Bengaluru:

State BJP President B Y Vijayendra on Friday reacted to the Karnataka High Court restraining the CID from arresting his father and former chief minister B S Yediyurappa in a POCSO case, and said that the truth will prevail in the “temple of justice”.

Earlier in the day, the high court restrained the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) from arresting the veteran BJP leader in the case filed against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

It also directed Mr Yediyurappa to appear before the CID which is probing the case, on June 17.

In a post on social media platform X, Mr Vijayendra said, “…blessings of people of Karnataka and their prayers has paid off in the temple of justice. Political conspiracies have always followed Yediyurappa. Without losing heart, he will gain victory over these conspiracies by following the path of justice.” He further said that Yediyurappa’s respect for the law of the land has been proved by the high court’s decision today to grant him interim bail the case. “Yediyurappa is not one to turn his back on investigations,” he said.

“It is our firm belief that the truth will prevail in the temple of justice in the coming days,” he added in his post.

A Bengaluru court on Thursday issued a non-bailable arrest warrant against Mr Yediyurappa in the POCSO case registered on March 14 this year.

The Special Investigation Team of the CID had moved the First Fast Track Court seeking an arrest warrant against him since he failed to appear for questioning on Wednesday.

Mr Yediyurappa had sought time to join the probe.

According to the police, Mr Yediyurappa has been booked under the POCSO Act and Section 354 A (Sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on a complaint by the mother of a 17-year-old girl who alleged that he molested her daughter during a meeting on February 2 this year, at his residence in Dollars Colony here.

Mr Yediyurappa, who has denied the charge and said he would fight the case legally, had filed two separate petitions in the high court, seeking anticipatory bail and quashing of the FIR.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

Karnataka High Court has declined to categorise the statement ‘go hang yourself’ as abetment of suicide.

Justice M Nagaprasanna addressed the complexity of determining abetment of suicide in cases involving contentious statements.

The recent ruling stemmed from a petition involving allegations of abetment of suicide against a man in connection with the death of a priest in a church in Udupi in coastal Karnataka.

The petitioner was accused of triggering the priest’s suicide by allegedly urging him to “go hang himself” during a conversation about the priest’s alleged relationship with the petitioner’s wife. The defence counsel argued that the statement was made out of anguish upon discovering the alleged affair, and the priest’s decision to end his life was influenced by the affair becoming known to others, rather than solely by the accused’s words.

The opposing counsel contended that the priest took his own life due to the accused’s threatening language about exposing the affair. However, the single judge bench, drawing on precedents set by the Supreme Court, emphasised that such statements alone might not constitute abetment to suicide.

The court acknowledged the multifaceted reasons behind the priest’s suicide, including the alleged illicit relationship he had despite his role as a father and priest. Recognising the complexities of human psychology, the court underscored the challenge of deciphering the human mind and declined to categorise the accused’s statement as abetment to suicide.

Consequently, the court quashed the case, emphasising the intricate nature of human behaviour and the inability to fully unravel the motivations behind such tragic incidents.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The High Court of Karnataka has observed that the government’s failure to provide basic infrastructure in schools is pushing people who cannot even afford three meals a day to send their children to private schools.

“Is education reserved for the privileged,” the HC bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit questioned while hearing a public interest litigation initiated by the court in 2013 based on media reports about children who were left out of the schooling system.

The court said that the deficiencies in government schools regarding the lack of restrooms and drinking water facilities were brought to its notice in 2013 but action has been lacking.

Till date, 464 government schools lack restrooms and 32 do not have drinking water facilities, the court pointed out.

Expressing its displeasure at the government’s inaction, the court directed that an affidavit on providing basic facilities in all schools should be filed within eight weeks.

“Is it for us to tell all this to the state? This has been going on for so many years. There must have been some amount shown in the budget for the schooling and education department. What happens to that amount,” the court said on Monday.

During the hearing, while referring to the state government’s free schemes for the poor, the court said it had no qualms about such measures but providing necessary facilities and infrastructure in schools where poor students study should be of paramount importance.

“Education is a fundamental right. But governments have failed to provide the facilities in government schools which are turning the poor towards private schools,” the court said. This was indirectly helping private schools, it said.

“Because of the lack of basic facilities, the government schools are closed. On the other hand, as there is no other option, parents even when they are financially not well or sound are left with no choice but to admit their wards to the alternate private schools. The learned counsel is also justified in submitting that such a situation frustrates the object of making primary education a fundamental right as ensured in the Constitution of India,” the court recorded in its order.

The High Court said that Babasaheb Ambedkar is shown with a book in every image of his which was to show the importance of education. Many developed countries spend more on education than on defence, the court observed.

Allowing time for the comprehensive report by the government, the court recorded that, “The government advocate submits that as the copy of the report prepared by the learned amicus is handed over to her, she will personally look into it and call up the concerned government officials.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

 The High Court of Karnataka has said that sympathy towards stray dogs by way of feeding them should not come at the cost of creating chaos and danger to the public.

