Latest news with #VKameswarRao
Hindustan Times
2 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
On Bengaluru stampede, Karnataka high court asks 9 key questions from state govt
As the controversy and probe around the June 4 tragic stampede outside M Chinnaswamy Stadium intensified, the Karnataka High Court reportedly demanded answers to nine key questions from the state government. The court's intervention follows a suo motu writ petition filed in response to the shocking incident, and it asked the Karnataka government to file its replies to the High Court by June 10 on the matter. Also Read | Bengaluru stampede case goes to CID as BJP leader alleges Karnataka CM has 'blood on hands' The Karnataka high court bench, comprising acting chief justice V Kameswar Rao and justice CM Joshi, demanded answers to nine key questions from the state government, according to the PTI news agency. Apart from the questions about the event, the bench also questioned the existence of a standard operating procedure (SOP) to manage gatherings of over 50,000 people for sporting events and public celebrations of this scale. The stampede occurred on June 4 in front of the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru, where a large number of people thronged to participate in the RCB team's IPL victory celebrations. 11 people died and 56 were injured in the incident. Also Read | Bengaluru stampede: What led to deadly crush at RCB's IPL victory event? In the aftermath of the incident, the state government suspended five senior police officials, including Bengaluru city police commissioner B Dayananda. The suspensions came after high-level deliberations involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, senior cabinet ministers, Legal Advisor AS Ponnana, and Advocate General K M Shashikiran Shetty. Also Read | Top RCB official, 3 others held in Bengaluru stampede case sent to judicial custody Political and official sources indicated that these tough questions and the judicial scrutiny may have triggered the state government's decision to suspend five senior police officers, including Bengaluru City Police Commissioner B Dayananda. (with PTI inputs)
Indian Express
2 days ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
Karnataka HC poses 9 questions to govt on Bengaluru stampede: ‘Who took decision to hold RCB celebration?'
The Karnataka High Court has posed a set of nine questions to the Congress government in the state over the stampede tragedy at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru that resulted in 11 deaths during a felicitation for the IPL-winning Royal Challengers Bengaluru team on Wednesday. Among the key questions that the high court posed on Thursday and sought answers for by June 10 are: Who decided to hold the victory celebration? In what manner and when? Was any permission sought to organise the event? And whether any SOP (standard operating procedure) has been formulated to manage a crowd of 50,000 and above in any sports event and celebrations of this nature? The questions were posed by a division bench headed by acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi in the course of a suo motu writ petition taken up by the court regarding the cricket stadium tragedy in Bengaluru. The other questions the high court posed were: * What steps were taken to regulate the traffic? * What steps were taken to regulate the public/crowd? * What medical and other facilities were arranged at the venue? * Any assessment was made in advance on the number of people, who may be present at the time of celebrations? * Whether persons injured were given immediate medical attention by the medical experts at the venue? If not why? * How much time was taken to take the injured to the hospitals? The high court's suo motu petition and questions posed by it reportedly triggered the suspensions of five police officers, including the Bengaluru police commissioner, on June 6 following consultations by Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah with his legal advisor A S Ponnana and the state Advocate General K M Shashikiran Shetty, as per sources. The flow of events leading to the tragedy as analysed from communications between the Karnataka State Cricket Association (KSCA) and the government, the social media timelines of RCB handles and the Bengaluru traffic police, as well as statements made in police FIRs suggest that the cricket association sought permission on June 3 for an event for felicitation of the RCB cricket by the CM and deputy CM at the government headquarters, Vidhana Soudha, on June 4 in the event of RCB winning the IPL finals against Punjab Super Kings. KSCA CEO Shubhendu Ghosh wrote to the government's Department of Personnel and Administration (DPAR) – the custodians of the Vidhana Soudha – on June 3 on behalf of event management firm DNA Network for permission for a felicitation of RCB players at the Vidhana Soudha. The DPAR responded on the morning of June 4 granting permission for the event by laying down as many as 16 conditions to protect the portals of the Vidhana Soudha, where the event would be held on the evening of June 4, with Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar attending. Siddaramaiah's political secretary, K Govindaraju, an MLC and ambitious sports administrator who was sacked on Saturday, is alleged to have influenced the decision-making at the highest levels in the government to hold the Vidhana Soudha event. Even as the 4 pm Vidhana Soudha event was cleared by the government, the Bengaluru police—the sanctioning authority—had not granted permission for a victory parade from the Vidhana Soudha to the Chinnaswamy Stadium for RCB fans due to crowd control fears. Although no official permission was granted by the police, the RCB management went on to unilaterally announce a victory parade at 7.01 am on the morning of June 4, triggering a fan frenzy. The RCB/KSCA also sent out a media advisory