Accused Gurudev Pai apologizes over viral audio against Dr. Kakkilaya, Prof. Narendra Nayak
Mangaluru: A man named Gurudev Pai has reportedly confessed and apologized for making the viral derogatory audio clip against Dr. Kakkilaya and Prof. Narendra Nayak. The audio had recently gone viral across social media platforms in the wake of Dr. Kakkilaya’s altercation with a supermarket owner about wearing a mask.
Gurudev Pai reportedly confessed and apologized at the police station about the audio wherein he had used foul language and derogatory remarks against Dr. Kakkilaya and Prof. Nayak.
Prof. Narendra Nayak had registered a complaint at the Urva Police station on May 21st citing that the accused had mentioned the names of Prof. Nayak and Dr. Srinivas Kakkilaya, and used derogatory words against them whilst making a statement of incitement to violence against both. He had earlier demanded that the person in the audio should be identified and necessary legal actions must be taken against him.
After investigating the claims around the complaint, the police caught a man named Gurudev Pai whose voice was recorded in the audio making derogatory remarks against Prof. Nayak and Dr. Kakkilaya, along with incitement to violence against both of them. The police produced the accused Gurudev Pai in front of Prof. Nayak at the police station and reportedly conducted an inquiry.
The accused Gurudev Pai, who was heard talking obscene things in the audio reportedly stood before Prof. Narendra Nayak and sought his apology that he had made a mistake. Urva Station Inspector informed that the accused was made to write a statement promising that he would not indulge in similar activities and was fined for the crime.
Narendra Nayak, who spoke to ‘VarthaBharathi’ about the incident that unfolded said, “Concerning the complaint, I made against the obscene audio recording which explicitly mentioned my name in a defamatory language, a man named Gurudev Pai was called into the station. That individual has apologized to me”, he confirmed.
“This is not the first time that such defamatory statements, threats to life are being made against Narendra Nayak. Apart from receiving threatening phone calls, he has also been subjected to life-threatening attacks. In this case, the accused has apologized. Therefore, under the Karnataka Police Act, he has been made to write down a statement and issued a fine. However, since Narendra Nayak has been repeatedly subjected to similar defamatory attacks, we are thinking about pursuing a case against Libel”, lawyer and wife of Narendra Nayak, Asha Nayak said.
Transcript of the Viral Audio:
“In your supermarket’s video, the person who is seen is Dr. Srinivas Kakkilya, right? He is a rascal, you should have slapped him on the cheek. You should have registered a complaint against him with the District Commissioner and City Police Commissioner. If you need any legal aid, I will arrange and give it. Put him behind the bars man. Kakkilaya, he is a Commi... Communist guy. Take legal action against him, you will get 100% support for sure. Your Jimmy’s Supermarket name will come up in the market, I am sure of that.”
“He is a confirmed Communist. Nobody likes him. Should see to it that he is locked behind the bara for 7 years. He is a Brahmin. There is another Konkani supporting him. His name is Narendra Nayak. This rascal also supports that man.”
In this manner, Dr. Srinivas Kakkilaya and rationalist Prof. Narendra Nayak were insulted and defamed in derogatory audio that became viral on social media sites in recent times. Both Prof. Nayak and Dr. Kakkilaya had registered a complaint against this with the police.
Let the accused apologize publicly, take lawful action against him: Netizens Demand
Prof. Narendra Nayak has published a Facebook post revealing that the accused who was waylaid by the police had apologized to him for speaking in a derogatory and defamatory manner in the viral audio against him and Dr. Kakkilaya. Netizens who responded to his post demanded that the accused must be made to apologize in public.
The accused made incitement to violence and uttered hateful speech against Dr. Srinivas Kakkilaya and Pro. Narendra Nayak, he has insulted them publicly. Therefore, he must apologize to them publicly as well, Netizens demanded.
The investigation of the complaint registered by Dr. Srinivas Kakkilaya on the same case is ongoing.
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.
Supreme Court seeks Centre’s response on ED’s power to seize property without judicial oversight
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on December 12 sought the Union government’s response to a petition filed by K. C. Veerendra Puppy, a sitting Karnataka MLA, challenging the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) power under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to seize and retain property for up to 180 days without judicial oversight.
Veerendra Puppy is a member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from the Chitradurga Assembly constituency in Chitradurga district and was elected in the 2023 Karnataka Legislative Assembly elections on an Indian National Congress ticket.
A Bench comprising Justices P. S. Narasimha and A. S. Chandurkar issued notice on the plea and tagged it with other pending petitions questioning the constitutional validity of the PMLA’s adjudication framework.
The petitioner has specifically challenged Sections 20 and 21 of the PMLA, which empower the ED to seize, freeze, and retain property for up to 180 days without furnishing reasons or granting the affected person an opportunity to contest the action during that period. She has also questioned the composition of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority, contending that it lacks members with judicial training.
ALSO READ: 9 die in Sydney shooting; police killed 1 gunman, another arrested
During the hearing, Justice Narasimha flagged a possible infirmity in the law, observing that complex issues relating to property rights and constitutional safeguards are being decided by authorities without a judicial background.
Appearing for the MLA, Senior Advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Ranjit Kumar argued that the current statutory framework allows the ED to operate without effective accountability, leading to arbitrary exercise of power. The petitioner claimed that all her assets, including bank accounts, fixed deposits, jewellery, and vehicles, were seized or frozen without justification and without an opportunity to be heard.
Rohatgi submitted that the challenge rests on two principal grounds: first, the ED’s power to retain property and documents for 180 days without disclosing “reasons to believe”; and second, the constitution of the Adjudicating Authority, which currently comprises a single member who is not legally trained.
He further pointed out that, as per data available on the ED’s official website, nearly 99 percent of attachment and retention orders are upheld by the Adjudicating Authority, suggesting that it functions as a mere approving body rather than an independent adjudicatory forum.
The petition argues that these provisions violate Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, depriving individuals of equality before law and personal liberty. It contends that adjudication occurs only after the expiry of the 180-day period, when the ED seeks confirmation of retention, leaving affected persons without any remedy in the interim.
Describing the situation as a legal “vacuum” that enables arbitrary and excessive seizures, the plea urges the Court to mandate disclosure of reasons and provide for early judicial review. It also seeks directions requiring that every bench of the PMLA Adjudicating Authority include at least one judicial member.
ALSO READ: Fight for Indian democracy: Priyanka Gandhi Vadra tells gathering at mega rally against ‘vote theft’
The MLA has relied on a 2023 Sikkim High Court judgment in Eastern Institute for Integrated Learning in Management University v. Joint Director, Enforcement Directorate, which directed that PMLA benches must include judicial members. That ruling is presently under challenge before the Supreme Court and has been linked with the present case.
The petition also cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling in Arvind Kejriwal v. Directorate of Enforcement, which held that when executive action affects personal liberty, the “reasons to believe” must be recorded and communicated to the affected person. The petitioner argues that this safeguard should extend to property seizures, which can severely impact livelihood and reputation.
The matter will now be heard along with other pending challenges to the PMLA, including those questioning the validity of Section 6 of the Act.
