US cautions Pak as Imran khan lands in Russia to meet Putin amid Ukraine war

Mangaluru, Sept 9: An action committee has voiced concerns about the construction of a new toll plaza near Sooralpady Masjid on the Mangaluru-Moodbidri-Karkala National Highway 169, 17 km from Nanthoor. Amidst ongoing construction, the Action Committee Against Surathkal Toll Gate claims irregularities and poor site selection.

Committee convener Muneer Katipalla noted that only 50% of the Nanthoor-Moodbidri-Karkala highway upgrade is complete after seven to eight years. The Nanthoor-Vamanjoor stretch remains unfinished, causing traffic issues, while dangerous hillside cutting near Kettikal has forced residents to relocate. Additionally, a flyover near Kaikamba threatens a local market.

Katipalla also criticized the construction of a bypass road, alleging it benefits real estate investors and inflates the project cost, which could increase toll fees. The proposed toll plaza, situated 36 km from Talapady toll gate and 35 km from Brahmarakotlu toll gate, violates distance regulations and is too close to local amenities, raising public objections.

There is growing concern that toll collection might begin before the project's completion, with locals frustrated by unaddressed grievances. Social activist Bava Padarangi, DYFI leader Srinath Kulal, and other community leaders attended the site visit.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday halted unauthorised bulldozer action against private property, anywhere in the country, till October 1, dismissing concerns by the government that demolitions sanctioned after following due process could be impacted. 

The "heavens won't fall if we ask you to hold your hands till the next hearing", a bench of Justice BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan declared.

An irate top court - which has already come down hard, twice this month, on 'bulldozer justice' meted out by various state governments - also warned the government against "grandstanding" and "glorification" of this practice. "No demolition, till next, date, without permission of this court," the government was told, and warned the Election Commission may also be put on notice.

The court's reference to the poll panel is significant given elections are due in Jammu and Kashmir (the first Assembly election in a decade) and Haryana, where the Bharatiya Janata Party is looking to return to power. Elections are also due this year in BJP-ruled Maharashtra and Jharkhand.

The court, however, also clarified its order is not applicable to removal of encroachments in public spaces such as roads, railway tracks, water bodies, etc.

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.