POCSO case against B.S. Yediyurappa: Karnataka High Court reserves order
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has reserved its judgment on a petition filed by former Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa. The petition challenges a trial court's decision to take cognizance of a case filed against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, based on allegations of sexual assault against a minor.
On Thursday, a single-judge bench led by Justice M.I. Arun concluded the hearing after listening to extensive arguments from both sides and reserved its order. This was the second petition filed by Yediyurappa challenging the trial court's cognizance of the matter.
Senior advocate C.V. Nagesh, representing Yediyurappa, argued that the trial court took cognizance of the case based solely on the victim's statement without applying judicial mind. He contended that the trial court failed to follow the high court's earlier directive to reconsider the case afresh.
Arguing for the prosecution, Special Public Prosecutor Prof. Ravivarma Kumar claimed that an audio recording of a conversation between Yediyurappa and the victim's mother had been destroyed. He questioned why Yediyurappa would give ₹2 lakh to the victim if the recording did not exist. Kumar alleged that the co-accused, Arun, had snatched the mother's mobile phone and deleted the uploaded audio recording, but that the original audio still exists on the victim's phone.
Prof. Kumar further submitted that a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report has confirmed the voice in the recording is indeed Yediyurappa's. He stated that Yediyurappa allegedly took the victim to a private room and sexually assaulted her, after which she came out crying. He argued that the trial court had considered these points when taking cognizance of the case.
After hearing the arguments, the court reserved its order and orally stated that a factual clarification would be provided on Saturday.
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 declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
