Karnataka: New pension scheme implemented for teaching, non-teaching staff in Medical Education Department

In a tragic turn of events, a young spectator lost his life during a bull-taming event, Kobbari Hori, at Chigalli in Mundgod taluk, Uttara Kannada, on Saturday. 

Parameshwar Siddappa Harijan, aged 22, was fatally gored by a marauding bull during the event, which had drawn large crowds as part of the Deepavali festival celebrations.

With thousands of spectators lining the path to witness the action, the event took a horrific turn when the bull charged directly at Parameshwar, inflicting severe injuries. 

Despite efforts to rush him to the hospital, Parameshwar tragically succumbed to his wounds on the way.

In response to the fatal accident, another bull-taming event scheduled for the evening in Mundgod town was promptly cancelled, as shock and grief swept through the community following the heartbreaking incident.

Mangaluru, Nov 7: In the quiet village of Tippunagar, Loretto Padavu, a heartbreaking accident claimed the life of three-year-old Aashika on Wednesday, leaving a family and community shattered.

Aashika, the beloved daughter of Unais from Pattanabailu near Farangipet, was simply enjoying a carefree moment, playing outside her grandmother’s house. It was then that an unimaginable tragedy struck: a parked goods tempo, owned by her uncle, unexpectedly rolled backward, trapping the innocent child beneath its wheels.

Despite her family’s desperate rush to get her to the hospital, little Aashika’s injuries proved too severe, and she was declared dead upon arrival. Her passing has cast a deep shadow over the close-knit community, who grieve alongside her family for the life taken too soon.

The Bantwal traffic police have registered a case and are investigating the incident, while the community mourns the loss of a precious young soul who had only just begun to experience life’s wonder.
 

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.