Latest news with #LokayuktaAct
News18
5 days ago
- News18
Bengaluru's Canine Conundrum: Lokayukta Raps BBMP After 2 Senior Citizens Killed By Stray Dogs In A Year
Lokayukta Justice Patil's warning to the BBMP, the city civic body, has been straight: fix the problem, or face consequences Two gruesome deaths of senior citizens within a year, both mauled to death by packs of ferocious stray dogs, have forced the Karnataka Lokayukta to come down heavily on the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) for what he called 'shocking civic apathy". With public safety now on the line and the numbers painting a grim picture, Lokayukta Justice Patil's warning to the BBMP, the city's civic body, has been straight: fix the problem, or face consequences. Furious over the latest incident of 68-year-old Seethappa being mauled to death by dogs, the Lokayukta has pulled up the BBMP and demanded immediate and concrete action. 'Despite previous directions, no effective measures have been taken in a year. Errant officials will be dealt with under Section 13 of the Lokayukta Act," he said. The death toll and case numbers have laid bare the scale of the crisis. From January 2025 to the end of July, Karnataka recorded 2,60,514 dog bite cases. In just the last week of July, 10,212 fresh cases of dog bites were logged—of which 8,878 were from Bengaluru city and 4,408 from Bengaluru Urban district itself. To make matters worse, the number of rabies-related deaths this year has reached 13,831, which has also been on the rise. The latest fatality has reignited public anger. On July 29, 68-year-old Seethappa, a retired worker and early riser, left his home around 3 am for his routine morning walk. Minutes later, he was found dead, mauled by a pack of stray dogs in North Bengaluru. This comes less than a year after another horrifying attack. On August 28, 2024, 76-year-old Rajdulari Sinha, a retired teacher from Bihar visiting her daughter, was brutally killed by 10-12 stray dogs during her morning walk in Jalahalli. The dogs bit her all over the body. A resident tried to save her, but it was too late. Following Rajdulari's death, Justice Patil had initiated a suo motu case and issued multiple directions to the BBMP. But with another fatal mauling in the same area, the Lokayukta is now demanding accountability. 'This incident happened in the same BBMP ward where we had taken up a suo motu investigation last year," Justice Patil said, pointing to the second case in North Bengaluru. 'Yet another senior citizen has lost his life. I have directed Bengaluru Lokayukta SP Vamshikrishna to visit the spot, conduct an inquiry and file a report within four days." In 2019, the death of a young child, Durgesh, was yet another chilling reminder of the city's growing stray dog menace. The five-year-old boy was mauled to death by a pack of dogs in Bajjegowdanapalya near Soladevanahalli on the outskirts of Bengaluru. The young child was the fourth of five children of Mallappa and Mallamma, daily wage labourers who had migrated from Kalaburagi district. The family had been living in a temporary shelter near a construction site where the parents worked. Durgesh's father, Mallappa, had recalled to this reporter how his son had asked for Rs 5 to buy a packet of biscuits, as he did not want to eat rice. With Durgesh on his way to the store, Mallappa went for his bath. Suddenly, he heard screams. 'When I ran out, I saw at least ten dogs biting my child," said Mallappa. Durgesh was declared dead on arrival at the hospital, as he had sustained grievous injuries in the attack. As part of the Lokayukta's directive to the BBMP, Justice Patil instructed them to set up observation homes in each ward to identify and treat aggressive dogs in every ward in the city. While the BBMP's Special Commissioner (Health) said that work is underway to complete a facility in Yelahanka that could house 50 stray dogs and would be completed in 15 days, the Lokayukta was in no mood to listen. He said the incidents only showed how negligent and ineffective BBMP's drives have been and asked them to set up one such housing unit in every ward that falls within the municipality's limits. view comments Location : Bengaluru, India, India First Published: August 07, 2025, 07:00 IST News cities Bengaluru's Canine Conundrum: Lokayukta Raps BBMP After 2 Senior Citizens Killed By Stray Dogs In A Year Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Help make B'gavi graft-free: Lokayukta
Belagavi: Lokayukta Justice BS Patil called upon govt officials to work honestly to help make Belagavi district corruption-free. He spoke on Wednesday, while chairing a progress review meeting on the disposal of Lokayukta cases in various departments. "The govt has formulated many schemes for the welfare of the common people and provided ample funds for them. It is the duty of officials to ensure that these govt schemes and funds reach the deserving people in a proper manner," he said. He added that if any official or staff member is found to be involved in corruption, strict action will be taken against them, without any leniency. The Lokayukta said that every official is assigned some specific tasks. Even with a supervisory system in place, govt work is not proceeding smoothly. If a person has to visit the same office repeatedly for the same task, it means that the work is not being done efficiently. A govt official becomes a true public servant only when they work honestly and according to the law. Lokayukta Patil asked the public servants to be aware of the Lokayukta Act.
