Apr 28: Karnataka reports biggest single day spike of 39,047 COVID cases, 229 deaths
Bengaluru, Apr 28: In the biggest single day spike, Karnataka recorded 39,047 COVID-19 cases on Wednesday, taking the tally to 14.39 lakh, while fatalities crossed the 15,000 mark with 229 deaths.
The previous high in the state was 34,804 cases on April 25 this year.
Bengaluru Urban alone accounted for 22,596 infections, the health department said in a bulletin.
The state-wide toll stood at 15,036.
The day also saw 11,833 patients getting discharged.
Cumulatively 14,39,822 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in Karnataka, which include 15,036 deaths and 10,95,883 discharges, the bulletin said.
Of the 3,28,884 active cases, 2,192 are in Intensive Care Units of various hospitals
Behind Bengaluru in the number of cases was Mysuru 1,759, Kolar 1194, Tumakuru 1,174, Ballari 1,106 and Hassan 1,001, while Mandya, Kalaburagi, Bengaluru Rural, Chikkaballpura, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada and Dharward reported well in excess of 500 each.
Among the 229 deaths reported on Wednesday, Bengaluru Urban accounted for 137, Mysuru 11, Mandya 9, Ballari 8, Bidar 6 and five each in Chikkamagaluru, Ramanagar, Shivamogga, Tumakuru and Yadgir, while the rest were in other cities
A total of 2.52 crore samples have been tested so far, including 1,71,997 on Wednesday alone.
Over 92.40 lakh people have so far been inoculated, the bulletin said.
To view today's health bulletin: CLICK HERE
Today's Media Bulletin 28/04/2021
— K'taka Health Dept (@DHFWKA) April 28, 2021
Please click on the link below to view bulletinhttps://t.co/nPw4c1ru4D @CMofKarnataka @BSYBJP @mla_sudhakar @drashwathcn @RAshokaBJP @BSBommai @CPBlr @PIBBengaluru @KarnatakaVarthe @PIBBengaluru @BBMPCOMM @BlrCityPolice @blrcitytraffic pic.twitter.com/Tf6S4Cu9OY
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.
HC seeks mechanism on disclosure of complaints against judges after SC says no data maintained
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court sought suggestions for a framework to balance transparency and judicial independence on April 1, after the Supreme Court submitted that it does not maintain judge-specific data on complaints alleging corruption or misconduct.
The submission was made by Advocate Rukhmini Bobde. He appeared for the Supreme Court’s Central Public Information Officer, before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav in a petition filed by journalist and RTI activist Saurav Das. The case concerns an RTI application filed by Das in April 2023 seeking information on whether any complaints had been received against Justice T. Raja, former Acting Chief Justice of the Madras High Court, and if so, the number of such complaints and action taken.
According to a detailed report published by The Wire, the CPIO declined the request and stated that the information was “not maintained in the manner as sought for.” The first appellate authority upheld the decision. Although the Central Information Commission remanded the matter, the CPIO reaffirmed the refusal on similar grounds, which led Das to move the high court through Advocate Prashant Bhushan.
At the hearing, Justice Kaurav observed that the issue had wider institutional implications. It directed both sides to propose a mechanism that would protect the reputation of judges while ensuring public access to information regarding the handling of complaints. The case, Saurav Das v. CPIO, Supreme Court of India has been listed for further hearing on May 7.
During the arguments, Bhushan cited numbers released by the Union Law Ministry in Parliament in February 2026, which said that 8,630 complaints had been filed against sitting judges between 2016 and 2025. The Supreme Court provided data showing that complaints increased from 729 in 2016 to 1,102 in 2025. Bhushan questioned how aggregate data could be calculated without identifying the judges against whom complaints were filed.
Bobde responded that the data shared with Parliament reflected only total complaints against all sitting judges and did not involve judge-wise categorisation. She referred to the RTI request as a "fishing and roving inquiry." She also claimed that the Registry could not be forced to spend resources to collect material that was not stored in the format sought. She referenced the 2019 Constitution Bench decision in Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, which allows for rejection if compliance will disproportionately divert resources, as her justification.
The high court questioned how no judge-specific information was maintained and expressed concern that disclosure of large aggregate figures without clarity on how complaints were handled could affect public perception. Justice Kaurav noted that an applicant could not be denied information solely on technical grounds relating to format.
Bhushan argued that the RTI request did not seek details of complaint contents or collegium deliberations but merely whether complaints were received and what action followed, submitting that transparency in the handling of complaints was essential to maintain public confidence.
The Supreme Court’s in-house procedure for examining complaints, adopted in 1999, provides for scrutiny by the Chief Justice of India and, where warranted, inquiry by a committee of judges. There is no statutory requirement for public reporting of outcomes.
