Latest news with #Article226
India Gazette
2 days ago
- Politics
- India Gazette
Karnataka HC reserves order on RCB marketing head's interim relief plea for June 12
Bengaluru (Karnataka) [India], June 11 (ANI): The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday reserved the order on the petition filed by RCB's marketing head Nikhil Sosale, seeking interim relief on the ground that his arrest in alleged connection with the Bengaluru stampede was illegal. The High Court reserved the order for June 12 at 2:30 pm. Earlier today, both parties submitted their arguments in front of the Court. Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty, representing the state government in the HC, said, 'My submission is that relief sought under Article 226 is impressible unless lordships declare arrest is illegal and petition is not maintainable.' 'Legality of arrest is to be considered, from the facts we have presented, the legality of arrest,' Advocate General said. 'Statement made by CM has nothing to do with the arrest. Look at the grounds of arrest of each of the accused, milord. The petitioner was fleeing,' he said. The AG further claimed that organisers were responsible for the stampede that claimed the lives of 11 people. 'Even assuming arrest is illegal, only a WHPC is maintainable and not a petition under Section 482. Grounds of arrest are to be given at the earliest, and in the instant case, they have been supplied,' Shetty said. The Advocate General also mentioned that Sosale is not in their custody but in judicial custody. The Karnataka HC questioned the state government, 'Who has to obtain the license? They are employees of the company. Don't look at them as the company.' Replying to this, the AG said that the company act through its directors. 'On behalf of the company, petitioners are supposed to take a license. It is for them to show that they are not responsible,' he said. The High Court emphasised that the court will look at them as individuals, not as a company. 'We will not identify the company with an individual. Leave this company aside. Let us look at them as individuals,' the Court said. The HC further asked, 'How do you know who is responsible today?' Advocate General Shetty said, 'He was fleeing away, milord, and he admits that he was taking care of the affairs of the company.' The HC said, 'Before you arrested these people and grounds of arrest were furnished. Your submission is those are the reasons why you arrested him as a person responsible for the event.' Senior Advocate Sandesh Chouta, representing the RCB marketing head, said, 'According to them, the person who was invited for the celebration has been arrested. You have suspended police officials. But even DyCM has been invited.' 'That is an incorrect submission, milord. The invitation is only by RCB,' the Advocate General countered. A day after the stampede that claimed the lives of 11 people, the Karnataka police suspended multiple IPS officers, including the Bengaluru city police Commissioner, B Dayananda. (ANI)
Time of India
31-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
HC junks plea seeking SIT, aid for ‘persecution of tribal Christians'
Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of. Raipur: The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by 20 petitioners, primarily from the Tribal Christian community, who alleged systematic communal violence, displacement, and destruction of property against them in villages across Sukma district. The petitioners sought setting up a special investigation team (SIT) to probe the cases, a commission of inquiry and compensation. A division bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru ruled that the mentioned reliefs sought under the Act, 1952, could not be directed in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners claimed they were subjected to targeted communal violence, including assaults, displacement, destruction of homes and property, sacrilege of religious materials, and threats to their life and liberty for practising Christianity. They alleged that despite repeated oral and written complaints, police and administrative authorities failed to register FIRs, provide protection, conduct fair investigations, or rehabilitate victims. They said that some officials even refused to acknowledge their complaints or rebuked the petitioners for their faith. Sanbha Rumnong and Samuel David, counsels for the petitioners, presented the case. R S Marhas, additional advocate general, appearing for the state, submitted that an FIR was already registered for one of the incidents reported by some petitioners, and the matter was under investigation. The additional advocate general argued that the petition, seeking multiple reliefs, was not maintainable under Article 226 for 'demands'. He added that if the petitioners' grievance was specifically about the non-registration of an FIR concerning an incident on April 24, 2025, they should pursue remedies available under law. He cited the Allahabad High Court's decision in Waseem Haider vs. State of UP (2020), which dismissed a similar petition. The court, after hearing arguments at length, found no grounds to interfere with the petition and dismissed it, granting the petitioners liberty to approach appropriate forums for redressal of their grievances. Consequently, all pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