The Hindu
04-08-2025
- The Hindu
Lokayukta pulls up BBMP over dog bite cases
Lokayukta B.S. Patil has taken serious note of the alleged negligence of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) officials that led to the death of 70-year-old Seethappa, who was mauled by a stray dog. The BBMP officials have not taken any effective action against the stray dog menace for a year, and the errant officials will be dealt with under Section 13 of the Lokayukta Act, he said on Monday. The decision was taken at a hearing in the presence of BBMP officials of the Animal Husbandry, Health and Family Welfare Departments, BBMP medical officials, and residents of Nethravathi Colony. The Lokayukta has also found that the officials concerned have not paid compensation to the family of victims so far, and he directed the officials to pay compensation as per the Supreme Court and the High court direction. The Lokayukta had taken up a suo moto case and directed Vamshikrishna, Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, to visit the spot and conduct a detailed enquiry, and file the report within four days. In the report, the Lokayukta police mentioned negligence on the part of Lokayukta officials that led to the incident. Taking cognisance of the report, the Lokayukta has pulled up officials for not setting up observation homes for aggressive dogs. The BBMP's Special Commissioner (Health) promised the Lokayukta that an observation home would be completed in 15 days in Yelahanka with a capacity of housing 50 dogs. However, the Lokayukta turned down his submission saying that it was not enough and the BBMP should set up observation homes in every ward to monitor and treat aggressive dogs attacking people. Members of Nethravathi Colony Residents' Association alleged that there were four aggressive dogs that bit 42 people since this January. Among them 14 of the cases have been reported to the BBMP. Association members said BBMP officials catch the stray dogs after every dog bite incident, but return the animals to the same locality after a few days. When the Lokayukta asked the BBMP officials, the officials accepted that this happens sometimes. Despite the HC and the SC orders for setting up shelters to treat and monitor aggressive dogs, the BBMP is not implementing the orders, Mr. Patil rued. The association members submitted that since this January, 2.6 lakh dog bite cases were reported in the State as per the Health Department information, and 13,831 people have died from rabies. In the last week of this July, 10,212 cases were reported, out of which 8,878 were from Bengaluru city and 4,408 from Bengaluru Urban. The Lokayukta posted the next hearing to September 19, and directed the officials to submit the action taken report.
India.com
06-07-2025
- Politics
- India.com
Goa Lokayukta Non-Functional For Six Months, Justice Delayed In 20 Anti-Corruption Cases
The Goa Lokayukta, the state's anti-corruption ombudsman, has been rendered non-functional for the past six months, leaving approximately 20 anti-corruption cases in limbo. The key institution has been without a chief since the tenure of Justice (retd) Ambadas Joshi concluded in December 2024, resulting in significant delays in addressing public grievances. Despite the Directorate of Vigilance writing to the Chief Secretary in February to initiate the shortlisting of retired high court judges for the position, sources indicate that no concrete progress has been made. "The Vigilance Department has not got any communication from the government on the appointment of new Lokayukta. The government has to shortlist the candidates, based on which concurrence of the High Court is sought," informed sources close to the development. The appointment process requires a three-member committee, comprising the Chief Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, to finalize the selection once a suitable candidate is identified. Leader of Opposition Yuri Alemao confirmed the stagnation, stating, "There is no development on it so far. Will be raising the matter with the Chief Minister shortly." The @BJP4Goa, which gave a 'mantra' of zero tolerance to corruption, appears to be deliberately delaying the appointment of a new Lokayukta following the end of Justice (Retd) Ambadas Joshi's tenure in December 2024. Notably, Justice Joshi's appointment came after a six-month gap… — Yuri Alemao (@Yurialemao9) June 27, 2025 While the Lokayukta office continues to accept corruption-related complaints from citizens, it is currently unable to proceed with investigations or actions due to the absence of an appointed Lokayukta. This is not the first instance of a prolonged delay in appointing the head of the anti-corruption body in Goa. Justice Joshi himself was appointed in April 2021, succeeding Justice (retd) P.K. Misra, whose term ended in September 2020, leaving 75 cases pending at that time. Before Joshi's appointment, Justice (retd) U.V. Bakre had initially been shortlisted but withdrew his consent in March 2021 citing personal reasons. Most of the currently pending cases reportedly involve corruption in illegal constructions and the issuance of various permissions. Before the end of his term, Justice Misra had highlighted the perceived weaknesses in Goa's Lokayukta Act, noting that it lacked the robust powers enjoyed by its counterparts in states like Karnataka and Kerala. Goa's first Lokayukta, Justice (retd) Sudershan Reddy, had also resigned within seven months of his 2013 appointment, citing personal reasons, leading to a nearly three-year vacancy before Justice Misra's appointment in April 2016. To facilitate appointments, the State government had amended the Lokayukta Act in 2021, allowing for the appointment of retired high court judges after facing difficulties in securing retired Supreme Court judges or High Court chief justices for the post.