around 10.30 am on June 4 saying there would be a felicitation by Siddaramaiah at the Vidhana Soudha at 4 pm, a victory parade around 5 pm, and a felicitation at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium at 6 pm. The Bengaluru traffic police timeline on X shows that two traffic advisories were put out around 2.45 pm and 3.30 pm about the felicitation at the Chinnaswamy stadium at 5 pm, with no mention of a victory parade. The Karnataka government, while suspending five police officers, stated that though the RCB CEO informed the Bengaluru police commissioner on June 3 about holding the victory parade and celebrations on June 4, the police failed to give a written reply to the organisers 'rejecting the permission'. A suo motu FIR filed in the Cubbon Park police station by the now-suspended police inspector A K Girish over the stadium deaths says Ghosh approached the police on June 3 for an event at the M Chinnaswamy Stadium on behalf of RCB. The Bengaluru police, who registered the FIR on June 5 for culpable homicide, causing voluntary hurt and unlawful assembly against the RCB, the KSCA, and DNA Network, arrested an RCB marketing head and a senior DNA official on Friday. Meanwhile, on Friday, the Karnataka High Court granted conditional interim protection from arrest to three KSCA officials, including president Raghuram Bhat, a former cricketer, in the stadium deaths case. The KSCA officials claimed in their high court petition that DNA officials held a meeting with Bengaluru police on June 3 on holding the celebration event if RCB won. The petition also says that KSCA and DNA officials met Siddaramaiah and the state chief secretary for government support for the event to be held at the Vidhana Soudha. 'Celebrating the victory was in fact the call of the government as it felicitated the players at the Vidhana Soudha in the presence of the chief minister, deputy CM, and several cabinet ministers, with all the secretariat and police higher-ups being present,' states the KSCA petition. The Karnataka government on Saturday issued an order for a judicial inquiry to be conducted into the stadium tragedy by Justice John Michael Cunha, a retired high court judge. The government has also directed a magisterial inquiry by the deputy commissioner for the Bengaluru region in his capacity as an executive magistrate.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Sport
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka HC demands state submit detailed report on stampede
The Karnataka high court on Thursday raised serious concerns over the planning and preparedness of the IPL victory celebrations that triggered a deadly stampede outside Bengaluru's M Chinnaswamy Stadium, directing the state government to submit detailed responses on key aspects, including who authorised the event, what crowd control and emergency measures were in place, and whether there had been any advance assessment of the turnout. A bench of acting chief justice V Kameswar Rao and justice CM Joshi asked the state pointedly whether permissions had even been sought to organise such a celebration, whether a standard operating procedure exists for managing crowds above 50,000, and if immediate medical help was extended to the injured. The questions came after a stampede outside the stadium killed 11 and injured around 50 people. Taking suo motu cognisance of the June 4 incident, the bench directed the government to file a comprehensive status report addressing nine specific questions by June 10, when the matter will be heard next. The tragedy unfolded on Wednesday evening when over 250,000 people reportedly gathered near the stadium after announcements of free public entry to the celebratory event for Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB). The stadium's official capacity, the government told the court, is about 30,000. During the hearing, advocate general Shashi Kiran Shetty admitted that the crowd outside the stadium was in a state of 'frenzy'. 'Each person thought they would only be one more,' said Shetty, acknowledging the chaotic conditions and noting that people had travelled from across the state and even from outside Karnataka. The court then directed the government to explain, 'When and who took the decision to hold the celebration, and how it was to be conducted.' 'What traffic and crowd regulation measures were in place; whether medical arrangements were made in advance and whether those injured were given timely medical attention,' the court added. It has also asked the state to clarify in its status report if any 'advance estimate of the crowd size was undertaken; whether SOPs exist to manage gatherings above 50,000 people; and if permissions were formally obtained for the event.' While a magisterial inquiry is underway, the AG submitted that its report will be submitted within a fortnight. AG Shetty confirmed that the stampede occurred at three entry gates, despite all 21 stadium gates being open. Shetty also said the government was not 'sparing anyone' responsible for the tragedy. The petitioners and members of the Bar who were present in the court, including senior advocate Aruna Shyam, questioned the wisdom of announcing free public entry with no advance planning. Shyam also urged the court to appoint an independent body to monitor the probe. The bench assured the petitioners that it will ensure accountability and suggested that everyone wait until the state filed its status report. The court also said it will examine claims that the announcement of free entry was made not by the government but by a franchise official, and that only three of the 21 gates of the stadium were effectively accessible to the public. An FIR has been registered by the city police following the incident and the Royal Challengers Bengaluru, event-management company DNA Entertainment, and the administrative committee of the Karnataka State Cricket Association have been named in it.
