Electricity tariff hiked in Karnataka

New Delhi: Two days after he was granted bail and walked out of prison after six months, Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal announced his shock resignation from the top post at a party meeting this afternoon. "Two days later, I will resign as Chief Minister. I will not sit on that chair till the people announce their verdict. Elections in Delhi are months away. I got justice from the legal court, now I will get justice from the people's court. I will sit on the Chief Minister's chair only after the order of the people," he said. 

"I want to ask the people of Delhi, is Kejriwal innocent or guilty? If I have worked, vote for me," he said, adding that a meeting of AAP MLAs will be held within the next two days to choose the new Chief Minister for the national capital.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leader said a member of the party will be named Chief Minister after his resignation. He said he would go among the people and ask for their support. Mr Kejriwal also demanded that the elections in the national capital, scheduled for February, be held in November along with the polls in Maharashtra.

In his address to the AAP workers, Mr Kejriwal launched an all-out attack against the Narendra Modi government and said it was more dictatorial than the British.

He said he did not resign as Chief Minister despite being arrested because he wanted to save democracy. "They have registered cases against (Karnataka Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah, (Kerala Chief Minister) Pinarayi Vijayan, (Bengal Chief Minister) Mamata didi (Banerjee). I want to appeal to non-BJP, do not resign if they register cases against you. This is their new game," he said.

Mr Kejriwal said he had also spoken to former Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia about the issue. Mr Sisodia too was recently granted bail in connection with corruption allegations surrounding Delhi's now-scrapped liquor policy. "I spoke to Manish, he too has said that he will handle the post only after the people say we are honest. My and Sisodia's fate are in your hands now," he said.

Responding to the shocking development, BJP's Harish Khurana questioned why the AAP leader is creating a drama. "Why after 48 hours? he should resign today. In the past too, he has done this. People of Delhi are asking, he can't go to the secretariat, can't sign documents? What is the point then?" Asked if the BJP was ready for early polls, Mr Khurana replied, "We are ready, whether it is today or tomorrow. We will return to power in Delhi after 25 years."

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice Srishananda during a recent court hearing. Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah against Governor Thawarchand Gehlot's decision to sanction the complaint and investigation against him in the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam case.

Justice M Nagaprasanna said the facts narrated in the petition would undoubtedly require an investigation.

The court has also said that the Governor's order approving sanction to investigate against Siddaramaiah under section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act does not suffer from application of mind, instead has abundance of application of mind.

Meanwhile, the court rejected the request made by senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi to stay the order of the court. The court has vacated the interim order passed on August 19. In the interim order the trial court was directed not to take any precipitative action against Siddaramaiah. On August 17, Governor had approved sanction under section 17 A  of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 218 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( BNSS), citing three applications.

The court said the private complainants were justified in registering the complaint and seeking approval from the governor.

Insofar as private complainants seeking sanction under section 17A, the court said the provision nowhere requires only a police officer to seek sanction from a competent authority. The court further said it is in fact the duty of the private complainants to seek such approval.

Earlier, The High Court had completed its hearing in the case on September 12, and reserved its orders. It had also directed a special court in Bengaluru to defer further proceedings and not to take any precipitative action against the Chief Minister.

The case pertains to allegations that compensatory sites were allotted to Siddaramaiah's wife B M Parvathi in an upmarket area in Mysuru that had higher property value as compared to the location of her land that had been "acquired" by MUDA.