Dharmasthala Mass Burial Case: Court denies lawyer’s presence during statement
Belthangady, July 11: The complainant in the ongoing Dharmasthala mass burials case appeared before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC Court in Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada district, on Friday for the recording of his statement under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), earlier Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
According to a press statement issued by advocates Ojaswi Gowda and Sachin Deshpande, who are representing the complainant, the latter had specifically instructed that at least one of the advocates be present during the statement recording process. The complainant, who is reportedly illiterate and unfamiliar with court procedures, had expressed concern about understanding the legal process and requested the assistance of his legal counsel during the proceedings.
The advocates claim they had clearly communicated this concern to the Court, but the judge did not permit them to remain present in the courtroom and the complainant’s statement was recorded in the absence of his lawyers.
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.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