Indian Express
24-05-2025
- Business
- Indian Express
Karnataka High Court rejects L&T's Rs 28.74-crore claim against BMRCL in Metro delay dispute
The Karnataka High Court, in a ruling on May 20, dismissed an appeal by Larsen and Toubro Limited (L&T) against the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL), upholding a lower court's decision to nullify an arbitral award of Rs 28.74 crore for losses incurred due to project delays. The judgment was delivered by Justices V Kameswar Rao and S Rachaiah. 'The Tribunal's award of Rs 28.74 crore, ignoring Clauses 2.2 and 8.3, is a jurisdictional error. An arbitrator, bound by the contract, cannot override its express terms, especially when L&T accepted extensions without reserving compensation rights, rendering the award contrary to public policy,' they noted. The case traces back to a December 2009 contract, wherein L&T was tasked with building three elevated Metro stations—Yeshwanthpur, Soap Factory, and Mahalaxmi—for Bengaluru's Metro system. The 22-month project, governed by General Conditions of Contract (GCC), stipulated that delays caused by BMRCL would warrant only extensions of time (EOTs), not monetary compensation, as per Clauses 2.2 and 8.3. Delays emerged due to land acquisition disputes, resolved by May 2012, leading BMRCL to grant five EOTs without liquidated damages but explicitly prohibiting compensation claims. Seeking redress for alleged losses, L&T pursued arbitration. In 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal awarded L&T Rs 28.74 crore, referencing the Supreme Court's General Manager, Northern Railways v. Sarvesh Chopra (2002), which suggested contractors could claim compensation if they notified the employer during EOT acceptance. The Tribunal deemed L&T's communications sufficient to override the contract's no-compensation clauses. BMRCL challenged this under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before Bengaluru's Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who, in October 2022, overturned the award, citing its violation of the contract and the Tribunal's overreach. L&T appealed to the High Court, arguing that Clauses 2.2 and 8.3 were void under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, for being against public policy, and that the Sessions Judge improperly re-assessed evidence. Citing Sarvesh Chopra and precedents like ONGC v. Wig Brothers (2010), L&T claimed BMRCL's delays amounted to a fundamental breach. BMRCL countered that the Tribunal disregarded the contract and authoritative rulings, including Wig Brothers and Ramnath International (2007), which uphold no-compensation clauses. They argued L&T's EOT applications lacked explicit intent to claim compensation, failing Sarvesh Chopra's notice requirement. The High Court ruled in BMRCL's favour, finding that L&T's acceptance of EOTs without reserving compensation rights precluded later claims. The Court clarified that Sarvesh Chopra's relevant observations were non-binding, and L&T's communications—ambiguous in the first EOT and absent thereafter—did not meet notice standards. The tribunal's award was deemed a jurisdictional error, breaching public policy by ignoring contractual terms and judicial precedents. The court also criticised the tribunal's arbitrary 50:50 delay attribution and unsupported damage quantification. The court observed that 'an arbitrator, being a creature of the contract, cannot ignore its express terms, and awarding compensation in violation of such terms constitutes a jurisdictional error against public policy.'
