Gauri Lankesh murder case: Lankesh murder accused are taking magistrates to court
Bengaluru: The legal team defending the main accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder case seem to be preparing for a long, protracted battle. They have filed a petition against four magistrates of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) courts who presided over the proceedings of the cases and alleged lapses on their part in following the Supreme Court guidelines. They have been accused of dereliction of duty and acting with a strong bias against their clients, mainly Amol Kale, Suchith Kumar, Amit Degwekar and Manohar Edave – who are among the main suspects arrested in connection with plotting and executing Gauri Lankesh’s murder. These men are also implicated for the foiled murder attempt on KS Bhagwan, a Kannada writer. The high court is expected to take up the matter for hearing on Monday.
This petition comes after the one filed in the high court alleging police torture.
“As per the apex court guidelines, if the accused say before the court that he was ill-treated and assaulted by the police after his arrest, then there are specific procedures that need to be followed to ensure basic justice. We had earlier written to the registrar general of the high court demanding departmental action against these magistrates,” said NP Amruthesh, HC lawyer representing the petitioners.
The four magistrates mentioned by name in the petition are – Somasekhara, presiding officer of Vth ACMM court, V Prakash, presiding officer of III ACMM court, Jagadessh, presiding officer of Ist ACMM court and Mala, presiding officer of 44th ACMM court. The petitioners have claimed that as per law, the magistrates should have referred their clients to the district medical officer for physical examination and medical treatment since they had alleged physical torture before them in open court. However, Amruthesh has alleged that these magistrates did not record it in the order in violation of their official responsibility. The writ petition was filed on June 22.
“The writ petitions have been filed and it is under the scrutiny of the High Court at the moment,” said Virendra Ichalkaranjikar, President, Hindu Vidhidnya Parishad, which is representing the accused.
Apart from the four magistrates, the registrar general of the high court, state government, state and national human rights commissions have also been made respondents in the petition. Sources connected with the case pointed out that the petition could adversely affect the judicial officers as its final outcome might have a direct bearing on their promotion and career records apart from prolonging the
judicial process in the murder case.
Amol Kale, one of the main accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder case who is being projected as the mastermind, told the court last month that he was physically assaulted by the SIT members. Similar allegations have also been made against the Cottonpet police where the KS Bhagwan case was being investigated. Sources also pointed out that more writ petitions are expected in the coming days against the SIT and the concerned officials as Suresh Kumal L (36), another key accused in the Gauri case, had alleged before the court last week that he was also slapped and assaulted by the SIT officials.
courtesy : bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com
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 judge whose controversial remarks triggered controversy expresses regret before open court
Bengaluru: Karnataka High Court judge, Justice V Srishananda, on Saturday expressed regret in open court after facing backlash over his controversial remarks in his recent court hearings, reported Bar and Bench.
Two purported video clips from Justice V Srishananda’s court hearing that show him making inappropriate comments went viral across social media platforms.
On Saturday, Justice Srishananda invited members of the Advocates Association, Bengaluru, and senior lawyers to his courtroom at 2:30 PM, where he read out a note expressing regret for inappropriate comments.
Quoting Advocates Association President Vivek Subba Reddy, Bar and Bench wrote, “He expressed regret for the comments and clarified that it was not his intention to offend any community or members of the Bar. He also requested the association to relay this message to all members of the Bar.”
Reddy further stated, “We also advised him to encourage young lawyers in the courtroom and refrain from making any irrelevant remarks during hearings.”
Another senior lawyer present during the session confirmed to the legal news portal that Justice Srishananda also addressed comments directed at a woman lawyer, who was seen in one of the videos being reprimanded by the judge. The judge Justice Srishananda clarified that his remarks were not intended to target her (woman lawyer) specifically, but rather pertained to the appellant she was representing. “He explained that his comment was meant to imply that the appellant seemed to know a lot about the other party,” said the lawyer.
In addition, Justice Srishananda assured those present that he would avoid making such comments in the future.
The controversy came to light on September 19, when a video clip from an August 28 Court hearing surfaced on social media, showing Justice Srishananda referring to a Muslim-majority sub-locality in Bengaluru’s Goripalya as "Pakistan." Hours later, another video from the same courtroom emerged, in which the judge was seen making a gender-insensitive remark.
Following outrage over the viral videos, a Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices Sanjiv Khanna, BR Gavai, Surya Kant, and Hrishikesh Roy, on September 20 took a suo motu cognizance and sought a report from the Karnataka High Court Registrar General in connection with the viral video.
