Karnataka High Court directs State government to submit Commission report on Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede
A Division Bench comprising Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice Umesh M. Adiga issued the direction on a petition filed by DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt. Ltd., which has challenged the legality of the procedure adopted by the Commission in conducting the inquiry.
Request by government
Meanwhile, Senior Advocate B.K. Sampath Kumar, appearing for DNA Networks, told the bench that the function to facilitate the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) team on the steps of Vidhana Soudha on June 4 was also arranged by DNA Networks on the request made by the State government.
It may be noted that DNA is the event manager for the Royal Challengers Sports Pvt. Ltd., which owns RCB cricket team.
The petitioner-company has questioned the legality of the Commission's report while alleging that the Commission had violated the principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry (COI), 1952, as no opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses was given to DNA Networks.
Reputation impacted
Mr. Kumar also contended that the reputation of the company has been severely affected due to the continued publication of the Commission's report in all forms of media, as it appears that the media has all the details of the Commission's report, even though the petitioner-company was not given a copy despite multiple requests.
Meanwhile, the State Advocate-General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that DNA Network will have to approach the civil court against the media publications on the commission's report, while stating that the Government has nothing to do with publications in the media citing the Commission's report.
DNA Network, in its petition, has claimed that the report of the Commission was leaked to the media but not given to the company, while pointing out that even the applications filed by it under the RTI Act have also been rejected.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
12 minutes ago
- Time of India
Varun Dhawan wraps 'Border 2' with cake and Golden Temple blessings
Charity Chaos: Harry Breaks Silence After Sentebale Investigation Ends Prince Harry has broken his silence following the UK Charity Commission's investigation into Sentebale, the African charity he co-founded. While the Commission cleared him of any wrongdoing, finding no evidence of racism, bullying, or misogyny, Harry says the reputational damage is already done, and it's the vulnerable children who will suffer. Tensions within the organisation reportedly began after internal clashes with current chair Dr Sophie Chandauka. By March 2025, Harry and the entire board resigned, claiming they could no longer work with her. His team alleges she refused to step down and instead sued to retain her position. Though the final report blamed no one, it sharply criticised Sentebale's leadership for mishandling internal disputes. 250 views | 23 hours ago
The Wire
2 hours ago
- The Wire
Data Protection for Whom?
The blanket bar on sharing any personal data – even where larger public interest or its connection to public activity is evident – in the Digital Personal Data Protection Act has been widely seen as diluting the core of the RTI framework. Illustration: The Wire, with Canva The Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act was passed in August 2023, but is still not yet active two years on. The draft Rules were released for public consultation in January 2025. These Rules are expected to be finalised and notified soon, as per media reports. While the legislative gap in data protection in India has long been glaring, especially in the context of increasing digitisation across sectors, whether this particular law genuinely protects an individual's right to privacy – without simultaneously undermining the Right to Information (RTI) – remains deeply contested. In particular, Section 44(3) of the DPDP Act has sparked concern. This provision effectively overrides Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, which previously allowed for the disclosure of personal information if it served a larger public interest or was related to public activity. With the passage of the DPDP Act, such exceptions have been struck down. Now, the blanket bar on sharing any personal data – even where larger public interest or its connection to public activity is evident – has been widely seen as diluting the core of the RTI framework. What was once a carefully crafted exception to allow for transparency and accountability is now entirely curtailed under the rubric of privacy. It is important to examine the kind of 'personal information' that may fall under public interest, which citizens, activists, journalists and civil society organisations will now be unable to access once the Act and Rules come into full force. Numerous cases of corruption, particularly in public works such as infrastructure, roads and drains, have been unearthed through RTI applications revealing tender details, contract documents and the identities of individuals involved on both sides of the transaction. Such disclosures often expose conflicts of interest and political-business nexuses that underpin policy-making even in the social sector. Also read: Full Text | Justice A.P Shah's Open Letter Seeking Repeal of Recent Amendments to RTI Act For instance, in late 2007, around 30 Members of Parliament, across party lines, wrote to the Ministry of Human Resource Development at the behest of the Biscuit Manufacturers Welfare Association, proposing that mid‑day meals in schools be replaced with packaged biscuits. There was public outcry including demands for these MPs to clarify their associations with the companies concerned. In another instance, Commissioners (on Right to Food) appointed by the Supreme Court were able to show that contracts for supplying take-home rations to anganwadi centres in Maharashtra were awarded to entities labelled as Mahila Mandals but functioning as fronts for large corporate firms – based on information about the ownership and membership of Mahila Mandals. The Supreme Court subsequently directed that the tender process be redone. Under the DPDP Act, access to such information – on the grounds that it constitutes personal data – may now be blocked altogether. There is a very real danger that such efforts to capture public policy by private interests will be shielded under the pretext of privacy protection. Beyond exposing large-scale scams, civil society organisations and activists routinely seek personal data to assist individuals in securing entitlements. For example, when an elderly widow suddenly stops receiving her pension without any notification, or when a household has waited for years to be added to the priority list under the National Food Security Act (NFSA) to obtain a ration card, the route to resolution often begins with checking the status of applications and beneficiary lists. This involves accessing details such as names, reasons for rejection and dates of application – all of which qualify as personal information. Based on this data, citizens can file appeals or complaints, and often secure the benefits they are entitled to. Similarly, social audits conducted in partnership with local communities rely on cross-verifying official records with ground-level testimonies. These audits draw on publicly available lists of beneficiaries, wages paid, ration entitlements, pension disbursements and so on. The new DPDP regime, however, prohibits