Karnataka govt moves HC challenging CAT order reinstating IPS officer suspended over stampede
Bengaluru, Jul 2 (PTI): The Karnataka government on Wednesday approached the High Court challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal’s (CAT) order reinstating Additional Commissioner of Police Vikash Kumar Vikash, who was suspended following the tragic stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium here last month, which claimed 11 lives and injured 56 others.
The Tribunal, on July 1, quashed Vikash’s suspension, terming the state’s action as "mechanical" and lacking substantial grounds.
The Bengaluru bench of the tribunal comprising BK Shrivastava and Santosh Mehra held that the state failed to present convincing material to justify the suspension.
"The order has not been based on convincing materials… the officers have been suspended without sufficient material or grounds," the Tribunal said, directing the state to reinstate Vikash immediately.
In response, the state government filed a writ petition before the Karnataka High Court, contending that the CAT overstepped its jurisdiction by making determinations on the incident without the benefit of a full-fledged departmental inquiry.
It termed the Tribunal’s reasoning as "perverse" and inconsistent with established legal principles concerning suspension.
According to the government, substantial supporting material—including extracts from the Karnataka Police Manual and a detailed chronology of events from June 3 and 4—was submitted in a sealed cover to the Tribunal, which it alleged was not properly considered.
"Despite placing material on record justifying the suspension, the Tribunal failed to assess it in the right perspective," the state argued.
The plea also disputes the Tribunal’s interpretation of inquiries underway, stating that a magisterial probe and a one-man commission were in progress, and that the state had already taken disciplinary action based on preliminary findings.
A departmental inquiry, initiated at the direction of the central government, is reportedly at an advanced stage. The government claimed this development was communicated orally to the Tribunal on June 30 but was overlooked in the final judgment.
Additionally, the petition objects to the Tribunal’s remarks on four other officers—B Dayananda, Shekar H Tekkannavar, C Balakrishna, and AK Girish—who were also suspended following the stampede.
The government pointed out that these officers had not challenged their suspension, nor were they parties to the case before the Tribunal.
It called the Tribunal’s suggestion of reinstating them "highly irregular", arguing that such observations were made without examining individual roles, service records, or factual context.
The High Court is yet to schedule a hearing on the state’s plea.
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 slams WhatsApp, Meta over privacy policy, says will pass interim order on Feb 9
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Tuesday came down heavily on Meta Platforms Inc and WhatsApp while hearing their appeals against a Competition Commission of India order imposing a penalty of Rs 213.14 crore over the privacy policy, saying tech giants cannot “play with the right to privacy of citizens in the name of data sharing”.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi said that it will pass an interim order on February 9. The top court ordered that the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology be made a party to the petitions.
It was hearing appeals filed by Meta and WhatsApp against a National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) judgment that upheld the CCI’s findings of abuse of dominance, while granting limited relief on advertising-related data sharing.
"You can't play with the right of privacy of this country in the name of data sharing. We will not allow you to share a single word of the data, either you give an undertaking...you cannot violate the right of privacy of citizens,” the CJI said.
The bench said the right to privacy is zealously guarded in the country and noted that the privacy terms are “so cleverly crafted” that a common person cannot understand them.
“This is a decent way of committing theft of private information, we will not allow you to do that... You have to give an undertaking otherwise, we have to pass an order,” the CJI said.
