking orders be set aside as they “fall foul” of the “narrowly tailored” grounds of Section 69A of the IT Act. In the petition, Twitter reportedly alleged disproportionate use of power by officials issuing orders under Section 69A of the IT Act.

Twitter alleges that the Ministry ordered them to block entire accounts, without even informing the company about the specific tweets that were made by the accounts that called for their blocking, reported the Indian Express. The company reportedly stated, “Several of the URLs contain political and journalistic content. Blocking of such information is a gross violation of the freedom of speech guaranteed to citizen-users of the platform.” It further stated that the Ministry failed to provide “proper reasons” for issuing the blocking orders as required under Section 69A of the IT Act.

While calling some of the blocking orders “unconstitutional”, the company has said: “The blocking orders are challenged on the basis that they are procedurally and substantially non-compliant with Section 69A, are manifestly arbitrary, fail to provide the originators prior notice and are disproportionate in several cases,” reported the Indian Express.

As per reports, the accounts and tweets that were ordered to be blocked have been submitted to the court by Twitter in a sealed envelope, since Section 69 (A) orders are supposed to be kept confidential.

Related:

Social media platforms finally compel extremist groups to shun hate speech, fake news
Hate content on social media: Corporate and individual responsibility
Ex IPS Officer NC Asthana’s twitter account suspended for violating rules

The post Twitter moves Karnataka High Court against MeitY order to take down over 1,400 accounts appeared first on SabrangIndia.