The division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit, while hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) on the state government’s alleged delay in implementing the Animal Welfare Board’s guidelines, said, “Duty is cast upon such citizens (dog feeders) to ensure that activity shall not cause hindrance or health hazard to his fellow citizens.” The HC said the government was delaying its response to the petition. Directing the government to rectify its behaviour, the high court gave it three weeks to file objections to the PIL. It warned that the court may have to issue orders against the government if there is further delay.

During the hearing, the court observed that citizens too have a stake in the issue, and feeding animals in undesignated places causes health hazards and other problems.

“The common experience is that except feeding of street dogs, there is no incident being reported that such citizens are coming forward to assist public bodies in the exercise of sterilisation or vaccination of stray dogs,” the HC noted.

About feeding stray dogs, the HC said, “I don’t mind showing some sympathy to animals but not at the cost of the chaos created. Feeding stray dogs in undedicated locations would certainly cause some apprehension in the minds of school-going children and the possibility of some stray dogs rushing towards school-going children cannot be ruled out.”

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

The High Court of Karnataka today observed that it would be suitable if an age limit was introduced for using social media akin to the legal age for drinking alcohol.

A division bench of Justices G Narendar and Vijaykumar A Patil made the observation while hearing an appeal by X Corp (formerly Twitter) challenging the single judge order of June 30 which had dismissed its plea to the takedown orders issued by the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeiTY).

MeiTY had under Section 69A of the Information Technology Act between February 2, 2021 and February 28, 2022 issued 10 Government Orders directing it to block 1,474 accounts, 175 Tweets, 256 URLs and one hashtag. Twitter challenged the orders related to 39 of these URLs.

“Ban social media. I will tell you a lot of good will come. Today’s school going children are so addicted to it. I think there should be an age limit such as in Excise rules,” Justice G Narendar noted.

The court further observed that “children may be 17 or 18. But do they have the maturity to judge what is or is not in the interest of the nation? Not only on social media, even on the Internet things should be removed, it corrupts the mind. Government should consider bringing in an age limit for the use of social media.”

The court had also imposed a cost of Rs 50 lakh on X Corp. X Corp’s counsel argued that MeiTY had not informed the users about blocking their tweets and accounts and even the company was forbidden from informing them.

The high court asked the government “You do not release the order. He is not permitted to reveal the order. How is he going to defend himself?”

The high court suggested that the government may have to tweak the rules a bit as it is at the government’s discretion that X Corp is blocking the accounts of users and the company cannot be left high and dry.

However, the high court said that “When it comes to national security, everybody has to be on the same page.” When the counsel for the company argued that it had informed which order of MeiTY it can comply with and which it could not, the bench said X Corp cannot be the judge.

The court said the X Corp “cannot be given the right to judge the content. If the content says ‘Apple a day keeps the doctor away’, you will interpret that as being against the doctor and the interest of the nation?”

The hearing of the case was adjourned to Wednesday when the high court will decide on the interim relief sought by X Corp. The hearing of the appeal will be heard after that, the court said.
 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Bengaluru:

In cases related to compensation claims in road accidents, the case is not expected to be proved like a criminal trial, the High Court of Karnataka has said.

“It is well known that in a case relating to motor accident claims, the claimants are not required to prove the case as it is required to be done in a criminal trial. The court must keep this distinction in mind,” the court said recently while dismissing an appeal filed by an insurance company challenging the compensation awarded to an accident victim’s family.

The Division Bench of Justices K Somashekar and Rajesh Rai K was hearing two appeals — one filed by Bajaj Allianz Insurance and another filed by Chikka Thayamma and Rame Gowda, the parents of one Divakar M R who died in an accident on August 13, 2019.

Divakar met with an accident near Durgaparameshwari Temple in Nagarabhavi while riding a motorcycle.

A car is said to have caused the accident resulting in his death in a nearby private hospital where he was taken for treatment. Divakar was working in a bar and restaurant and earning Rs 18,000 per month.

The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation of Rs 15,43,600 to the parents of Divakar. They approached the HC seeking enhancement of compensation. The insurer approached the HC stating that the complaint about the accident did not mention the involvement of the car and it was the negligence of Divakar that had resulted in his death.

The HC, in its judgement, said strict proof of the accident need not be proved by the claimants for compensation.

“A holistic view of the evidence has to be taken into consideration by the tribunal and strict proof of an accident caused by a particular vehicle in a particular manner need not be established by the claimants. The claimants have to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities,” the HC said.

Dismissing the appeal filed by the insurer, the HC said: “The standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be applied while considering the petition seeking compensation on account of death or injury in a road traffic accident. Therefore, the domain it is vested with the tribunal in appreciating evidence in terms of social justice and it should be extended and considered to a greater extent but not in conjectures and surmises but more credentiality must be given to that aspect.

The HC also found the compensation awarded by the MACT to be correct and dismissed the appeal of the victim’s parents for enhancement.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)