1: Sex CD Scandal: Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings Initiated Against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant For Delay In Registering FIR Case Title: Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39 The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant and two...
Case Title: Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant and two other police officers, for alleged commission of an offence under Section 166A IPC which pertains to disobedience of law by a public servant. It includes refusal of a Police officer to record any information given to him under Section 154(1) CrPC in relation to cognizable offences pertaining to sexual harassment.
Case Title: Joswin Lobo v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.6916/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 40
The Karnataka High Court has said there is no bar on a police officer, who is a gazetted officer, on carrying out a personal search to draw a mahazar, on an accused/ suspect under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh said, "Assistant Commissioner of Police is also a Gazetted Officer...Search by the officer of the said department is not a bar and no law prescribes that he (suspect/accused) should be subjected to the personal search in the presence of the Gazetted Officer not belonging to the particular department."
Case Title: Ramesh Malli v. The Deputy Inspector General Of Wireless Case No: W.P. No. 104944/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 41
The Karnataka High Court has said that a probationer in the Karnataka police department cannot be terminated on the grounds of misconduct without carrying out an inquiry under the Karnataka Civil Service (Probation) Rules, 1977. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "It is true that the petitioner has no right to hold the post and he can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the probationary period for general unsuitability, but a probationer cannot be discharged imputing allegations amounting to misconduct. If any misconduct is alleged, then enquiry under Rule 7 of '1977 Rules' is necessary."
Case Title: Resham & Anr v. State of Karnataka
Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 42
The Karnataka High Court on Friday uploaded the interim order passed in the petitions challenging Hijab ban in colleges in the state. The Court has requested the State to re-open the educational institutions at the earliest and has 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.
Case Title: Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish v. Appellate Authority For Advance Ruling Karnataka Case No: W.P. No.14891 OF 2020
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 43
The Karnataka High Court has held that an owner of a building can claim tax exemption under the Goods and Services Act (GST) if the residential premises leased out are used as a hostel to house students and working professionals.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M I Arun while allowing the petition filed by one Taghar Vasudeva Ambrish said, "The service provided by the petitioner i.e., leasing out residential premises as hostel to students and working professionals is covered under Entry 13 of Notification No.9/2017 dated 28.09.2017 namely 'Services by way of renting of residential dwelling for use as residence' issued under the Act. The petitioner is held to be entitled to benefit of exemption notification."
Case Title: Indian Institute of Management Bangalore v. Daivanti Thakare Case No: WA 91/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 44
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Indian Institute of Management (Bangalore), challenging an order of the Single Judge bench by which it had set aside the order of the Institute, expelling nine students caught for exam malpractice. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the view taken by the learned Single Judge and as such, do not consider it to be a necessary case for interference. The writ appeal is dismissed."
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the circular issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), dated 29.2.2016 by which it directed property owners to relinquish the properties earmarked for road widening in the master plan, free of cost as a condition precedent for processing their applications for sanctioning of building plans.
Hijab Ban Reports:
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday appealed to the students' community and the public at large to maintain peace and tranquillity, while the hearing in the hijab case was going on. A single-judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit made the appeal while hearing a batch of petitions filed by Muslim girl students challenging the hijab ban imposed in their colleges. They seek a declaration that the wearing of hijab is a fundamental right of Muslims as an essential religious practice.
The State government has told the Karnataka High Court that it is not interested in interfering with the religious beliefs but is only concerned to maintain uniformity, cohesiveness, discipline and public order which is indispensable to an educational institution. In the statement of objection filed in response to the batch of petitions filed challenging the action of colleges stopping muslim girls from wearing a Hijab (head scarf) to colleges, the state government has said, "The very purpose of uniform and dress code is to maintain equality among the students and maintain dignity, decorum and discipline in the institution."
The Karnataka High Court today commenced hearing a writ petition filed by a Muslim girl student challenging the action of a government college in denying her entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf).
Justice Krishna S. Dixit has requested the student community and the public at large to refrain from taking onto the streets in connection with the issue and indulging in parallel protests. The Judge orally remarked, "People should have faith in Constitution. Only a mischievous section will keep the issue burning. But making agitation, going on the street, shouting slogans, attacking students, students attacking others, these are not good things. Do not disturb the Court. You should leave the judges to peace. So I appeal to all people to maintain peace and tranquility."
4: Hijab Ban: Karnataka High Court Refers Matter To Larger Bench, No Interim Relief
The Karnataka High Court has referred to a larger bench, the writ petitions filed by Muslim girl students challenging the action of a government college in denying her entry for wearing a hijab (headscarf). Justice Krishna S. Dixit noted that matter gives rise to certain constitutional questions of seminal importance qua personal law, which must be decided by a larger Bench. It directed the Registry to place the papers before the Chief Justice for consideration immediately, considering the urgency pleaded in the petitions.
A Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court will hear tomorrow the petitions challenging the ban of hijab (head scarf) in colleges. Today, a single bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit had referred the petitions filed by Muslim girl students to a larger bench, observing that important questions relating to constitutional rights and personal law are involved.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice JM Khazi will hear the petitions tomorrow at 2.30 PM. While making the reference, the single bench had declined to pass interim orders permitting the students to attend colleges wearing hijab, observing that the interim relief also has to be considered by the larger bench
Other reports
The Full bench of the Karnataka High Court has resolved to place the portrait of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, Architect of the Constitution of India, in all official functions of the courts.
As per the circular issued on February 4, the portrait is allowed to be placed during functions such as Republic Day on 26th January, Independence Day on 15th August and Constitution Day on 26th November in the High Court of Karnataka, Principal Bench at Bengaluru, Benches at Dharwad and Kalaburagi and also in District and Taluka Courts in the State.
Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department Case No: WP 42927/2015
The Karnataka High Court on Monday sought for an explanation from the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) as to what arrangement was made for using another technology in place of the Automatic Pothole Filling machines, in case they were not ready to renew the contract of a private agency, which was providing the same. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Sachin Shankar Magdum said, "Why the arrangement was not made in advance and why they were waiting till now and now wants time to float tender etc to get the required machines," needs to be explained.
3: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi Withdraws Consent For Elevation As Karnataka HC Judge
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi of the Karnataka High Court, who was recommended to be appointed as a judge of the High Court has withdrawn his consent for elevation. Confirming his withdrawal to Live Law, Sondhi said, "I have written to the collegium on February 4 in the light of the fact that it has been a year since my recommendation and five months since the reiteration".