Karnataka High Court Stays Case Against Congress Leaders Over Mekedatu Padyatra Amid Covid Restrictions

A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav while issuing notice to the respondents said,

"Subject to further consideration, there would be stay of the proceedings in C.C.No.8717/2022 pending on the file of the 42nd ACMM, Bangalore, till the next date of hearing."

The 13 petitioners have approached the court questioning the complaint registered by one Vijaykumar, Tashildar, Ramanagara district, on January 12 and seeking quashing. As per the complaint registered on January 12, it is alleged that in spite of the endorsement issued refusing permission and in contravention of government orders that were in existence to curb the spread of Covid-19, the petitioners went on with the Padyatra.

Senior Advocate AS Ponnanna, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that for the purpose of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020, reliance cannot be placed on the orders passed under the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Further, it was said that the charge sheet has been filed referring to the provisions of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020, but there is no notification under Sections 3 and 4 of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020, without which question of invoking the provisions of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020 does not arise.

The plea says the impugned order passed by the magistrate taking cognizance suffers from total non-application of judicial mind and without appreciating as to whether the ingredients of the offences alleged in the chargesheet are prima facie made out against the petitioners in order to take cognizance or not. Accordingly, it is contended that the order dated March 17, is illegal and liable to be quashed.

Further, it is said that in order for the provisions of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, to be imposed a notification under section 3 of the said Act ought to have been published in the official gazette notifying Covid-19 as an epidemic disease, which has not been done till date.

Moreover, the entire complaint does not state as to what is the role of the petitioners and in what manner they have acted to invite the ingredients of section 5 (3) of the Act. It is alleged that the FIR emanates from political vindictiveness and malafide intent to some way or the other corner the petitioners herein and put an end to their political missions.

It is also said that the charge sheet does not specifically state as to which of the regulations, measures or government orders issued for the purpose of addressing the situation of Covid-19 in the state were violated. One order dated January 4, is made part of the charge sheet. The said government order is issued in exercise of powers conferred under section 24 of the Disaster Management Act.

The plea prays for quashing the FIR and Complaint dated January 12 and subsequent proceedings.

Case Title: D K SHIVAKUMAR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRL.P 5726/2022

Appearance: Senior Advocate A S Ponnanna for Arnav A Bagalwadi for the petitioners