Karnataka High Court appoints legal expert to assist in Bengaluru stampede case
The Karnataka High Court on Monday appointed Senior Advocate S Susheela as amicus curiae in the suo motu case concerning the stampede at Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium that claimed 11 lives and injured several others. The incident took place on June 4 during a public celebration held for Royal Challengers Bengaluru's (RCB) Indian Premier League 2025 victory.An amicus curiae, meaning 'friend of the court,' is an independent legal expert appointed to offer impartial assistance in complex or sensitive cases. advertisementThe bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice VM Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi, is hearing the matter. During Monday's proceedings, the court directed the registry to share the petition, all relevant documents, and a sealed status report submitted by the state government with the newly appointed amicus.
The bench noted that both the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and DNA Entertainment Networks Pvt Ltd., who have been added as respondents, had sought more time to file their replies.The court also raised the issue of whether the sealed status report should be placed in the public domain. 'We want to hear the parties on whether to permit the status report on sealed cover. Today we will appoint an amicus curiae in the case,' the bench stated.Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty said that the amicus could not meaningfully assist the court unless the contents of the sealed report were made available. He assured the court that the issue would be dealt with appropriately.advertisementThe state counsel has argued that the status reports should remain sealed until ongoing magisterial and judicial inquiries are complete, citing the presence of preliminary findings. However, other counsel and intervention applicants have urged the court to make the report public. The High Court has asked the amicus to assist in deciding the issue and posted the case for further hearing on Tuesday, July 1.
IN THIS STORY#Karnataka
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Rape-accused Prajwal Revanna moves Karnataka high court again for bail in sexual assault case
Former JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna has once again petitioned the Karnataka High Court seeking bail in the ongoing sexual assault and rape case filed against him. His earlier plea was rejected by the court, which cited the seriousness of the allegations and concerns that he might influence or intimidate witnesses. JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna (PTI/File) Also Read - Bengaluru civic body's pothole 'fix' sparks outrage as photos of shoddy repairs go viral At Tuesday's hearing, Senior Advocate Prabhuling K Navadgi, representing Revanna, argued that there had been a notable change in circumstances since the previous ruling. He pointed to the prolonged delays in the trial proceedings as grounds for granting bail and emphasized that procedural lags were beyond Revanna's control. Navadgi also highlighted that the original complaint was registered nearly four years after the alleged incident. He told the court that the survivor had not initially invoked rape charges under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. Those charges, he claimed, were included only at the stage of recording her formal statement. According to the defence, Revanna has no intention of hampering the judicial process and continued imprisonment under such conditions would be unjust. The state government, however, strongly contested the bail plea. It argued that the delays in the case were a result of Revanna's actions, not the prosecution's. Government counsel alleged that Revanna had frequently summoned defence witnesses and created disruptions in court, effectively stalling the trial. Also Read - Another assault in Bengaluru: Woman groped at pub, accused arrested from Andhra Pradesh - Report Following the arguments from both sides, the High Court chose not to pass an immediate order. The matter has been adjourned for a later date, and the case continues to draw close public and legal scrutiny due to its high-profile nature. Prajwal was arrested in 2024 at Kempegowda International Airport upon his arrival from Germany on multiple charges and has been behind the bars since then. (With PTI inputs)
Mint
13 hours ago
- Mint
‘Unaware of ground realities': Karnataka High Court's bike taxi ban challenged, petitioners cite fundamental rights
Two individual bike owners on Tuesday challenged the Karnataka High Court's single judge bench order that recently banned bike taxis in the state. The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, argued that the Karnataka government cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. They argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience. In April, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court ruled that bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It also barred the state Transport Department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The ban order was to be implemented from June 16 after a six-week grace period. 'The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits,' Chinnappa said in the court. The contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters, he added. Chinnappa further argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. 'News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities,' he said. 'If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition,' he said. The bench also heard appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the ban order. 'A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits,' he argued. The high court has scheduled the matter for the next hearing on June 25.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
14 hours ago
- Business Standard
Bike taxi ban challenged in K'taka HC citing fundamental rights violation
Two individual bike owners moved the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, challenging a recent single judge ruling that banned the operation of bike taxis in the state. The petitioners argued that the state cannot infringe upon the fundamental right to carry on a business or choose a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. Represented by Senior Advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, the owners argued that the prohibition not only contradicts provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act, but also severely impacts both their livelihood and public convenience. Appearing before a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi, Chinnappa contended that the Motor Vehicles Act allows two-wheelers to be registered as transport vehicles. Therefore, the state government cannot legally refuse to issue contract carriage permits to bikes intended for taxi use. The law enables registration of two-wheelers as transport vehicles. If the statute allows it, the state cannot override it by denying registration or permits, he said, adding that contract carriage includes various types of vehicles, including motor cabs, which can range from two to six seaters. The ban was earlier enforced through a ruling in April, where a single judge held that without proper notification of guidelines under Section 93 of the Motor Vehicles Act, bike taxis cannot be permitted to operate. The ruling also barred the Transport department from registering motorcycles as transport vehicles or issuing them contract carriage permits. The order was to be implemented by June 16, after a six-week grace period. Referring to the aftermath, Chinnappa argued that the stoppage of bike taxis over the past 7-10 days had led to chaos for everyday commuters. News reports have shown how disastrous this ban has been for the public. The state seems completely unaware of the ground realities, he said. Arguing on constitutional grounds, Chinnappa claimed that the right to carry on a business is a fundamental right, and the state's blanket ban violates this. If there are safety concerns, the state should address them through policy -- not by outright prohibition, he said. He also said citizens have the fundamental right to choose their mode of transport: One has the right to say, I prefer a bike taxi over the metro or a bus. The state cannot infringe upon this personal liberty. The bench was hearing appeals filed by aggregators Ola, Uber, and Rapido against the same order. Chinnappa, appearing on behalf of two independent bike owners -- Varikruti Mahendra Reddy and Madhu Kiran -- clarified that vehicle registration should not be contingent on being tied to an aggregator. Chinnappa also argued that while contract carriage permits fall under the domain of state governments, the power to register vehicles lies solely with the central government. He contended that the state has no authority to deny vehicle registration altogether, especially not by singling out two-wheelers. A blanket refusal to register an entire class of vehicles -- like motorcycles -- is not backed by the Motor Vehicles Act. The State cannot selectively disable a class by denying permits, he argued. When asked by the bench if bike taxis in other states are running without issues, the Advocate General responded that while some states permit them in limited numbers under aggregators, none offer unrestricted permits. Chinnappa rebutted by stating that Karnataka's own aggregator rules allow the inclusion of motor cabs, including two-wheelers. After extensive arguments, the court scheduled the matter for further hearing on June 25.
