Panel absolves Palemar, Patil; Savadi to be admonished

March 31, 2012

palemar
Bangalore, March 31: The Legislative Assembly Committee, which probed the porn episode in the State Assembly on February 7, has absolved BJP MLAs Krishna J Palemar and C C Patil of any wrongdoing.

However, it recommended admonishment of Lakshman Savadi, another BJP MLA, by the Speaker, as the allegations against him seem to be valid.

The 28-page report of the Committee headed by Srishailappa Bidarur (BJP) was tabled in the Assembly on Friday, the last day of the current session.

With the Opposition parties refusing to be part of the probe panel, only four BJP MLAs were on it, besides officials of the Assembly secretariat. All the three BJP MLAs - Savadi, Palemar and Patil - were ministers when they hit the headlines for the wrong reasons. Savadi and Patil allegedly watched the clips on Palemar's cellphone. They resigned as ministers a day after television channels showed them watching clips.

Speaker K G Bopaiah said he would allow a discussion on the report during the next session. He said the restriction imposed on the three former ministers from entering the House had been withdrawn.

The report said there was no substantial proof to establish that Patil was watching porn clips and Palemar was the chief culprit.

In the case of Savadi, the report said he had submitted to the inquiry committee a pen drive containing rave party-like clippings downloaded from the cellphone he watched in the House. The reports says the visuals do not indicate Savadi used his phone. However, there is some resemblance to the clippings on the cellphone and those in the pen drive.

“He was seen reading a government order while the phone played the video. Therefore, there was no deliberate attempt to watch the clips. Besides, the member has apologised to the committee for using the phone while in the House and has also stated that he would not use it again. The Speaker has already punished him by restricting his entry to the Assembly since the incident took place. The Speaker should admonish him telling him he should not repeat such things,” the report adds.

The panel has favoured imposition of a slew of restrictions on television journalists and crew to enter the House. The legislation on conduct of the House was drafted long ago when there were no cellphones. The law should be amended banning use of cellphone, it opined. Till then, the Speaker should restrict the use of mobile phones.

There are specific rules pertaining to the press gallery in the Assembly, but there is no rule for visual media. Like in Parliament, in the Assembly too, rules should be prescribed for the visual media for covering the legislature session.

There should be a dedicated TV channel like the one in the Lok Sabha, or a channel owned by the government. This would ensure impartial telecast of deliberations of the House, the committee says.

To prevent a repeat another porngate and to maintain discipline and dignity, rules should be framed by constituting an ethics committee, it said.

The men and their defence

Krishna J Palemar: I had brought my cellphone to the House by mistake. I had kept it on the table. U T Khader was discussing road problems in his constituency with me. He was showing his daughter's photo on his cellphone. He also told me he has not sent any MMS to me.

Lakshman Savadi: I discussed the rave party incident in Udupi with Palemar. He said the party was nothing compared to atrocities committed against women elsewhere in the world. I have two phones which I am submitting to the House. They were not porn clippings. I watched the clippings shown to me to ensure such things don't happen here. There was no other intention. I do not know on whose cellphone I watched the clips. I do not even know if it was Palemar's. But I am not going to use the cellphone in the Assembly henceforth because I have realised the mistake I have committed.

Television channels have telecast a scene where a woman is murdered as she does not co-operate with men who try to rape her. This has been downloaded from the Internet by the channels. They glorified it. In fact, I was discussing with C C Patil the crash in onion prices...

I was not watching the clippings.


C C Patil: I was discussing onion prices with Savadi as funds under the market intervention scheme had not been released. Savadi had a cellphone in his hand. I told him not to keep it on. I tried to switch it off and came back to my seat. I sat with Savadi for seven seconds. I usually use spectacles. But that day, I had not used it and hence I could not see the clippings properly.




Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 24,2024

siddaramaiah.jpg

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 20,2024

HCpakistanijudge.jpg

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.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
September 25,2024

siddru.jpg

In a significant development, a special court tasked with handling cases against Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MP/MLAs) has ordered that a First Information Report (FIR) be filed regarding the Muda case.

Additionally, the Karnataka Lokayukta, which is an anti-corruption body, has been tasked with investigating allegations against Siddaramaiah, who is reportedly involved in the case.

The court instructed the Lokayukta (an anti-corruption authority) to provide a report within three months. It also ordered the relevant authorities to file a First Information Report (FIR) regarding the case.

Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat issued the directive, compelling the Mysuru Lokayukta police to commence an investigation following a formal complaint lodged by Snehamayi Krishna. 

The Karnataka Lokayukta in Mysuru is required to carry out the investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which mandates the registration of a First Information Report (FIR).

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.