Fallout Of Mangaluru 'Communal Killings': Karnataka Goes For Major Police Reshuffle
Last Updated:
Mangaluru police chief Anupam Agrawal has been transferred, and Sudheer Kumar Reddy has replaced him. Yatish N has been removed as Dakshina Kannada SP, with Arun Kumar taking over
In response to a series of recent killings in Mangaluru, the Karnataka government has ordered a major reshuffle of top police officials, highlighting serious concerns about the region's law and order situation.
Anupam Agrawal, previously the commissioner of police in Mangaluru, has been abruptly transferred. This decision follows increased scrutiny and public anxiety regarding the city's security.
Sudheer Kumar Reddy has been appointed as Agrawal's successor, with the immediate task of restoring stability and confidence in the city's policing efforts.
Additionally, Yatish N has been removed from his position as superintendent of police for Dakshina Kannada. Arun Kumar, who formerly served as the SP for Udupi, will take over his duties.
The chief minister's office described the move as 'strict action by transferring IPS officers in Coastal districts".
On May 27, a man named Abdul Rahiman was killed, and his brother, Kalandar Shafi, suffered severe injuries after a group of miscreants attacked them with a sword in Ira Kodi, Kuriyala village, Bantwal Rural Police Station limits. The incident took place when the deceased, a truck driver, and his brother were unloading gravel when two assailants on a motorcycle attacked them with a sword.
Both of them were rushed to a nearby hospital for treatment, where Rahiman succumbed to his wounds, while his brother is undergoing treatment.
The Dakshina Kannada District Police have arrested three suspects in connection with the murder, officials said on Thursday. The arrested individuals have been reportedly identified as 21-year-old Deepak, 21-year-old Pruthviraj, and 19-year-old Chintan.
The killing came close on the heels of Hindutva activist Suhas Shetty's murder on May 1.
Shetty, a known rowdy sheeter and Hindutva activist, was murdered by an unidentified group earlier this month within the Bajpe police station limits in Mangaluru. He was attacked at around 8.30 pm while he was traveling with five of his associates when their vehicle was intercepted near Kinnipadavu Cross.
First Published:
May 29, 2025, 23:44 IST
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
29 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Defamation case: Pune court rejects Rahul's plea seeking maternal family tree of Savarkar's kin
A Pune court rejected an application filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking the maternal family tree of Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of V D Savarkar. Satyaki Savarkar had filed a defamation complaint against Rahul for his alleged objectionable remarks against the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in March 2023. Satyaki's mother Himani Ashok Savarkar is the daughter of Gopal Godse, the younger brother of Nathuram Godse, Mahatma Gandhi's assassin. Rejecting Rahul's plea, special judge Amol Shinde of the MP/MLA court on May 28 observed that 'this case is related only to alleged defamatory speech made by the accused in London against VD Savarkar.' The order was uploaded on the court's website Saturday. According to Satyaki, Rahul had claimed in his speech that Savarkar had written a book in which Savarkar mentioned that he (Savarkar) and five to six of his friends were beating up a Muslim person, and they were 'delighted' about it. Satyaki said VD Savarkar had not written any such book, nor had such an incident ever happened. In his petition, Satyaki had stated that Gandhi had intentionally made false, malicious and wild allegations against Savarkar. Satyaki had submitted a few news reports as well as a YouTube link of a video of Gandhi's speech in London as evidence. Rahul's lawyer Milind Pawar had filed an application before the court seeking an English translation of the book 'Mazi Janmathep' authored by V D Savarkar, another book 'Hindutva' also authored by him, and the family tree of Satyaki Savarkar. Satyaki's lawyer Sangram Kolhatkar provided the same to advocate Pawar in the court. But, on March 28, advocate Pawar filed an application on behalf of Rahul saying, 'The complainant (Satyaki) has deliberately, systematically, very brilliantly avoided, and suppressed to disclose the family tree from his maternal side in the present complaint. Therefore this is one of the most important issues and circumstances in this case to decide on merits and that should be ascertained before plea and commencement of this trial… Therefore directions be issued to the complainant to file a family tree on the maternal side and explanation be sought on the suppression.' Advocate Kolhatkar called the application 'baseless, false and filed with malafide intent.' Rejecting the plea, the court, its order, stated that Satyaki is the grandson of one of the brothers of late V D Savarkar and the said case is not related to the family tree of his mother Himani Savarkar. 'Therefore, this court does not find any merit in the application of the accused (Rahul Gandhi). There is also no need to send the matter for further investigation. Hence the application sans merits and the same is liable to be rejected,' the court order stated. Meanwhile, Satyaki has filed an application requesting the court to direct Rahul Gandhi to produce the book that he quoted while making the alleged defamatory statement during his speech in London. Advocate Pawar is likely to reply to this application. The next hearing on this matter is scheduled on June 12.
