Stampede: Karnataka HC questions govt over placing report in 'sealed cover'
When the suo motu petition over the stampede, that claimed 11 lives on June 4, came up for hearing before Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice CM Joshi, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty said the government was not shying away from disclosure, but wanted to avoid prejudicing ongoing inquiries.
"We will place both reports next week," he said, referring to preliminary findings and interim assessments prepared by the state. The AG stressed that certain observations in the report were of preliminary nature and could be sensationalised by the media if made public prematurely.
The bench reiterated that it would consider the question of keeping the status report inside a sealed cover and announced its decision to appoint an amicus curiae. Further, the court said it would seek assistance from the amicus curiae before arriving at a decision on the matter.
The court indicated a clear preference for transparency and accountability in the investigation process. The AG sought an adjournment of 20 to 25 days to allow all reports to come in. However, the bench appeared unconvinced. 'Why should that restrict us?' the court asked, reiterating that the proceedings were not limited by the state's internal timelines.
The court said it intended to implead the Karnataka State Cricket Association , Royal Challengers Bengaluru , and DNA Networks three entities involved in the conduct and management of the IPL match.
Advocates representing various applicants called for public disclosure of the state's report, arguing that transparency and accountability are vital.
A counsel, quoting from a legal precedent, said, 'A one-sided submission causes serious violation of natural justice.' Another added, 'Sealed covers lead to a culture of opacity.'
The bench directed the counsel seeking enhancement of compensation for victims to submit their application to the Advocate General so the state could respond accordingly.
The court ordered that notices be issued to KSCA, RCB, and DNA Networks, making them party respondents. The next hearing is scheduled for June 23.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
13 hours ago
- News18
HC rejects petitions against Karnatakas smart meter mandate
Agency: PTI Bengaluru, Aug 13 (PTI) The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed two petitions challenging the state government's decision to mandate the installation of smart pre-paid electricity meters for new consumers, despite concerns over their high cost compared to neighbouring states. Justice M Nagaprasanna, who reserved orders on July 22, noted that a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) raising similar issues is already pending before a division bench. 'Judicial discipline demands hierarchy, and propriety requires this court to show judicial hands off to the present petitions. Therefore, the subject petitions are not entertainable," the judge said. The court also recorded an earlier submission from Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty that the state would not compel the petitioners to install smart meters in their residences since these were not new connections. During earlier hearings, the bench had remarked on the stark price difference between Karnataka and other states, observing, 'Everywhere else it is Rs 900 for the same smart meter, here you are charging Rs 8,900 — where will poor people go? You have outsourced the work; this is dangerous. You are squeezing the poor." An interim order had been issued then, preventing the state from making smart meters compulsory in situations not covered by the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024. Representing one of the petitioners, Senior Advocate Lakshmy Iyengar argued that the policy would eventually affect all consumers, questioning the tender process and highlighting the financial burden when other states offer the same meters at a fraction of the cost. Advocate General Shetty, however, maintained that the requirement applies only to new households, not to existing electricity consumers. PTI JR ROH view comments First Published: August 13, 2025, 20:00 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
India.com
14 hours ago
- India.com
Karnataka HC Refuses Pleas Against Mandatory Smart Meters, Cites Judicial Discipline
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday refused to hear two petitions questioning the state's requirement that new electricity consumers have smart prepaid meters installed, stating that a similar issue is pending before a division bench. Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who had reserved orders on July 22, made a strong pitch for judicial discipline in his order. Judicial Discipline Cited "Judicial discipline requires hierarchy, and propriety necessitates this Court to display judicial hands-off to the current petitions. Hence the subject petitions are not entertainable," Justice Nagaprasanna said in his observation. He further observed a previous commitment by Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty that the State would not require smart metering of the petitioners' residential premises, as their connections were not new." Court's Earlier Fears About Meter Price The court's denial comes notwithstanding its stern verbal observations during previous hearings on the exorbitant price of these smart meters in Karnataka as against states around it. Justice Nagaprasanna had earlier asked, "All over (other states) it is at Rs 900 for the very same smart meter, and you are charging Rs 8,900. Where will poor people go sir? You have outsourced the things, this is dangerous. You are quenching from all the poor people." In following these issues, the court had passed an interim order instructing the State not to make smart meters compulsory for power supply/electricity connections, especially in violation of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (Pre-paid Smart Metering) Regulations, 2024. Petitioners Claim Hardship, Challenge Tender Process The petitions were initiated by persons such as Jayalakshmi, who received a notice on April 2, 2025, instructing her to buy a Smart Energy Meter. Senior Counsel Lakshmy Iyengar, for one of the petitioners, contended that the mandate will ultimately drive all consumers to move to smart meters. The tender process and the "extreme hardships" caused to consumers by paying a very high price for meters in Karnataka were specifically challenged by the petitioners, drawing a contrast with the about Rs 900 charged in other states. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, who appeared on behalf of the State, had earlier explained to the court that smart meters were meant to be installed only in new house connections and not for existing consumers. ALSO READ: 'BrahMos Hai Humare Paas': Owaisi Slams Pakistan PM Shehbaz Sharif's Water Threat | VIDEO
Indian Express
21 hours ago
- Indian Express
Lack of vacancy in specific private aided institution not grounds to deny compassionate appointment: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court has observed that in private aided institutions, a lack of vacancy in a specific institute should not be a ground to deny compassionate appointment. Instead, vacancies elsewhere in the district or state could be taken into account for the purpose of these appointments. The July 31 order passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj was recently made public. The case in question involved Santosh Wadakar, whose father had passed away while in service as a first grade assistant in an aided institution in Karnataka's Bagalkot district in 2009. Wadakar applied for compassionate appointment, but this was rejected by the deputy director of the pre-university education department, saying there was no vacancy in the institute where his father was employed. Wadakar's counsel argued that as per the Karnataka Pre-University Education Rules, 2010, vacancies had to be considered not only in the same institute but across the district and state as well. The bench agreed, stating, '…the petitioner's application has been rejected solely on the ground that no vacancy exists in the institution where his father was working. This rejection is in clear contravention of the mandate …..The respondents are duty-bound to act in strict conformity with the Rules while considering the petitioner's legitimate claim for compassionate appointment.' The court then directed that efforts be made to fill vacancies at the district, or failing that, at the state level for this compassionate appointment within eight weeks of the order being received. Meanwhile, in a related issue, the Karnataka High Court had released guidelines for compassionate appointments, including steps to assist applicants such as widows and illiterate persons with the technicalities of the application process.
