K'taka HC castigates BDA over land allotment
Bengaluru, Oct 19: The Karnataka High Court has warned that the manner in which government officials and the system is engaging with citizens, is leading to an explosive situation.
Justice Krishna S Dixit was hearing a petition by B R Hemaprakash and others alleging that despite the Aircraft Employees Co-operative Society forming a housing layout on 130 acres of land, members who have already paid for the sites have not been allotted.
Advocate Nanjunda Reddy, who appeared for the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), submitted that a public interest litigation and other writ petitions regarding the issue were pending. The revised plan was yet to be approved by the government.
Before adjourning the case to November 2, in a scathing oral observation, the court said BDA was allotting sites to people of its choice instead of common public.
The current petition was 10 years old, but the petitioners may "have to take it to their graves," the court said in a reprimanding tone.
The court said that if such a system existed in Germany or France, the citizens would have taken the government officials, advocates or anyone to task in public.
Warning the BDA, the court said that the agency can verify the anger of the people by going before them with their faces masked.
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.
BCI urges CJI to take action against Andhra HC judge for sending young lawyer to 24-hour custody
New Delhi (PTI): The Bar Council of India on Wednesday sought the urgent intervention of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant following a "deeply disturbing" incident where a judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reportedly sent a young advocate to
24-hour judicial custody over a procedural lapse.
The Bar Council of India (BCI) Chairperson and senior advocate Manan Kumar Mishra, in a formal representation, termed the conduct of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao "grossly inappropriate" and "damaging to the confidence of the Bar".
“I most respectfully request your Lordship to kindly take immediate institutional cognizance of the matter and call for the video recording of the proceedings, the order passed, and the surrounding circumstances.
“I further request that appropriate administrative action may kindly be considered, including withdrawal of judicial work from the learned Judge pending review, his immediate transfer to some far off High Court, and his nomination for appropriate judicial training/orientation on court management, judicial temperament, Bar-Bench relations, and proportional exercise of contempt/judicial authority,” Mishra wrote.
This representation is made to preserve the “dignity, moral authority and public confidence of the judiciary”, he said, adding, “Judges command the highest respect not by fear, but by fairness, patience, restraint and constitutional humility”.
The communication urged the CJI to intervene at the earliest to ensure that the faith of Bar, particularly young advocates, in the protective and corrective role of the judiciary is restored.
The controversy stems from proceedings on May 5.
According to the BCI, a video circulating online shows Justice Rao rebuking a young advocate who was unable to produce a specific order copy during a hearing.
The letter said that despite the advocate "repeatedly seeking pardon and mercy" and claiming he was in physical pain, the judge remained "unmoved".
The judge allegedly told the lawyer, "now you will learn," and mocked his experience before directing the Registrar and police personnel to take him into custody for 24 hours.
The BCI chairperson said that the judge’s actions lacked proportionality and fairness.
"The dignity of the court is not enhanced when a lawyer is made to beg for grace in open court and is still sent to custody for a procedural lapse," the letter said.
"A young lawyer... is an officer of the Court, still learning, still growing, and entitled to correction without humiliation," it added.
The bar body said that such actions create a "chilling effect" on the legal fraternity, particularly among junior members, and undermine the mutual respect required between the Bench and the Bar.