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Rajeev Krishna appointed acting DGP of Uttar Pradesh
The Uttar Pradesh government on Saturday appointed 1991-batch Indian Police Service (IPS) officer Rajeev Krishna as the new Director General of Police (DGP). Mr. Krishna will lead the State police force in an acting capacity, becoming the fifth consecutive officer to hold the top post in an officiating role. A native of Gautam Buddha Nagar district and a graduate in Electronics and Communication, Mr. Krishna is currently serving as Director General, Vigilance, and DG, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. He began his professional career in the Uttar Pradesh Police as a trainee IPS officer in Prayagraj (formerly Allahabad), and subsequently served as Additional Superintendent of Police (ASP) in Bareilly, Kanpur, and Aligarh. He has also held the posts of Superintendent of Police (SP) and Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) in various districts including Firozabad, Agra, Lucknow, and Mathura. Mr. Krishna is scheduled to retire in June 2029. Since May 2022, the State has seen a succession of acting DGPs, with Devendra Singh Chauhan holding the post for 11 months. He was followed by R.K. Vishwakarma, Vijay Kumar, and Prashant Kumar, all in an officiating capacity. Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav criticised the appointment, alleging that the repeated selection of acting DGPs reflects administrative indecisiveness within the ruling dispensation. 'U.P. gets another acting DGP. Today, while leaving, he must be thinking what did he get from proving every wrong to be right. If he had been loyal to the Constitution and the law instead of the person, he would have at least got respect in their own eyes,' Mr. Yadav said in a post on social media platform X. 'Now it remains to be seen whether the new person will be able to free himself from the web that they have woven in the entire State and deliver justice impartially or else he too becomes a victim of politics by getting trapped in the same web,' he added. Mr. Yadav further remarked, 'Why should the people of Uttar Pradesh and the poor law and order situation bear the brunt of the Delhi-Lucknow fight? When the 'double engine' cannot together elect a single officer then how will they run the country and the State?'
The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
political line newsletter speech I hate, but must defend
Unless we defend the rights of both Vijay Shah and Ali Khan Mahmudabad to say whatever they want to, neither can be defended rationally ------ There are two Special Investigation Teams (SIT), each comprising three IPS officers investigating two people, on the directions of the Supreme Court of India: Madhya Pradesh's BJP Minister Vijay Shah and Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad. The SC order has specified that the SIT in Madhya Pradesh must be of directly recruited IPS officers from outside of the State cadre. The implied equivalence of these two cases in the SC approach — that the police can investigate alleged criminality premised on the idea of excessive speech —has been disconcerting for many people. Those who were outraged by Mr. Shah's comments, which the SC rightly described as 'crass, thoughtless,' wanted legal action against him. Broadly, the same set of people were also outraged by Haryana police arresting Mr. Mahmudabad. The interesting spectacle of six IPS officers trying to parse through the sentences of two people to investigate criminality in them leads us to the question: what exactly is freedom of expression. Can there be selective freedom of expression? Should hate speech be allowed in a civilized society? If some speech must be restricted, who gets to decide what is allowed and what is restricted? As we have seen in recent days, the Congress government in Karnataka and the BJP government in Haryana have different standards of what speech can be allowed. We need to defend the rights of both Mr. Shah and Mr. Mahmudabad. Free speech cannot be restricted to what one person likes; hate speech cannot be defined as what another hates. Unless free speech is absolute, including — and especially — for views that are dissenting and offensive, there is no meaning in it. A police inspector or a random political actor can initiate a case, and the rest will depend on the social capital and relative power of the side that claims to be aggrieved and that of the alleged aggressor. A free speech supporter cannot call for punishment of Mr. Shah and protection for Mr. Mahmudabad. Article 19 of the Indian Constitution guarantees that all citizens shall have the right to 'freedom of speech and expression,' and then goes to add multiple caveats. 'Reasonable restrictions' on free speech include 'the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.' This is echoed in criminal laws and Mr. Mahmudabad was actually arrested on charges of endangering the country's sovereignty and integrity and promoting enmity between different groups, among others, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Article 19 also gives citizens the right to 'assemble peaceably and without arms,' again with caveats similar to those mentioned above. As it happens, the government of Assam has decided to arm indigenous communities. In this case, the state is abdicating its role of providing security and encouraging select groups to arm themselves. This is not new. In Kashmir to fight back separatists, and in Chhattisgarh to neutralise the Maoists, local communities were armed. The broader question is the power of the state to decide what are legitimate arms and what is legitimate speech. In the US, people have much more power than in India to bear arms and to speak freely. There are restrictions there too, but they are more narrowly defined. Arbitrary measures are not unheard of, but some dependable precedents are in place, evolved through judicial disputes over the decades. But the Republicans and Democrats both want to restrict speech in the US — they differ on what kind. Antisemitism and Islamophobia are recurring grounds for restricting speech in many contexts in the West, including by the state. In India, commenting on Hinduism or nationalism can be adventure intellectualism these days. The default liberal position, however, should be that all speech is allowed. If there are any restrictions, they must withstand objective reasoning. Federalism Tract: Notes on Indian diversity Tongue lashing Kamal Haasan is set to enter the Rajya Sabha. But he made news for other reasons. His statement that Kannada is born out of Tamil triggered a reaction in Karnataka. In fact, for all the talk around Dravidian languages and culture, the linguistic pride of each State and conflicts between regions within States have been politically consequential. The Telugus wanted separation from the then Madras State, and their struggle led to the linguistic reorganisation of States. Telugus in Telangana later wanted a separate State for themselves, and they got that. The idea that any language is born from another language is a fallacy that few linguists would take seriously now. Languages interact and migrate along with the people who do the same. The idea that Sanskrit is the mother of all, or many Indian languages, is a common and misplaced notion. Having a heavy load of Sanskrit vocabulary in a language (for instance, Malayalam, my mother tongue) does not make it the child of Sanskrit. It is a more complex process, as linguist and author Peggy Mohan says. I hope, Mr. Haasan watches this too.
