1: Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46 Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court...
1: Punishment Of Compulsory Retirement For Accepting ₹50 Bribe Disproportionate: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: M.S. Kadkol v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.110912 of 2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 46
Almost 18 years after an employee of the State government was subjected to compulsory retirement for accepting a bribe of Rs. 50, the Karnataka High Court recently held that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the offence. It thus set aside the order of compulsory retirement issued in the year 2004.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde sitting at Dharwad partly allowed the petition filed by M.S. Kadkol. It confirmed the guilt of the petitioner however, set aside the punishment of compulsory retirement and remitted the matter back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate order of punishment on the petitioner.
2: Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Banning Online Gaming With Stakes
Case Title: All India Gaming Federation v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 18703/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 47
The Karnataka High Court on Monday held certain provisions of the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021, by which the state government has banned online games with stakes to be ultra vires to the Constitution and struck them down. The Act provides maximum imprisonment of three years and penalty up to Rs. 1 lakh for violation of the provisions. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Krishna S Dixit said "In the above circumstances these writ petitions succeed. The Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act 2021 to the extent provisions we have said, not the entire act is struck down is declared to be ultra vires to the constitution and struck down."
Case Title: Karnataka State Law University v. Mahantesh Case No: WA 100319/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 48
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday set aside the single judge bench order dated on December 14, 2021, by which the court had quashed the notification issued by Karnataka State Law University, by which it was to conduct offline examinations for the students of 2nd and 4th semester of three year LLB course. A division bench of Justice S G Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while allowing the intra-court appeal filed by Karnataka State Law University said, "In the best interest of legal education. The following order, writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 14/12/2021 passed in writ petition no 104008/2021, is set aside."
Case Title: Somashekara @ Soma v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 328/2018
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 49
The Karnataka High Court has said that if an advocate representing the accused who is in custody fails to appear before the court, the trial court is bound to appoint a legal aid advocate to defend the accused. A single judge bench of Justice K.S.Mudagal said, "Article 39A of the Constitution of India casts duty on the state not to deny access to justice on the ground of economic or other disabilities. To achieve the object of Article 39A of the Constitution, the Legal Services Authority Act has been enacted. Under the said Act, Legal Services Authorities are constituted right from national level to taluk level. The district courts have the District Legal Services Authority and a panel of advocates for rendering legal aid to the unaffordable as contemplated under Section 304 of Cr.P.C."
Case Title: Sunil Kumar v. State By Periyapatana Police Station Case No: Criminal Petition No.4234/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 50
The Karnataka High Court has directed its Registry to post an Additional Session Judge, Mysuru, for training in the Judicial Academy in order to make him learn "judicial discretion", in the interest of the institution and to protect the interest of seekers of justice. A single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh said, "The Registry is directed to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice to post the concerned Judicial Officer to the Judicial Academy for training with regard to applying judicious thought process while exercising judicial discretion before granting bail in heinous offences."
Hijab Ban Reports:
Over 500 law students, legal academics and lawyers practising in different jurisdictions across courts in India have written an open letter strongly condemning the violation of constitutional rights of young Muslim women who have been denied entry into educational spaces due to their wearing a hijab.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Monday heard extensive arguments on behalf of the petitioner, a Muslim girl student who challenged the action of a government college in denying her entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Last Friday, the Full bench had restrained students from wearing any sort of religious clothes in classrooms, regardless of their faith, while the matter is pending hearing. The interim order is only applicable to those institutions which have prescribed a uniform dress code.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday heard extensive arguments on behalf of the petitioners, Muslim girl students, who challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat appearing for the petitioners argued that wearing Hijab is an essential religious practice under Islam, and suspension of the same, even for a few hours during school, undermines the community's faith and violates their fundamental rights under Article 19 and 25 of the Constitution.
The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court which is hearing the hijab case on Tuesday rejected an affidavit which alleged that the interim order passed by the Court on February 10 was being misused by authorities to stop hijab-wearing students even in institutions with no prescribed uniform. The Bench rejected the affidavit sworn to by Advocate Mohammad Tahir by saying that a counsel cannot file an affidavit and that the same has to be sworn to by the party.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today continued hearing arguments on the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Prof Ravivarma Kumar, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners today argued that the state is discriminating against Muslim girls, solely on the basis of their religion. He highlighted that the Government Order dated February 5 targets wearing of hijab whereas other religious symbols are not taken into account. This leads to hostile discrimination violating Article 15 of the Constitution.
In the hijab case, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday granted two days time to the State Government to respond to an application filed by one of the petitioners seeking to allow students to use dupatta as prescribed in the uniform to cover her head. Senior Advocate Professor Ravivarma Kumar submitted that yesterday for some technical reasons the application was not considered, and hence a proper application has now been made, seeking a clarification that the students can wear dupatta of the same uniform colour to cover their heads. "Just use the same dupatta to cover their head, no additional dress. Let the students get back to the class", Kumar submitted.
Responding to a plea for mediation in the hijab case, the Karnataka High Court on Thursday observed that mediation was possible only if both the petitioners and the respondents (State and College Development Committees) agree. The Full Bench was responding to an oral request made by an advocate for mediation in the matter. She said that whatever be the judgment, there will be still problems, and hence suggested mediation to solve the problem. She added that the rights of Muslim girls were being violated.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court today heard Advocate General Prabhuling Navadgi on behalf of the State, in the petitions filed by Muslim girl students, who have challenged the action of a government college in denying their entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Navadgi told the Bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi that he will argue primarily on the following grounds:
(i) wearing of hijab does not fall within the essential religious practise of Islam; (ii) right to wear hijab cannot be traced to freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution; (iii) Government Order dated February 5 empowering College Development Committees (CDCs) to prescribe uniform is in consonance with the Education Act.
The Karnataka High Court on Friday was informed that the interim order dated February 10, restraining all the students, regardless of their religion or faith, from wearing religious clothes within the classroom, which was limited to only colleges where the College Development Committee (CDC) had prescribed uniform, is now being extended by the state to all schools and colleges. Advocate Mohammed Tahir appearing for one of the petitioners, at the end of the hearing today submitted to the court that, "These all writ petitions are private in nature and lordships have passed interim order, considering the law and order situation. The order has specifically stated that it is in respect and only confined to those colleges where the CDC has prescribed any uniform. But in spite of that, the state has extended this order and enforced it to all the schools, degree colleges, and all the colleges. Even the school teachers are not spared."
Other reports:
Case Title: Adinarayan Shetty v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 13605/2021
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday directed the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) Commissioner to lodge a FIR against M/S Simplex Infrastructures Ltd., on charges of misappropriation of funds, on account of delay in construction of the four-lane Ejipura-Kendriya Sadana flyover in the Koramangala area of Bengaluru. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We prima facie find that it is because of the fourth respondent that delay has been caused in completion of the project and construction of the flyover could not be completed. The public money has been involved in the project and people at large have been put to inconvenience due to the delay in completion of the project."
Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 2125/2022
A non-profit organisation, Law Students Association has approached the Karnataka High Court questioning the continuation of Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bha as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Law University, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years. Advocate Vittal B R appearing for the petitioners on Friday submitted that section 14 of the Karnataka State Law University Act of 2009, clearly mentions the term of office of Vice Chancellor. The year of birth of the present Vice Chancellor as stated in the University records is 1955. So in the year 2020 he completed the prescribed age limit of 65 years, it was argued.