UK Minister lauds Karnataka CM for COVID-19 control measures, lockdown implementation

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.

Mysuru: The Mysuru land authority at the centre of a financial and political storm - involving Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and alleged losses of ₹ 45 crore to the state - has received an offer of restitution from his wife, the urban development body's Commissioner, AN Raghunandan said.

"I am in possession of a letter written by Siddaramaiah's wife regarding her intention to return 14 plots (of land). The Chief Minister's son, Yatindra Siddaramaiah, came to our office and delivered the letter. We will take legal advice for the next step..." he told reporters in Mysuru.

Mr Raghunandan also confirmed anti-corruption officials from the city's Lokayukta branch had written seeking cooperation in its inquiry into the charges against the Chief Minister.

He said the Mysuru Urban Development Authority, or MUDA, "will cooperate with the investigation".

The Enforcement Directorate, however, have not reached out as yet, Mr Raghunandan said. The ED, a federal agency, has filed a money laundering case against Siddaramaiah.

There have also been calls for the CBI, another federal agency, to investigate charges against the Chief Minister, but that appears unlikely now given the Karnataka government has withdrawn general consent for its operations in the state. Law Minister HK Patil made the announcement last week.

He ruled out any link with demands for the Chief Minister to be investigated by the CBI, which reports to the BJP-led central government and the ruling Congress and other opposition parties have claimed is being used by that party to target rival leaders, particularly before elections.

On Monday - three days after the Lokayukta filed a case against the Chief Minister, and hours after the ED launched its probe- Siddaramaiah's wife said she had planned to give up the land earlier but was advised against it the allegations against her husband are "politically motivated".

But now, she said, she had made up her mind as "no house, plot, or wealth is more important than my husband's honor, dignity, and peace of mind". She also said the decision was hers alone; "... I am not aware of my husband's opinion on this matter, nor do I concern myself with what my son thinks".

And, in a comment seen as a calculated swipe at the opposition BJP, which is leading calls for the Chief Minister's resignation, his wife also made an emotional appeal to "all political parties and the media" to "please not drag women of political families into the controversy to settle political scores".

Investigative action against the Chief Minister follows the Karnataka High Court quashing a challenge to Governor Thawar Chand Gehlot's order sanctioning Siddaramaiah's prosecution.

Subsequently a trial court ordered framing of charges and directed the Lokayukta to complete the investigation within three months. The ED case was filed based on the Lokayukta FIR.

Siddaramaiah faces an inquiry into claims Parvathi was allotted 14 plots of land in an upmarket Mysuru area as compensation for land elsewhere - holding a far lower value - taken for infrastructure projects.

The Chief Minister has denied all charges and refused calls to resign.

He has been backed by the Congress and his deputy, DK Shivakumar, who is also the state unit boss, and also by members of his cabinet, including IT Minister Priyank Kharge. However, some within the Congress also want him to quit, such as former Assembly Speaker KB Koliwad.

"I will fight. I am not afraid of anything. We are ready to face the investigation. I will fight this legally," he said last week after the High Court had quashed his challenge to the Governor's sanction.

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.