&w=3840&q=100)
K'taka HC orders state to share stampede report with KSCA, RCB, and DNA
The court rejected the state's justification for withholding the report, noting that the Supreme Court permits sealed cover confidentiality only in matters involving national security, public interest, or privacy rights criteria that do not apply in this case.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi made these observations on Monday while deciding whether parties involved in the suo motu public interest litigation on the stampede should be given access to the report. The stampede occurred outside the Bengaluru Chinnaswamy Stadium while RCB was celebrating its maiden IPL title victory inside.
Responding to the state government's argument that sharing the report could influence the ongoing judicial commission and magisterial inquiry, the bench called the concern unfounded and lacking in public interest justification.
It emphasised that retired judges and senior All-India Service officers heading the inquiries are not likely to be swayed by the contents of the status report.
The court reiterated that the suo motu proceedings were initiated to determine the cause of the stampede, assess accountability, and suggest preventive measures for the future. Withholding the report from key parties, while expecting their cooperation, would be "unfair", the bench said.
"If the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can help the court better understand the sequence of events, contributing factors, and whether the tragedy was avoidable," the judges observed.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
10 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Kolhapur circuit bench inaugurated, CJI hints at permanent division bench
MUMBAI: Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai on Sunday inaugurated the Bombay High Court's new circuit bench in Kolhapur district, calling it a step towards 'cost-effective and time-bound justice' for litigants from south Maharashtra and the adjoining regions of Goa and Karnataka. Kolhapur circuit bench inaugurated, CJI hints at permanent division bench The new bench will be functional from today (August 18), with jurisdiction over six districts—Kolhapur, Satara, Sangli, Solapur, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg. It will consist of a division bench comprising justices MS Karnik and Sharmila Deshmukh, and two single benches of justices SG Dige and SG Chapalgaonkar. The division bench will hear matters, including public interest litigations, civil writs, appeals and criminal cases, while the single benches will separately handle criminal and civil matters. CJI Gavai said he had long supported the demand for a bench in Kolhapur, first voicing his backing at a legal education camp in Sindhudurg. 'Before my eyes are the thousands of people from our borders with Karnataka and Goa who are litigants before the Bombay High Court. This step is for cost-effective and time-bound justice,' he said. The CJI also linked the move to the ideals of Dr B R Ambedkar and Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj. 'Dr Ambedkar had received a scholarship from Shahuji Maharaj for his studies in England and ₹3,000 to establish Mooknayak. Shahuji always stood by the Dalits, promoted education, and supported their businesses. I have been deeply influenced by his fight against caste oppression,' Justice Gavai said. Reiterating that the Kolhapur bench should eventually be elevated to a permanent division bench, CJI Gavai urged Bombay High Court Chief Justice Alok Aradhe to send a proposal soon. 'I still have more than three months left as CJI, and that is not a small period. Justice Aradhe can send the proposal and I will be in a position to approve it,' he said. Chief minister Devendra Fadnavis, who was present along with deputy CM Eknath Shinde, recalled that Justice Gavai had earlier described Kolhapur's demand for a bench as justified. 'If there is any right for the HC bench of Kolhapur, Justice Gavai has mentioned it,' said Fadnavis. Justice Gavai also acknowledged other demands, including for a hostel for young lawyers from the six districts who will now practice in Kolhapur. He praised the Public Works Department for swiftly constructing a court building 'true to Maratha architecture' to house the new bench. On the oft-repeated demand for a bench in Pune, however, the CJI was cautious. 'The demand is due to Pune's growing advocates wanting more work. We must think about litigants also and not only advocates,' he said, adding that a similar scepticism had once surrounded the Aurangabad bench, which has since proven itself. The Bombay High Court currently has benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad (Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar) and Goa, apart from its principal seat in Mumbai. The Kolhapur circuit bench will be its fifth.
Time of India
5 hours ago
- Time of India
High court upholds 6-month jail term in cheque bounce case
Chennai: Noting that a borrower cannot evade repayment merely on the ground that the loan amount was unaccounted for in the lender's income tax returns, Madras high court upheld the conviction of a man in a cheque bounce case. Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan dismissed a revision petition filed by E Dhatchinamoorthy, who challenged his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The prosecution said, Dhatchinamoorthy borrowed 3 lakh from complainant S Seenuvasan and issued a cheque towards repayment. The cheque was returned dishonoured for 'funds insufficient'. Despite a statutory notice, he failed to repay. The Tindivanam judicial magistrate sentenced him to six months of simple imprisonment and directed him to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount. The conviction was later confirmed by the II additional district judge, Tindivanam, in appeal. You Can Also Check: Chennai AQI | Weather in Chennai | Bank Holidays in Chennai | Public Holidays in Chennai | Gold Rates Today in Chennai | Silver Rates Today in Chennai Before the HC, the petitioner argued that the loan was not accounted for in the complainant's tax returns and hence could not be considered a legally enforceable debt. He also questioned the admissibility of a photocopy of the cheque marked before the trial court. The court noted that the borrower admitted to taking the money and issuing the cheque. "Whether the loan amount is accounted or not is not the concern of the borrower. Once the money is borrowed, it has to be repaid," Justice G K Ilanthiraiyan said. Holding that both the trial and appellate courts rightly convicted him, the HC said the conviction 'does not require any interference' and dismissed the revision. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Indian Express
6 hours ago
- Indian Express
Denial of admission to private unaided school not a violation of right to education: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court recently ruled that denial of admission to a private unaided school will not violate the right to education under the Constitution. Article 21A of the Constitution, introduced by the 86th Amendment in 2002, guarantees free and compulsory education for children aged 6 to 14 years. In this case, the petitioner approached the high court seeking an order to admit his son to St Paul's High School in Belagavi as a lower kindergarten student. He said they had received a communication stating that his son had been selected for admission as a student, and they would have to come to meet the principal on February 28. The website then changed the status to 'verification pending'. The school later informed the petitioner that the confirmation of admission had been erroneously sent to him along with 61 other students owing to a software issue and that the sanctioned number of students, 150, had already been admitted. The petitioner argued that the child ought to be admitted owing to the initial communication. The school's counsel argued that the petition could not be maintained since it was a private, unaided institution. The petitioner's counsel, on the other hand, relied on a prior Delhi High Court judgment to argue that, since education is a matter with public scope, the court's jurisdiction did extend to it. The order, passed on August 5 by a bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj, stated that in the case of fundamental rights being affected, the court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution could be applied even if the school was a private entity. However, the court did not agree that said rights had actually been violated in this case. The court noted, 'There is no specific allegation in the petition regarding any discrimination or the like which would violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India, nor is any such allegation made as regards the violation of fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, though a reference is made that non-grant of admission would deprive the petitioners of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the mere non-admission of petitioner No.2 (the student) in respondent No.3 school would not amount to a violation of Article 21.' The court pointed out that there were many other schools where the child could be admitted. Having made these observations, the court dismissed the petition.
