The ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ of Kodagu
Central defence minister Nirmala Sitharaman was in Kodagu recently to survey the damage caused by recent torrential rains and floods. A group of environmentalists met her when she came to attend the meeting in Deputy Commissioner’s office. The most important aspect is that there were a few retired army men in the team that awaited her audience. Instead of coming straight to this meeting, she engaged in a conversations with environmentalists. They wanted to brief her about the destruction caused on ecology, mining and damage-causing activities that were happening in Kodagu in the name of development contributing to the present state of challenge that the tiny region found itself in.
Just as she was getting an update on all this, the elected representatives from BJP and Congress began to insist that the minister aborts this conversation and proceeds to attend the meeting organized by district administration. Their argument was the officers and teams engaged in relief operations were waiting for the minister to address the meeting so that they could proceed with their work for the day. This naturally upset the minister. Though she said she was speaking to the ex-army men, BJP leader K G Bopaiah said the minister could do as she pleases. This line of speech was used by district in charge minister too who tried to embarrass the BJP members, and this further complicated the matters and riled up the minister. As a result of all this, the union minister left flood ravaged Kodagu in a huff.
The phobia that affects the elected representatives and environmentalists is not a new phenomenon. What rights did the elected representatives of BJP have to insist that the minister shouldn’t engage with the environmentalists of Kodagu? Why would they assume the environmentalists were speaking against the interest of Kodagu, while the whole world is discussing the ill effects of unabated ‘development’ happening unmindful of the topography of the areas? When the environmentalists speak about the ecology and indigenous characteristics of the area, they are branded as ‘enemies of development’.
Politicians have even attacked many environmentalists and locals as well. Many have been called the ‘outsiders’ just to dissuade them from engaging in Kodagu’s safety. “What do the outsiders know?” ask the estate owners of this area whenever the question of Kodagu welfare arises. Even at the time of floods destroying the livelihoods of Kodagu, such questions were being asked. This line of argument was used even when NGOs tried to reach relief materials to deserving people. “What do you know about this place?”
As far as ecology is concerned, Kodagu is a very complex region to be understood. Generalisations about Kodagu can only make the understanding more complicated. Hence, the ‘outsiders’ are always viewed with suspicion for that matter. Even culturally Kodagu is inimitable. For the same reason, outsiders are yet to be accepted wholeheartedly in this closely guarded fort.
Thousands have migrated to Bangalore and other places from Kodagu. Fanatics have used this area to spread their activities. But none have been rejected in the outside world. There are some organisations that look down upon Malayalam speaking people as untrustworthy. They have camouflaged their own mistakes and held others responsible for the destruction they have caused. Only after Sangh Parivar founds its roots in Kodagu, the feeling of ‘insiders’ and ‘outsiders’ has gotten strong. They have been successful in using this argument to keep people at bay. Which is why they fret at the sight of Gadgil or Kasturi Rangan reports that speak about conserving Kodagu, and Kerala.
Open discussions are not being allowed about the topic. If the government persists, they speak about ‘separate state’ demand. Rain is not the sole cause for destruction in Kodagu. The interference and exploitation of hills and mountain regions in the name of development has led to the disaster. Experts say climatic changes have caused the torrential rains and destruction. But the destructive development has had a major share in the situation Kodagu and Kerala are facing today.
Kerala government has admitted that the water released from Mulla Periyar dam caused flooding. This dam has always been a looming threat to Kerala. Ecologists have said this dam would be the reason for Kerala going underwater someday. But all these warnings and cautions are seen as bitter pills to those who are bent upon pilfering the area. Forget the Gadgil report, the state must at least try and implement Kasturi Rangan report to aid sustained development of Kodagu. Everyone who wants to conserve Kodagu is a Kodava in spirit. But those who are living here yet causing destruction are to be seen as vested interests. Let the best interest win.
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.
SC reserves verdict on ex-CM Yediyurappa's plea against revival of corruption case
New Delhi(PTI): The Supreme Court has reserved its verdict on a plea of senior BJP leader and former Karnataka chief minister B S Yediyurappa against an order reviving a corruption case against him.
The Karnataka High Court, on January 5, 2021, allowed a plea of complainant A Alam Pasha, who hails from Bengaluru, and revived his complaint.
Pasha alleged corruption and criminal conspiracy against Yediyurappa and former Industries minister Murugesh R Nirani and Shivaswamy KS, former managing director of Karnataka Udyog Mitra.
The high court ruled the absence of prior sanction for prosecution—leading to the quashing of an earlier complaint—did not bar the filing of a fresh complaint once the accused had demitted office.
It, however, did not allow criminal prosecution of V P Baligar, a retired IAS officer and former principal secretary of the state government, in the corruption case.
On April 4, a bench comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra concluded the hearings and framed several key legal questions for its adjudication including whether after a judicial magistrate has ordered probe under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), would a prior sanction of the appropriate government authorities be still required under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act.
Section 156 (3) of the CrPC permits a judicial magistrate to order a police investigation into a complaint and it may include order for a preliminary inquiry or registration of an FIR.
Section 17A of the PC Act says, “No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval...”
The top court framed seven crucial legal questions, primarily focusing on the interplay between various provisions of the PC Act and the CrPC on the issue of prior sanction to prosecute a public servant and power of the judicial magistrate to entertain a private complaint and order probe and an FIR.
“What are the relevant considerations as contemplated by Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 which the appropriate authority or government is expected to look into before the grant of approval for initiation of any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation by the police?” read the first question the bench framed.
Whether the considerations which weigh with the appropriate authority or government while granting approval under Section 17A of the PC Act are fundamentally so different from the one that a magistrate is ordinarily expected to apply while passing an order under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, read the second issue.
“In other words, whether the considerations under Section 17A of the PC Act are of such a nature that they are necessarily beyond the ambit or scope of consideration by a Magistrate while directing an investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC,” the bench said.
The top court asked if it could be said that once a magistrate has applied his mind under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the requirement of a prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act is meaningless, redundant and no longer necessary.
“Could it be said that a police officer, despite a direction under Section 156(3) by a Magistrate, would remain inhibited from conducting any enquiry, inquiry, or investigation without prior approval as required by Section 17A,” it added.
Whether a magistrate could proceed with inquiry under Sections 200 (examination of private complainant) and 202 (postponement of a criminal case) of the CrPC without prior sanction, and whether such actions are limited only to the pre-cognizance stage, read another question.
The top court asked the counsel of the senior BJP leader to file the written submissions within two weeks, along with relevant case laws addressing not just the framed questions, but any additional issues that may arise.
Pasha had initially filed a complaint alleging Yediyurappa and others conspired to forge documents to revoke the high-level clearance committee’s approval for allotting 26 acre of industrial land to him at Devanahalli Industrial Area.
The complaint, which invoked provisions under the IPC and the PC Act, was initially investigated by the Lokayukta Police, but in 2013, the high court quashed the complaint for a lack of mandatory sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act.
Subsequently, after the accused officials vacated their offices, Pasha filed a fresh complaint in 2014, arguing that sanction was no longer required in light of Supreme Court judgment in the A R Antulay case.
The special judge dismissed the second complaint in 2016, again citing lack of sanction.
Challenging this dismissal, Pasha approached high court which passed a partly favourable ruling.
_vb_67.jpeg)