Karnataka govt hikes milk prices by Rs 2 per litre

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.

Karnataka Health Minister Dinesh Gundu Rao reminded that V D Savarkar was not against cow slaughter as he himself was non-veg eater, PTI reported on Thursday.

"As a Brahmin he was eating meat, and he was openly propagating eating meat," said the minister at an event in Bengaluru.

Reacting to Gundu Rao's claim, BJP MP Anurag Thakur called Congress a "factory of lies" as he warned that India won't tolerate any disrespect towards Savarkar.

"By disrespecting Veer Savarkar they have shown that they don't respect freedom fighters. During the Congress government, Sardar Bhagat Singh was termed a separatist in textbooks...By making those who want to break the nation join the congress party, Rahul Gandhi is taking forward the ideology of 'tukde tukde' and he is a 'modern Jinnah' who speaks ill of the country abroad...," he said.

Meanwhile, a court in Maharashtra's Nashik district summoned Congress MP Rahul Gandhi earlier this week in a defamation case filed against him for his alleged objectionable remarks against the Hindutva ideologue.

The complainant, who is the director of an NGO, claimed he watched a press conference addressed by Gandhi in Hingoli and also a speech made by the Congress leader in November 2022.

He alleged that Gandhi, on the two occasions, by his words and visual representations knowingly harmed the reputation of Veer Savarkar and also tried to defame the latter's image in the society.

According to the complainant, Gandhi said "Savarkar is BJP and RSS jin" which was defamatory in nature.

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.