Karnataka HC flays BBMP, BDA over lake pollution during Shivaratri
Bengaluru, Mar 14: Observing that it was not prudent to pollute the environment in the name of worship, the High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday rebuked the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) for allowing construction on the Mallathahalli lake bed during the recent Shivaratri festival.
The Division Bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice T Venkatesh Naik opined that the civic bodies were primarily responsible for creating litigations.
On Tuesday, petitioner Geetha Mishra filed an interlocutory application in the public interest litigation she had filed against the filling up of the lakebed of Mallathahalli lake in the Rajarajeshwari Nagar Assembly Constituency. She alleged that on Shivaratri an open air theatre and statue of Lord Shiva had been installed on the lakebed.
The BBMP contended that the statue of Shiva was a temporary structure and that it was removed after the festival. The petitioner's advocate argued that the construction of the idol and the open air theatre resulted in polluted water entering the lake.
The Bench, after considering the arguments of both sides asked why worship should involve polluting the lake.
The Court said that as per Section 12 of the Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Authority ????Act, construction activities on lake beds is not allowed. It asked who had given permission for it.
If civic agencies followed the rules, there would be no reason for litigations to arise. It warned that if pollution was not curtailed future generations would blame us, it said.
The Bench directed the authorities to ensure that apart from the three acres of land under litigation, the remaining 71 acres of the lake are protected and not used for any other purpose.
The Court directed that no individual, politician or association should be allowed to conduct any activity or construction on the lake bed.
It also directed that the kalyani built on the lake should be used for the limited purpose of immersion of Ganesha and Durga idols during the respective festivals only and should be immediately cleaned afterwards, so that polluted water does not enter the lake.
The interlocutory application was disposed of, with the Court stating that the BBMP should strictly implement the provisions of the Lake Conservation Act.
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.
SC orders release of prisoner after 25 years, recognises him as a minor at time of offence
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday (January 8) ordered the release of a prisoner who had been incarcerated for nearly 25 years after determining he was a juvenile at the time of the offence in 1994.
A bench comprising Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Aravind Kumar found that the appellant, Om Prakash, was only 14 years old when the offence occurred.
Om Prakash, initially sentenced to death for murder, had raised the plea of juvenility during the sentencing stage. However, the trial court dismissed his claim, citing his statement under s. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the fact that he held a bank account. The High Court upheld this judgment, and the Supreme Court dismissed his appeal, affirming the death sentence.
Later, Om Prakash filed a curative petition before the Supreme Court, presenting a school certificate indicating his minor status at the time of the offence. The State of Uttarakhand also certified his age as 14 years at the time. Despite this, the curative petition was dismissed.
In 2012, his mercy petition to the President resulted in the commutation of his death sentence to life imprisonment, with a condition that he would remain incarcerated until he turned 60. Subsequently, an ossification test confirmed his age as 14 at the time of the crime. He also obtained information under the RTI Act showing that minors could open bank accounts. In 2019, he challenged the Presidential order in the High Court of Uttarakhand, which dismissed his plea, citing the limited scope of judicial review over Presidential orders. He then appealed this judgment in the Supreme Court.
During the proceedings, the Supreme Court sought updated instructions from the State regarding its earlier admission in the curative petition about his juvenility. The State reaffirmed that he was a minor at the time of the offence.
The Court observed that injustice had been inflicted at every stage due to the failure of the judiciary to address the appellant's juvenility plea. Justice Sundresh, authoring the judgment, stated that the reliance on Om Prakash's statement under s. 313 of CrPC was erroneous, particularly when the statement itself suggested he was only 14 years old at the time of the crime.
The Court criticised the High Court for ignoring s. 9(2) of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015, which permits juvenility claims to be raised at any stage. It also noted that the appellant had suffered prolonged incarceration due to judicial errors, depriving him of the opportunity to reintegrate into society.
Ordering his immediate release, the Court clarified that its judgment was not a review of the 2012 Presidential order but the application of the 2015 Act to a deserving individual. It directed the Uttarakhand State Legal Services Authority to facilitate his rehabilitation and reintegration, including access to welfare schemes for livelihood, shelter, and sustenance under Article 21 of the Constitution. The State was also instructed to assist him in availing these schemes.
Senior Advocate Dr S. Muralidhar represented the appellant, with legal assistance provided by Project 39A of National Law University Delhi. ASG KM Nataraj appeared for the State.