Indian Express
03-06-2025
- General
- Indian Express
Daily subject-wise quiz: Polity and Governance MCQs on public servant, Governor of State and more (Week 113)
UPSC Essentials brings to you its initiative of daily subject-wise quizzes. These quizzes are designed to help you revise some of the most important topics from the static part of the syllabus. Attempt today's subject quiz on Polity and Governance to check your progress. 🚨 Click Here to read the UPSC Essentials magazine for May 2025. Share your views and suggestions in the comment box or at Consider the following statements: 1. The President of India appoints him and has a special procedure for removal (like a Supreme Court Judge). 2. His salary and expenses are charged (not voted) to the Consolidated Fund of India. 3. He is not allowed to hold any other Government office after his term expires. The above mentioned statements refer to: (a) Attorney General of India (b) Comptroller and Auditor General of India (c) Chief Economic Advisor (d) National Security Advisor Explanation — The Constitution enables the independent and unbiased nature of audit by the CAG by providing for: (i) His appointment by the President of India (ii) Special procedure for removal (like a Supreme Court Judge) (iii) Salary and expenses Charged (not Voted) to the Consolidated Fund of India (iv) Disallowing his holding any other Government office after his term expires. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. (Source: With reference to the number of Lok Sabha seats fixed at various censuses, consider the following pairs: 1. 1951 Census – 494 seats 2. 1971 Census – 522 seats 3. 2001 Census – 543 seats How many of the pairs given above are correctly marked? (a) Only one (b) Only two (c) All three (d) None Explanation — The number of constituencies in Parliament and state assemblies is changed to reflect the most recent population figures, ensuring that the number of Indians represented by an MP/MLA remains fairly constant. (The notion of 'one citizen, one vote, one value' established by Article 81.) — According to the 1971 Census, the number of Lok Sabha seats was fixed at 543, implying that each MP represented around one million Indians. (The number of Lok Sabha seats was previously fixed at 494 and 522 following the censuses of 1951 and 1961, respectively.) — The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, passed by the Emergency government to manage India's population, froze the number of Lok Sabha seats until the first Census after 2000. — In 2002, the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government extended the freeze until at least 2026. Therefore, option (a) is the correct answer. According to the Lokayukta Act, the 'public servant' is defined as any person who is or has been a chairperson, member, officer, or employee: 1. in any autonomous body established by an Act of Parliament 2. in a body which is wholly financed by the Central Government 3. as a Judges 4. in a body which is partially financed or controlled by the Central Government Select the correct answer using the codes given below: (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 4 only (c) 1, 2 and 3 (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Explanation — According to the Lokayukta Act, 'It shall apply to public servants in and outside India'. Section 14 of the Act defines 'public servant' as 'any person who is or has been a chairperson, member, officer, or employee in any autonomous body established by an Act of Parliament, wholly or partly financed by the Central Government or controlled by it.' While judges are not explicitly mentioned, sub-section (f) includes them. — The Lokpal is an independent statutory body under the aegis of the executive. — The Lokpal panel, chaired by former Supreme Court judge A.M. Khanwilkar, ruled on January 27 that it has the authority to consider corruption accusations against former judges under the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (Lokpal Act). Admitting its January 27 ruling could have created a new path for complaints against judges, without following the previously established process for such matters. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant. Which of the following is not computed while calculating 60 days? 1. When the House is prorogued 2. When the House is adjourned for more than four consecutive days Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation — 'If for a period of sixty days a member of either House of Parliament is without permission of the House absent from all meetings thereof, the House may declare his seat vacant: Provided that in computing the said period of sixty days no account shall be taken of any period during which the House is prorogued or is adjourned for more than four consecutive days.' — In other words, the 60-day period pertains only to the House's sittings, not all of the days, and does not include any instances where the House was adjourned for longer than four days. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Which of the following statements about the Governor of an Indian State is correct? (a) The Governor must be a citizen of India and should have completed the age of 30 years. (b) The Constitution lays down provisions for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage. (c) There is an impeachment process for removing the Governor. (d) The qualifications and conditions of the office are mentioned in the constitution. Explanation — The Article 153 of the Constitution says 'There shall be a Governor for each State.' A few years after the commencement of the Constitution, an amendment in 1956 laid down that 'nothing in this article shall prevent the appointment of the same person as Governor for two or more States'. — Article 155 says that the 'Governor of a State shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal'. Under Article 156, 'the Governor shall hold office during the pleasure of the President', but his normal term of office will be five years. If the President withdraws her pleasure before the completion of five years, the Governor has to step