Law students told to work ethically
Additional Registrar General of High Court of Karnataka in Dharwad Shantaveer Shivappa has called upon law students to inculcate great values and commitment towards their profession to provide justice to litigant public.
He was inaugurating the annual social gathering and prize distribution ceremony of KLE Society's G.K. Law College in Hubballi on Saturday.
Elaborating on the pre-requisites for becoming a successful legal practitioner, he advised students to participate in moot court competitions and other skill enhancing events to develop their advocacy skills.
Highlighting the nobility of the profession, he advised students to work hard to achieve success with ethics and morality rather than with a motive to earn money only.
He subsequently gave away prizes to the winners of various competitions and felicitated winners of State and National-level Moot Court, sports, debate and cultural competitions.
Making the introductory remarks, Principal Dnyaneshwar P. Chouri asked the students to take the legal profession seriously and work hard with commitment to succeed in it.
Presiding over the function, senior advocate and member of the local governing body of the college Umesh M. Patil called upon students to inculcate values to serve the community and to build a peaceful and orderly society.
Sharada G. Patil, Sanjeev M. Hullur and others were present.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Actor Darshan allowed to travel abroad for film shoot
The 57th Civil and Session court in Bengaluru on Friday permitted Kannada actor Darshan Thoogudeepa to travel abroad for his film shoot. The accused, who is the second accused in the murder of Renukaswamy, a medical store employee from Chitradurga, had sought the court's permission to travel to Europe and Dubai for the shooting of the movie 'Devil' from July 1 to 25. The accused's counsel argued that he is an actor by profession and the right to travel is one of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. In his application, the actor said that he had no occupation for his livelihood except acting, and he was the sole breadwinner of his family. The counsel also submitted that the High Court of Karnataka, while modifying the order, directed him to seek permission from this court whenever he requires to travel abroad for any reason. Considering the plea, the court granted him permission to travel for 25 days starting from July 1, with a condition that he presents himself before the court as he returns from the shoot abroad without seeking any exemption. The court has also directed him to submit the itinerary of his travel.
The Hindu
2 days ago
- The Hindu
Doping charge: Karnataka High Court sets aside four-year ban imposed on national level basketball player Shashank Rai
Terming the actions of anti-doping agencies 'a classic illustration of breach of sample integrity' and absence of fair hearing, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the four-year ban imposed on State's national-level basketball player Shashank J. Rai in 2022 after he tested positive of a prohibited drug in a dope test. Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order recently while allowing a petition filed by Mr. Rai, a national-level basketball player, who is a Deputy Range Forest Officer in the State. Mr. Rai was banned from basketball for four years in October, 2022, and the Anti-Doping Appellate Authority (ADAA) in April, 2024, rejected his appeal against the ban. 'From pork, not drug abuse' The court said that the agencies, including ADAA had failed to apply their mind in the manner known to law on the claim of the player, who presented his case with vital material rooted in plausible biochemical explanation. The player claimed that he is a regular pork eater, and exogenous traces of 19-Norandrosterone (19-NA) substance detected in his urine were consistent with the ingestion of meat from un-castrated male pigs and not attributable to anabolic steroid abuse, the court said, while pointing out that ADAA had 'neither called for further investigation nor explained its rejection of the material produced by the player' in support of his claim. The court said that it is mindful that anti-doping adjudication operates under a regime of strict liability but that 'does not mean that strictness in liability does not mandate callousness in process'. 'The foundational requirements of principles of natural justice cannot be sacrificed projecting administrative expediency,' the court said, while pointing out that results of the initial dope test were not disclosed to the player either in the notice of charge or in the order of ban, but was disclosed only before the ADAA. This was in violation of Section 22(8) of the Act, which mandates fair hearing and reasoning, the court said. Pointing out that the sample of his urine travelled all over, from Bengaluru to New Delhi to Rome, the court said that this is a classic illustration of breach of sample integrity as the norms of Section 21 of the National Anti-Doping Act, 2022, which would require accurate, verifiable and documented procedure of sample handling, were breached. Suffered ignominy Pointing out that once a sportsperson is found accused of doping, his past achievements become suspect, the court said that 'it is therefore necessary for the authorities, who deal with cases of suspected doping to observe punctilious exactitude in the observance of procedure and consideration of all material produced by the sportsperson suspected of doping in an enquiry or an appeal.' The petitioner, a national sportsman and a civil servant in uniform, has 'now suffered the ignominy of public censure and has seen his professional aspirations wither under the cloud of suspicion due to non-application of mind by the ADAA on the unimpeachable explanation rendered by the player/petitioner with documents of sterling quality', the court observed.
The Hindu
4 days ago
- The Hindu
Karnataka High Court sets aside State government's 2024 decision to withdraw 43 criminal cases
The High Court of Karnataka on Thursday (May 29, 2025) set aside the Government Order (GO) issued in October 2024 for withdrawing 43 criminal cases, including the 2022 case of Hubballi riots, in which a mob had attacked and assaulted several police personnel over the issue of a controversial post on social media. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K.V. Aravind passed the order while allowing a PIL petition filed by Girish Bharadwaj, a city-based advocate. 'The GO is set aside. It is declared that the GO shall stand non est from inception. Consequences in law will follow...,' the Chief Justice said while reading out the operative portion of the order. Impact of judgement The impact of the judgement is that even if the proceedings in any of the 43 cases were already from the jurisdictional courts based on the October 15, 2024, GO, all those proceedings will resume from the stage at which they were withdrawn. The petitioner had expressed concern as the 43 cases, which the Cabinet decided to withdraw, included the those in which serious charges under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Prevention of Destruction of Public Property Act, 1984, and Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 were invoked against some of the accused persons, including the 2022 case of Hubballi riots. In a few other cases, which were proposed to be withdrawn, former Ministers, former MLAs, and persons belonging to influential organisations were arraigned as accused persons, the petitioner had pointed out while contending that the GO was violative of Section 321 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC) as this provision specifically grants the authority to initiate any action for withdrawal from prosecution solely to the prosecutor. Hence, it was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the State Cabinet had no power to issue the direction to the prosecutor to withdraw these criminal cases. Opinion of departments Also, the petitioner had stated that the decision of the Cabinet, based on which the GO was issued, was contrary to the opinion of the departments of the police and the prosecution, which had stated that these criminal cases were not fit for withdrawal. Moreover, it was pointed out in the petition that the High Court, while dealing with a similar instance of withdrawal of criminal cases based on 2020 Cabinet decision, had in 2022 clarified that withdrawal of cases against former and present MPs and MLAs would be governed by the judgment of the apex court, and hence they cannot be withdrawn without permission from the respective High Courts.
