CPI(M) alleges attempt to cover up Kudupu mob lynching by Mangaluru Commissionerate Police
Mangaluru: The Dakshina Kannada District Committee of CPI(M) has alleged that the Mangaluru Commissionerate Police is deliberately attempting to cover up the recent mob lynching incident that occurred in Kudupu. The CPI(M) claims that the FIR registered in the case itself serves as strong evidence of this attempt.
The incident took place at Samrat Ground, Kudupu, around 3 PM on April 27, where an unidentified person was reportedly lynched by a mob. Within an hour, the information had reached the Vamanjoor Police Station. By approximately 5 PM, police officers arrived at the scene, where they found the victim’s body, which had been brutally assaulted. The police were already aware of the full details by then, and the Commissioner was also informed.
However, for various reasons, including the involvement of key accused individuals like Ravindra Nayak and Manjunath, both said to be close aides of local BJP leaders, the police allegedly decided to weaken or even suppress the case. The fear of national backlash and reputational damage to the Commissioner reportedly contributed to this decision.
As part of this cover-up, the police allegedly made Manjunath, one of the primary accused in the mob lynching, file a complaint reporting the discovery of an "unidentified body" and registered an Unnatural Death Report (UDR). Even though the police were fully aware of the incident, they issued a Lookout Circular suggesting the victim might have died due to substance abuse or after a fall, downplaying visible injuries as “minor scratches,” said Muneer Katipalla, Secretary of the CPI(M)'s Dakshina Kannada District Committee.
When media personnel approached the Police Commissioner for information and clarification, they were simply told to "wait and not believe in rumours." The Commissioner remained silent for 36 hours. It was only after political leaders and activists raised their voices on April 28, and the issue started trending on social media, that the police agreed to conduct a post-mortem. Based on the report, they finally registered an FIR under murder and mob lynching sections—32 hours after the incident.
The second complainant in the FIR was Keshav, reportedly a close associate of the same communal gang involved in the lynching. According to his statement, the victim was allegedly shouting “Pakistan Zindabad” while running toward the field, which prompted Manjunath, Sachin, and others to believe he was anti-national. They chased him, assaulted him with sticks and kicks, and killed him. Keshav further claimed he tried to stop them but was threatened and left the spot. He only learned later that Manjunath had filed the police complaint.
The CPI(M) has raised serious questions about the entire sequence of events within those critical 32 hours. Why was the initial complaint filed by one of the accused? Why did the police not take suo moto action? Why was a weak UDR filed despite full knowledge of the lynching? Why did the Commissioner remain silent for 36 hours? And why did the second FIR rely on a communal narrative involving “Pakistan” only after public pressure mounted?
Muneer Katipalla demanded a high-level probe into the conduct of the police. He said that a Special Investigation Team (SIT) led by a senior, impartial IPS officer from outside the district must be formed. He also demanded disciplinary action, including suspension, against Vamanjoor SHO Shivaprasad and Police Commissioner Anupam Agrawal for dereliction of duty and alleged complicity in the attempted cover-up.
Muneer Katipalla warned that unless these demands are met and justice is ensured, public trust in law enforcement will continue to erode.
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.
Ordinance issued to increase number of Supreme Court judges from 34 to 38
New Delhi (PTI): The government has promulgated an ordinance to increase the strength of the Supreme Court from the present 34 judges to 38, including the Chief Justice of India.
The law ministry notified the ordinance on Saturday, which amended the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, 1956, to increase the sanctioned strength of the top court.
So far, the sanctioned strength of the top court was 34, including the Chief Justice of India (CJI). Now, the number of judges has been increased by four, taking the sanctioned strength to 38.
The top court will now have 37 judges, other than the CJI.
With the apex court having two vacancies at present, and the ordinance coming into force immediately, the Supreme Court Collegium will now have to recommend six names for appointment as judges in the top court.
A bill will be brought in the Monsoon Session of Parliament to convert the ordinance – an executive order – into a law passed by Parliament.
The Union Cabinet had cleared a draft bill on May 5 to increase the number of apex court judges.
The strength of the Supreme Court was last increased from 30 to 33 (excluding the CJI) in 2019.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act, as originally enacted in 1956, put the maximum number of judges (excluding the CJI) at 10.
This number was increased to 13 by the Supreme Court (Number of Judges), Amendment Act, 1960, and to 17 by another amendment to the law.
The Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Act, 1986, augmented the strength of judges from 17 to 25, excluding the CJI.
A fresh amendment in 2009 further increased the strength from 25 to 30.
Article 124(3) of the Constitution lists the qualifications required to become a Supreme Court judge.
An Indian citizen who has either served as a high court judge for at least five years, or as an advocate for 10 years, or is a distinguished jurist, can be appointed to the top court.
The strength of the Supreme Court is increased based on the recommendations of the CJI, who writes to the Union law minister. After consulting the finance ministry, the Department of Justice under the law ministry moves the Cabinet with a draft bill.