down. — Since the President acts on the aid and advice of the Prime Minister and the Union Council of Ministers, in effect, the Governor is appointed and removed by the central government. There is no impeachment process for removing the Governor. — Article 157 lays down the qualifications of the Governor, The Governor must be a citizen of India and should have completed the age of 35 years. — Article 158 lays down the conditions of his office, The Governor should not be a member of Parliament or a state legislature, and must not hold any other office of profit. — The Governor enjoys certain powers under the Constitution — such as giving or withholding assent to a Bill passed by the state legislature; determining the time needed for a party to prove its majority in the state Assembly; or, in cases such as a hung verdict in an election, which party must be called first to prove its majority — which make his position very significant. — The Constitution lays down no provisions for the manner in which the Governor and the state must engage publicly when there is a difference of opinion and there is no provision for impeaching the Governor. Therefore, option (d) is the correct answer. Consider the following with reference to the Constitution of India: 1. On November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution of India. 2. The Constitution of India came into effect on January 26, 1950, which we celebrate as Republic Day. 3. The Constituent Assembly met for the first time on December 9, 1946. 4. In 2015, the Government of India declared December 9 as Constitution Day. How many statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 1, 2 and 3 only (c) 3 and 4 only (d) 1, 2, 3 and 4 Explanation: — The Constituent Assembly met for the first time on December 9, 1946. — On November 26, 1949, the Constituent Assembly of India adopted the Constitution of India. It came into effect on January 26, 1950, which we celebrate as Republic Day. In 2015, the Government of India declared November 26 — hitherto known as National Law Day — as Constitution Day. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. Which of the following are Constitutional Bodies of India? 1. Special officer for Linguistic Minorities 2. National Commission for Minorities 3. National Commission for Backward Classes 4. National Commission for Scheduled Tribes 5. National Commission for Scheduled Castes Select the correct code: (a) 1, 2, 4 and 5 only (b) 1, 3, 4 and 5 only (c) 3, 4 and 5 only (d) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 Explanation: — Constitutional bodies are institutions or authorities whose powers, duties, and structures are explicitly defined in the Constitution. Their roles extend beyond mere administrative functions, as they are designed to serve as checks and balances on governmental power. — Apart from constitutional bodies, there are statutory bodies that play a vital role in strengthening our democracy. Statutory bodies are institutions established by an act of Parliament or state legislatures, deriving their authority from legislation rather than directly from the Constitution. — The National Commission for Minorities was set up as a statutory body with the enactment of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 by the Parliament. Therefore, option (b) is the correct answer. With reference to Lily Thomas vs Union Of India & Ors., consider the following statements: this case the Supreme Court declared sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allowed convicted members of legislative bodies a 3 month time period for appeal against the conviction and sentencing, as ultra vires the Constitution. 2. The Court ruled that Members of Parliament and State Legislatures convicted of crimes where they had been awarded a minimum sentence of 2 years imprisonment would cease to be members of the house to which they were elected from the date of sentencing. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (a) 1 only (b) 2 only (c) Both 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2 Explanation: — As per Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, conviction of a lawmaker for an offence with a two-year sentence or more leads to disqualification from the House. — Section 8(4) of the RPA said that the disqualification takes effect only 'after three months have elapsed' from the date of conviction. Within that period, the convicted lawmaker could have filed an appeal against the sentence before a higher court. — However, this provision was struck down as 'unconstitutional' in the Supreme Court's landmark 2013 ruling in 'Lily Thomas v Union of India'. — On July 10, 2013, a bench of Justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhaya of the Apex Court held that 'Parliament had no power to enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.' — The Court also held that if any sitting member of Parliament or State Legislature is convicted of any offence under sub-section (1), (2), and (3) of Section 8, RPA, then 'by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence' they will be disqualified. The court added that a convicted parliamentarian or legislator's membership will no longer be protected by Section 8 (4), as was previously the case. — The Court on an examination of other provisions in the Constitution that deal with disqualification of a lawmaker held that the Constitution 'expressly prohibits' Parliament to defer the date from which a disqualification would come into effect. Therefore, option (c) is the correct answer. Daily Subject-wise quiz — History, Culture, and Social Issues (Week 113) Daily subject-wise quiz — Polity and Governance (Week 112) Daily subject-wise quiz — Science and Technology (Week 112) Daily subject-wise quiz — Economy (Week 112) Daily subject-wise quiz — Environment and Geography (Week 112) Daily subject-wise quiz – International Relations (Week 112) Subscribe to our UPSC newsletter and stay updated with the news cues from the past week. Stay updated with the latest UPSC articles by joining our Telegram channel – IndianExpress UPSC Hub, and follow us on Instagram and X.
