‘Police acted as servants of RCB': Karnataka government to HC justifying cop's suspension
The senior counsel representing the State Government made this submission before the division bench of Justice SG Pandit and Justice TM Nadaf during the hearing of the petition filed by the State Government against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal which quashed the suspension of Vikash Kumar. The senior counsel submitted that the CEO of RCB sought permission.
'However, the police, starting from the commissioner, started making arrangements for bandobust, forgetting that no permission had been granted. The commissioner failed to pass an order refusing to grant permission, as if they had no power. If they have no power, why did they make bandobast arrangements?' he argued.
Being the authority to inspect the place, the same was not done to check issues such as the availability of parking, law and order problems in the locality, or whether any nuisance would be caused. Police have all the powers under the Karnataka Police Act, but they didn't do anything, he argued, while pointing out that the CAT, instead of testing the validity of the suspension orders, goes into a fact-finding exercise which it was not authorised to do nor warranted.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Pakistani woman deported after Pahalgam attack to get visitor's visa: MHA to J&K HC
Jammu: The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid, a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest".The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, "This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out." Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national."It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. "We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her)," he said.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Pakistani woman deported after Pahalgam attack to get visitor's visa: MHA to J&K HC
Jammu: The Ministry of Home Affairs ( MHA ) has informed the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh High Court that it has decided to grant a visitor's visa to Rakshanda Rashid , a Pakistani woman who was deported from Jammu after the Pahalgam terror attack, prompting the court to dismiss her petition seeking nod to return to her family here. The court, however, stated that the MHA order should not constitute a precedent in any manner. Rashid (62), a Pakistani citizen who married Sheikh Zahoor Ahmed 35 years ago in Jammu, was deported as part of the decision taken by the Indian government to deport Pakistani nationals staying in India in the aftermath of the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that claimed 26 lives. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years IC Markets Learn More Undo Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the home ministry, informed the court that after considerable deliberation and in light of the peculiar circumstances of this case, an in-principle decision had been made to grant a visitor visa to Rashid. The division bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal acknowledged this in its order. Live Events The bench further noted that Rashid can pursue the two applications moved by her regarding acquiring Indian citizenship as well as a long-term visa. The court recorded the submission of the solicitor general and noted that "once an in-principle decision is taken by the competent authority, there is hardly any doubt that, post compliance of the requisite procedures and formalities, the authority would process and accord a visitor's visa to the respondent at the earliest". The court dismissed Rashid's writ petition seeking relief from the deportation, saying that as a natural consequence, the impugned interim order loses its relevance and thus ceases to exist and operate. On July 22, Mehta requested the court to defer the proceedings to enable him to explore whether the respondent could be helped in any manner or if it was still feasible to address her concerns. In response, Rashid's counsel, Ankur Sharma and Himani Khajuria, submitted that she was agreeable to the course suggested by the solicitor general. On June 6, a single-judge bench of Justice Rahul Bharti ordered the Central government to "retrieve" Rashid. While passing the order, Justice Bharti observed, "This court is bearing in mind the background reference that the petitioner was having long-term visa (LTV) status at the relevant point of time, which per se may not have warranted her deportation, but without examining her case in a better perspective and coming up with a proper order with respect to her deportation from the authorities concerned, she came to be forced out." Rashid was served with a Leave India Notice on April 28 under Sections 3(1), 7(1), and 2(c) of the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 1946, issued by the Criminal Investigation Department, directing her to leave the country by or before April 29. She approached the high court and sought interim relief to stay the operation of the order. However, she was issued an exit permit and escorted to the Attari-Wagah border in Amritsar by the authorities, from where she crossed over to Pakistan. Rashid, a resident of Jammu's Talab Khatikan area, has four children who continue to reside in Jammu and Kashmir. Rashid, daughter of Mohammad Rashid from Namuddin Road in Islamabad, entered India on February 10, 1990, via Attari on a 14-day visitor visa to visit Jammu. She continued to stay under an LTV granted by the authorities on an annual basis. During her stay, she revealed that she married an Indian national. "It wasn't disputed either that her LTV was valid up to January 13, 2025, and she had applied for an extension on January 4, 2025. But no such extension was ever accorded," the order noted. Her husband expressed happiness over the decision and thanked the court. "We are relieved... The entire family was under tension. We were suffering due to the decision (to deport her)," he said.
The Hindu
3 hours ago
- The Hindu
Malegaon blast case: Forced to name Yogi Adityanath, says witness; court scraps his statement to ATS
A witness in his testimony to the special court in the 2008 Malegaon blast case had alleged that he was tortured and forced by the officers of the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) to name Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in the case. Special Judge A.K. Lahoti, who on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the case, said he could not rely on the witness's statement to the ATS, as he submitted to the court that it was given involuntarily. 2008 Malegaon blast: Who were the accused? A brief timeline of the case In its more than 1,000-page judgment, made available on Friday (August 1, 2025), the court said the ATS had questioned prosecution witness Milind Joshirao in October 2008 about the functioning of the right-wing group Abhinav Bharat. He was asked about a meeting at the Raigad fort, where the accused had allegedly taken an oath to create a separate Hindu Rashtra. Joshirao, during his testimony to the court, claimed that the ATS had treated him like an accused. 'They (ATS officers) were telling him to take the names of Yogi Adityanath, Asimanand Indresh Kumar, Devdhar, Pragya and Kakaji in his statement,' the court said. 'The ATS officers assured him that if he took their names, they would let him go free,' it added. Controversy breaks out in Maharashtra after ex-policeman claims he was asked to pick up Mohan Bhagwat over 2008 Malegaon blast case The court noted that the witness had refused to do so and hence, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police Shrirao and Assistant Commissioner of Police Param Bir Singh had shown the fear of torture to him and extended threats. 'It further held that the witness had never stated the things mentioned in the statement and it was written by the ATS officers,' it said. 'Considering his testimony, it clearly indicates that the statement was involuntary,' the court said. 'The statement raises doubts regarding its admissibility and authenticity as it was involuntary,' the court said. Malegaon blast acquittals destroyed Congress 'conspiracy' to manufacture false narrative of Hindu terror: BJP 'When a statement is given involuntarily without actual knowledge of the facts mentioned in the same, nothing survives in it,' the court held, terming it as unreliable. Former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit were among the seven to be acquitted by the court, which noted that the prosecution had failed to adduce cogent and reliable evidence to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Six people were killed and 101 were injured after a blast at Malegaon in Nashik district in September 2008.
