27th Quadrennial Assembly of NCCI from Thursday

Mandya: The Deputy Superintendent of Police of Nagamangala town in Mandya district has been suspended for "negligence and dereliction of duty" in connection with the clashes that broke out between two groups during a Lord Ganesh idol procession, police said on Friday.

This is the second suspension of a police officer over the clashes on September 11 following which mobs went on a rampage targeting several shops and vehicles leading to tension here.

The situation in the town has since returned to normalcy and most of the shops have started operating. However, adequate security forces continued to be stationed here as a precautionary measure, according to police.

Sumeeth A R, DySP (Nagamangala), was suspended on Thursday for negligence and dereliction of duty, Mandya Superintendent of Police Mallikarjun Baldandi told PTI.

"He (Sumeeth) was not present at the spot nor was he at the police headquarters when the incident occurred. He arrived late at the spot despite the sensitive nature of events," he said.

Earlier, Police Inspector Ashok Kumar posted at Nagamangala town police station was suspended for dereliction of duty in connection with the violence.

A total of 55 people have been arrested in connection with the incident.

According to police, an argument broke out between two groups, when the Ganesh idol procession by devotees from Badarikoppalu village reached a place of worship on September 11, and some miscreants hurled stones, which escalated the situation.

The police had used mild force to disperse the crowd to control the situation.

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).

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.