13-year-old boy meets watery grave

Mangaluru: In an act of extraordinary selflessness, a young lecturer and mother, Archana Kamath, tragically passed away just days after donating a portion of her liver to a relative. She was 33.

Archana, who had devoted her career to shaping young minds as a lecturer at Canara College and most recently at Manel Srinivasa Nayak MBA College, was a loving mother to a four-year-old boy. Her sudden passing has left her family, students, and colleagues reeling in shock and grief.

The story of her untimely demise began when a relative of her husband, CA Chethan Kumar, required a life-saving liver transplant. 

With no other matching donors in sight, Archana stepped forward, her heart full of compassion. Her blood type matched, and without hesitation, she made the brave decision to donate a part of her liver—an act that would ultimately cost her life.

The surgery, performed 12 days ago in Bengaluru, seemed successful. Archana appeared to recover well and was discharged, bringing hope and relief to her loved ones. 

But just days after returning home, she suddenly fell ill and passed away on September 15 in a Mangaluru hospital. The cause of her sudden decline remains a mystery, compounding the sorrow of those who knew and loved her.

Her final act of love saved a life—the relative who received her liver is said to be recovering well. But Archana’s loss is felt deeply by her husband and their young son, who are now left to navigate a world without her warmth and strength.

As family and friends grapple with this tragic turn of events, Archana’s memory will live on in the hearts of those who knew her as a caring educator, devoted mother, and a woman whose ultimate sacrifice was made out of love.

The full story of her passing is still unfolding, and her untimely death has left an irreplaceable void in the lives of all who knew her.
 

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.

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.