Day before verdict Mohan Kumar pleads for mercy

NRI professionals hailing from the coastal and Malnad regions of Karnataka, now based in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Australia, have been urging the Indian government and airlines to introduce a direct flight between Mangalore International Airport (MIA) and Singapore’s Changi Airport.

These professionals argue that Singapore’s strategic location as a hub connecting India with East Asia makes this flight essential. They highlight that this route would serve over 12 million people from the coastal and hill regions of southern India, fostering stronger ties with East Asian economies.

The group, consisting of individuals from Dakshina Kannada, Uttara Kannada, Udupi, Chikkamagaluru, Kodagu, Shivamogga, and Hassan, is spearheaded by Rajesh H Acharya, director of HQ Connections Pte Ltd, Singapore, and coordinator of the Singapore Tuluver community. Acharya emphasized the significance of the Indian government’s Act East policy, which aims to strengthen relationships between India and ASEAN, East Asia, and the Asia-Pacific region.

“This flight will open new doors for cultural, trade, tourism, and technological exchanges between these regions,” Acharya said.

The Mangalore Chapter of IndUS Entrepreneurs (TiE) has also proposed positioning the region as the 'Silicon Beach of India.' A direct flight would provide greater opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors from both Singapore and Mangaluru, boosting business exchanges.

Moreover, Singapore’s Changi Airport could see increased tourism from the Karnataka coast, while Coastal Karnataka would benefit from a surge in visitors from ASEAN countries, the Far East, Australia, New Zealand, and the US West Coast.

While a similar attempt in 2017 did not succeed, Acharya and his team are hopeful that this time their appeal will be taken seriously, tapping into the immense growth potential of the eastern half of the globe.

Mangaluru: Police have arrested five miscreants belonging to saffron outfits for pelting stones at a masjid at Katipalla near Surathkal on the outskirts of the city last night. 

The arrested have been identified as Bharat, Chennappa, Nitin, Manu and Sujit all residents of Surathkal and surrounding areas. Among them, Bharat is said to be a rowdy sheeter. 

The miscreants, who came on two motorbikes late on Sunday night, pelted stones at Masjidul Huda, located at 3rd block of Katipalla on the eve of Miladunnabi.  

Confirming the incident, City Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal said that investigation is in progress and a case has been registered at Surathkal police station.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar 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. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

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.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on 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.