Karnataka cabinet likely to decide on lockdown-like curbs on all days of the week on Monday
Bengaluru, Apr 25: A decision on imposing lockdown like restrictions on all days of the week in Karnataka, which is facing a huge spike in COVID-19 cases, is likely to be taken by the state cabinet on Monday.
While ministers on Sunday said a decision in this regard was likely during the cabinet meeting, official sources said another one on the matter of free of cost vaccinations might also be taken.
"Weekend curfew restrictions are in place till May 4 and as per the guidelines, it will be there next Saturday, Sunday also.
Discussions are on whether to enforce curfew on weekdays, whether to go for complete lockdown or not," Industries Minister Jagadish Shettar said.
Speaking to reporters in Dharwad, he said it would be discussed at the cabinet meeting tomorrow, following which Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa would announce the decision.
"We are not in favour of lockdown, but the situation is such that we have to impose restrictions to bring things under control...we have to break the chain, it is a matter of 10-12 days, let's see... once the numbers (cases) come down, restrictions will also reduce," he added.
The state cabinet is scheduled to meet at 11 am on Monday.
According to COVID-19 guidelines that are in place from April 21 to May 4, night curfew has been imposed in the entire state from 9 pm to 6 am every day and there will be weekend curfew from Friday 9 pm to Monday 6 am.
During the weekend curfew that began on Friday night, Bengaluru and most other parts of the state wore a deserted look with businesses and restaurants remaining shut and vehicles staying off the roads.
Barring the 6 am to 10 am period when the public were allowed to purchase essential items like milk, groceries and vegetables, among others, people largely stayed indoors and cooperated by following the restrictions.
Stating that no decision has yet been taken by the government on lockdown, Deputy Chief Minister C N Ashwath Narayan said it would discuss and take take a decision, based on what the CM or the Health Minister places before the cabinet on this issue.
He said suggestions have been put forward for "Janata curfew", wherein people voluntarily decide not come out unnecessarily.
However, Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai said "such proposals (lockdown) did not come during yesterday's meeting.
So I don't want to comment on speculations. For now things will continue as it is."
The state government had last week imposed night and weekend curfew amid intense speculation that it may go for lockdown like restrictions in Bengaluru and few other places, with former Chief Minister and JD(S) leader H D Kumaraswamy too demanding for it.
State Congress President D K Shivakumar had subsequently said it seemed that the government,which had planned to impose lockdown last week, changed it, after Prime Minister Nardendra Modi's address to the nation, during which he requested states to use it as a last resort.
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.
