Hermann Moegling's bust unveiled

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.

Starting in the 2025-26 academic year, private universities in Karnataka offering professional courses will no longer conduct separate entrance exams. This decision follows a directive from the state’s Higher Education Department, prompting private universities to form an association and agree to this significant change.

In a recent meeting with Higher Education Minister Dr. M. C. Sudhakar, representatives from 17 private universities confirmed their decision to discontinue individual entrance tests. Of the 27 private universities in the state, 17 offer professional courses, and they have collectively agreed to accept scores from existing national or state-level entrance exams.

“Some universities will consider JEE scores, others will rely on KCET, and a few are inclined towards COMEDK,” Dr. Sudhakar stated, leaving the choice of examination to the universities themselves. However, the department has also suggested that the universities consider a unified entrance test for admissions.

Looking ahead, Dr. Sudhakar hinted that the government may introduce a common entrance test for general degree courses at private universities as well. "As government colleges and universities currently don’t require entrance exams for general degree courses, we haven’t made any decisions on this yet," he explained.

The meeting also addressed concerns over the high fees charged by private universities. To regulate this, the universities were instructed to establish fee fixation committees, headed by retired judges, as required by law. These committees will be responsible for determining tuition fees. Additionally, the government will continue to regulate fees for 40% of seats in professional courses that are filled through KCET.

In an effort to bring greater uniformity among private institutions, the government is considering enacting a common law for all private universities, which would replace the individual acts currently governing each university. This would place all private universities under a single regulatory framework.

This move is expected to streamline the admissions process and create a more standardized system for both professional and general degree programs across Karnataka's private universities.

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.