the sharing of such data unless explicit consent is obtained from each individual – something nearly impossible to operationalise in large-scale audits involving thousands of beneficiaries. To be clear, there is no denying that a robust legal framework for protecting privacy is essential. In the absence of such protections, both rich and poor citizens face exposure to fraud, data theft and misuse. Personal data leakages – ranging from banking details to mobile numbers and identity documents – are rampant, and individuals are routinely subjected to financial scams, unsolicited marketing and phishing attacks. Often, data collected for one purpose – such as KYC verification or government scheme registration – finds its way into other hands without consent. There is also no institutional grievance redressal mechanism to address such misuse. Also read: What Lies Beneath the PR Blitz on the New Data Protection Act? Even state agencies collect data with minimal safeguards or informed consent. The use of facial recognition for accessing supplementary nutrition under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme, or mandatory e-KYC for schemes such as old-age pensions and the public distribution system, involve the mass collection of biometric and demographic data without any clear accountability. In some instances, access to entitlements is denied simply because individuals refuse or fail to comply with these invasive requirements. The DPDP Act, in theory, establishes strong penalties for violations. However, the enforcement mechanisms under the Act are opaque. The composition and functioning of the Data Protection Board – a body tasked with adjudicating complaints and imposing penalties – are entirely controlled by the Union government. There is no independent appointments process, no safeguards against arbitrary decision-making, and no clear procedure for appeals. Moreover, there is a genuine worry that smaller civil society initiatives – such as grassroots surveys, independent research and community-based documentation efforts – will be priced out of existence. The compliance costs associated with data processing under the new framework, including consent management, data security audits and liability for breaches, are likely to be prohibitive for most non-profit and community-led groups. This will further tilt the balance in favour of large corporations and well-funded entities that can afford to navigate the legal complexities of the DPDP regime. The fundamental question, then, is whether the DPDP Act manages to balance two equally important constitutional rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. These are not merely procedural or technical issues, but core questions of democratic accountability and citizen empowerment. Often, these two rights come into conflict. The critical test for any legal framework is to determine which right prevails when they do – and for whose benefit. In its current form, the DPDP Act appears to lean heavily in favour of protecting the interests of the powerful – whether in the corporate sector or the government. It grants the government sweeping discretionary powers, including the ability to exempt entire categories of data processing from the provisions of the Act (under Section 17), without any obligation to lay out the principles guiding such exemptions. It allows the government to appoint members to the Data Protection Board without parliamentary oversight or public transparency. And most crucially, it alters the functioning of the RTI Act without debate by amendments to the original law, effectively bypassing the very spirit of participatory democracy that the RTI Act was meant to protect. The debate around the DPDP Act is not merely about technical definitions of data fiduciaries or consent notices. It is a deeper political and constitutional question: does the law empower citizens, or does it shield the powerful? Dipa Sinha is a development economist. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
4 hours ago
- First Post
Explained: How BCCI is set to be kept out of RTI Act's ambit after latest amendment by Sports Ministry
A crucial clause in the National Sports Governance Bill would have brought a financially independent BCCI under the ambit of the RTI Act, but it is set to change. read more BCCI will not fall under the ambit of the RTI Act after an amendment to the National Sports Governance Bill. Image: AFP The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) has received a major relief from the Sports Ministry, as a crucial amendment has reportedly ensured that the richest cricketing board in the world will not come under the ambit of the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The BCCI has been independent of the Sports Ministry all this while, but the National Sports Governance Bill, which was tabled in Lok Sabha on 23 July by Union Minister Mansukh Mandaviya, brought the Indian cricket board under the ambit of the proposed National Sports Board (NSB). STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide recognition to National Sports Federations (NSFs) and regulate their functioning, promoting better governance and bringing in more transparency. The BCCI will remain an autonomous body under the National Sports Governance Bill, just like the other NSFs, but their disputes will be handled under the National Sports Tribunal. Despite being tabled on 23 July in the Lok Sabha, the National Sports Governance Bill has not come up for discussion in the House due to a prolonged stand-off between the government and the opposition over other matters. How will BCCI be kept out of RTI Act ambit? Amid the logjam in the Parliament, the BCCI has received some good news as sources say that the Sports Ministry has amended the RTI-related provision of the National Sports Governance Bill. As per the latest amendment, only the sports federations that rely on government grants and assistance will now fall under the ambit of the RTI Act. Earlier, clause 15 (2) stated that 'a recognised sports organisation shall be considered as a public authority under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers under this Act.' But BCCI wasn't comfortable with the situation and reportedly protested coming under the RTI Act as it does not depend on government grants. The amendment has now brought an end to their worries. 'The amended clause defines public authority as an entity that is relying on government funds or assistance. With this amendment, there is a clear definition of what is a public authority,' a well-placed source told PTI. 'If this had not been done, it would have been a grey area that could have led to the bill getting held up or being challenged in court. So anything that involves public money will come under RTI. It defines the specifics,' the source added. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'And even if a national sports body is not taking government funds, it can still be questioned if government assistance of any kind is involved in the conduct or operation of its events. Because government assistance is not merely funds, it is also about infrastructure,' he explained. The RTI Act defines a 'public authority' as any institution or body established by a law passed by Parliament or a State Legislature, including those owned, controlled, or significantly funded by the government. The amended sports bill aims to align with this definition. Once enacted, the BCCI will be required to register as a National Sports Federation (NSF), as cricket is now an Olympic sport and is set to debut in the T20 format at the 2028 Games.
