"Courtesy Call" To PIL Petitioner: Karnataka HC Pardons Police Officer

Observing that "If Mercy has to be show it has to be shown by a Constitutional Court," the Karnataka High Court on Thursday accepted an unconditional apology tendered by a police inspector of the State Intelligence department, who made phone calls to a petitioner (party in person) to collect details of the case filed by him.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Mohammad Nawaz, said "In the affidavit filed today the officer he has accepted that his act amounts to interference in administration of Justice." The court had pulled up the officer after petitioner Mallikarjuna A, had reported to the court about the phone calls. On the last hearing the police officer had said it was a "courtesy call" made by him to the petitioner after reading a news report on the order made by the court in his petition.

Justice Oka had then said "In the last 16 years of my career as a judge, I have never come across such a practise of 'courtesy call'. Will citizens who have approached the high court, on receiving a call from the intelligence department, perceive it as 'courtesy call'. He added "This officer has to go."

In a connected hearing seeking proper implementation of disaster management act and setting up of cattle camps in taluks, during drought like situation. The bench put the government on notice and directed it to file an affidavit in reply to the report submitted by the Karnataka State Legal Aid Services Authority. The report submitted states that no cattle camps were started at 14 areas while the state has said that they were started. The state is told to explain this misleading information given by it to the court.

The bench said "If the state wants to dispute the report prepared by judicial officers then it will hold an inquiry and go into the minutest details to verify the claim made by the state opposing the report." It added "This is a brazen approach by the state, no mercy will be shown to the officer who misled the court if the report of the legal aid authority is found correct and state is found to have misled the court."

The counsel for the government told the court that it was an unusual situation that the state faced in July and August months, there was drought and then floods. Thus some camps were shifted to other places. The bench said "If the information supplied is found to be misleading, consequences will follow." Later the state orally accepted the report of the legal aid authority.

On the last hearing the court had observed "This is a classic case of how the state has misled the court. Ex-facie the data given in two reports by the state is false." The court orally said this is sorry state of affairs, we are not dealing with some influential person but 'farmers', such things should not have happened. The court has now posted the matter for further hearing in October.

The PIL filed by the petitioner highlights the issues related to drought, and cattle camps and proper implementation of the Disaster Management Act.