Cattle sellers should also be charged with murder
The murder of cattle trader Husenabba has taken a mysterious turn. Husenabba’s body was found in a settlement around Udupi, after he was picked up by police, after Sangh Parivar people had assaulted him for transporting cattle. Investigations have revealed he died following a gruesome blow to his head. Now what remains to be established is whether this deathly blow was rained on him by Sangh Parivar members who had assaulted him before police took him in their vehicle for further investigation, or the police harmed him while he was in their custody. Initially the police had registered a case of mysterious death after Husenabba’s body was found, stating he must have died owing to exertion or heart attack as he had escaped when Sangh Parivar members caught him red handed with the cattle. But the case was reopened owing to public pressure that expressed doubts on the conclusion reached by the police. With that, a shocking truth of police being hand in glove with the perpetrators came to light. The miscreants had assaulted Husenabba in the presence of police and put him into the official jeep. When the cops took him to police station they realized Husenabba was dead. Then the body was disposed of in a secluded area with the help of Sangh Parivar, and the police floated the theory of heart attack.
The post mortem report had to state whether Husebanna died of heart attack or as a result of assault. Now, the report says it was due to serious injury to the head that he died. Investigation needs to be carried out to see who caused the injury to him – Sangh Parivar or the police? What’s clear beyond doubt is that the police have a prominent role in the murder. Else why would they dispose the body in some remote area? The higher authorizes of police department need to be commended for having carried out an impartial investigation even when their own colleagues are involved in the crime.
The state government has handed over the case to CID since a neutral agency needs to investigate into the case that has police involvement in the crime. Now that cops have probed into the mater, and have arrested the accused, is there a need for another investigation? The reason for this is a case of Adi Udupi which had such gaping holes that the accused easily got out of it without being charged of any crime. The police could not collect evidence against anyone and produce in the court. Senior members destroyed some prominent evidence and witnesses. Everyone went scot free after this. In case of Husenabba police department has shown the gumption to level charges against its own people, without attempting to camouflage the facts. But then why did it get transferred to CID? We do not have answers yet for that. Since police department has Sangh Parivar members too within its folds, it is better for a neutral agency to investigate. Police department has provided impetus to Sangh Parivar to increase its presence in coastal Karnataka. There seems to be great understanding between fake Gaurakshaks and cops in these areas.
There is another aspect here. The man who sold the cattle has informed the Sangh Parivar members about Husenabba having bought it from him. This makes him partner in the crime. Such cases are aplenty. If the police can level charges against cattle traders or transporters, why can’t they hold cattle selling-owners equally responsible too? Else such cases would increase with no fairness in the trade. CID police have a great responsibility in terms of bringing the culprits to book in Husenabba case and repose faith of coastal Karnataka people on the law implementation agencies.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Election rules row: SC allows 3 weeks to EC to respond to plea of Jairam Ramesh, others
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday granted three more weeks to the Election Commission to respond to the pleas of Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh and others against the recent amendments to the 1961 election rules.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had issued a notice to the Centre and the poll panel on January 15 on Ramesh's plea and sought a response.
Senior advocate Maninder Singh, appearing for the poll panel, sought three more weeks to file the reply.
The bench allowed Singh's prayer and set the July 21 week for hearing.
Aside from Ramesh, two similar PILs filed by Shyam Lal Pal and activist Anjali Bhardwaj are pending.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Singhvi represented Ramesh.
The petitioners have said the amendments to the 1961 Conduct of Election Rules were made "very cleverly" and barred any access to CCTV footage claiming it would reveal the identity of the voter.
Singhvi previously said voting choices were never revealed and the CCTV footage couldn't reveal votes and urged the bench to ask the poll panel and the Centre to file their responses before the next date of hearing.
Ramesh's plea was filed in December and expressed "hope" that the apex court would help "restore the fast eroding" integrity of the electoral process.
The government has tweaked an election rule to prevent public inspection of certain electronic documents such as CCTV camera and webcasting footage besides video recordings of candidates to prevent their misuse.
"The integrity of the electoral process is fast eroding. Hopefully the Supreme Court will help restore it," Ramesh said.
Based on EC's recommendation, the union law ministry in December amended Rule 93(2)(a) of the 1961 rules, to restrict the type of "papers" or documents open to public inspection.
Bhardwaj, in her separate plea filed through lawyer Prashant Bhushan, challenged the recent amendment to election rules which allegedly restrict public access to election-related records.
The PIL challenges the validity of the Conduct of Elections (Second Amendment) Rules, 2024 and argues the amendment to Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution by restricting citizens' access to crucial election-related documents.
Prior to the amendment, it was stated, Rule 93(2)(a) provided "all other papers relating to the election shall be open to public inspection".
"The impugned amendment is a blatant violation of Article 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India as it brings opaqueness and restricts people's fundamental right to access vital documents and papers related to elections," the plea said.
The amendment, said the plea, sought to narrow and restrict public access to election related records, Rule 93(2)(a) of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 prior to the 2024 amendment.
The new amendment is stated to have modified the provision to "all other papers as specified in these rules relating to the election shall be open to public inspection".
The petitioner argued the change introduced new and arbitrary restrictions on public access, limiting transparency in the electoral process.
The plea said the amendment infringed upon the fundamental right to information enshrined in Article 19(1)(a) and the right to a free and fair election under Article 21.
It claimed the amendment curtailed public scrutiny of election records, leading to reduced transparency and potentially facilitating corrupt practices.
The amendment, the plea said, imposed arbitrary constraints by restricting access to only those records explicitly mentioned in the rules, excluding others without justification.
By limiting access to election documents, the amendment is seen as contrary to the spirit of the RTI Act, which promotes governmental accountability and transparency, it added.
_vb_52_vb_41.jpeg)
