Bengaluru Stampede: Retired HC Judge John Michael D'Cunha Leading Probe Had Convicted Jayalalithaa
From the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case to FIR against Yediyurappa, D'Cunha has been involved in several high-profile cases
The Karnataka government has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under retired High Court judge John Michael D'Cunha to inquire into the June 4 stampede at the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru that killed 11 people.
From the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case to FIR against Yediyurappa, D'Cunha has been involved in several high-profile cases.
He is currently heading inquiries into the pandemic medical procurement scam and oxygen-related deaths at Chamarajanagar hospital in Karnataka.
procedural lapses and submit its report in 30 days.
'…the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under the chairmanship of John Michael Cunha, retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to conduct an inquiry into the incident," the official notification dated June 5 said.
'The inquiry commission shall have all the powers to conduct inquiries under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and Code of Civil Procedure, and the government expects the investigation to be completed and a report submitted within one month," it said.
The terms of reference in the notification include, to find — whether the necessary permissions, rules and procedures were followed while organising the RCB team's victory felicitation ceremony at Chinnaswamy Stadium; the causes/causers of the rush and stampede that took place; the causes/causers of the incident that led to the death of 11 people and injury to more than 50 people based on the chain of events and circumstances.
Also, to inquire into the measures taken as a precaution regarding the incident and the omissions/deficiencies that may have occurred in this regard and to identify those responsible for this incident; and to inquire regarding other relevant aspects related to this incident.
This inquiry commission is separate from the magisterial inquiry that has been ordered, and shall conduct a parallel and comprehensive inquiry, it clarified.
The Chairman of the inquiry commission, if necessary, may take steps to obtain the services of one retired IPS officer and one retired IAS officer for technical and legal assistance. The salary/allowance expenses of the concerned officers shall be borne by the government. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, shall provide the necessary staff, materials, vehicles and office and furniture/telephone etc required for the commission of inquiry.
WHO IS RETIRED HC JUDGE D'CUNHA?
D'Cunha, who studied at SDM Law College in Mangalore, started his law practice in 1985, and formed Manu Associates with fellow advocates Amruth Kini, M P Noronha and Ullal S K. The name 'Manu' was formed from the first letter of each partner's name: 'M' for Michael, 'A' from Amruth, 'N' from Noronha and 'U' from Ullal.
In 1999, he left Mangalore to join the Karnataka High Court. In 2002 D'Cunha joined the judiciary as a District Judge. He has served in the courts of Bangalore, Bellary, and Dharwad. He also served as secretary to the Chief Justice and Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court.
D'Cunha was appointed a judge in the Karnataka High Court in 2016 and retired on April 6, 2021.
HIGH-PROFILE JUDGMENTS
On 31 March 2021, a bench of Justice D'Cunha refused to quash the FIR against BS Yediyurappa in a case nicknamed Operation Kamala case.
D'Cunha was appointed by the Supreme Court of India in October 2013 as the fifth judge to investigate the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa, replacing judge MS Balakrishna. On September 27, 2014, D'Cunha convicted Jayalalithaa, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. She was sentenced to a prison term of four years and fined Rs 100 crore.
Jayalalithaa was later acquitted by the High Court of Karnataka on May 11, 2015, claiming the trial court order by D'Cunha was not sustainable. However, the Supreme Court of India reconfirmed D'Cunha's order on February 14, 2017.
With PTI Inputs
tags :
bengaluru J Jayalalithaa news18 specials
Location :
Bengaluru, India, India
First Published:
June 09, 2025, 14:48 IST
News cities Bengaluru Stampede: Retired HC Judge John Michael D'Cunha Leading Probe Had Convicted Jayalalithaa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
4 hours ago
- The Hindu
M.P. High Court reverses lower court order that granted ownership of ancestral properties to Saif Ali Khan, family
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside a 25-year-old order of a lower court, that had upheld the ownership of actor Saif Ali Khan and his family over properties worth thousands of crores inherited from the erstwhile rulers of Bhopal, ordering a retrial of the matter. In an order dated June 30, a single bench of Justice Sanjay Dwivedi set aside the judgement and decree of the district court in Bhopal, while asking it decide the matter afresh expeditiously, preferably within a year. The matter pertains to a ownership dispute among the descendants of the last ruler of the princely state of Bhopal, Nawab Hamidullah Khan, who had three daughters — Abida Sultan, Sajida Sultan and Rabia Sultan — with his first wife Maimoona Sultan. While Abida migrated to Pakistan, Sajida married Iftikhar Ali Khan Pataudi. Their son, Mansoor Ali Khan Pataudi, former Indian cricket team captain, married actor Sharmila Tagore. The 2000 order of the trial court had declared the ownership of Ms. Tagore, her son Mr. Ali Khan, and her two daughters Soha Ali Khan and Saba Ali Khan. The order, however, was challenged by Begum Suraiya Rashid, granddaughter of Hamidullah Khan's elder brother Obaidullah Khan, and Rabia Sultan through separate petitions in the High Court. They claimed that after Hamidullah Khan's death in 1960, the properties should have been divided among the petitioners and the defendants — the Pataudi family as per the Muslim Personal Law. They also challenged a 1962 order of the Union Government that recognised Sajida Sultan, who was declared the Nawab of Bhopal after her father's death, as the sole successor of the properties. Justice Dwivedi, however, said that the trial court had dismissed the plaintiff's suits 'without considering the other aspects of the matter' and by relying upon an order of the Allahabad High Court, which as later overruled by the Supreme Court. 'In my opinion, the impugned judgment and decree deserve to be and are hereby set aside. The matters are remanded back to the trial Court for deciding it afresh and if so required, the trial Court can allow the parties to lead further evidence in view of the subsequent development and changed legal position. It is made clear that since the suits were initially filed in the year 1999, therefore, the trial Court shall make all possible efforts to conclude and decide it expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year,' Justice Dwivedi said. The move is seen as a setback to the Pataudi family as the High Court, in December 2024, has already rejected Mr. Ali Khan's 2015 plea challenging a Union Government order declaring the inherited properties worth around ₹15,000 crore as 'enemy property' under the Enemy Property Act. The High Court had asked him to approach an appellate authority, constituted by the government for adjudication of disputes in regard to enemy property, with the matter. However, no appeal was reportedly filed within the given time frame. The assets include various luxury properties such as Bhopal's Flag Staff House, a hotel, a palace and several acres of land in and around Bhopal.
The Hindu
5 hours ago
- The Hindu
Age-old Jain practice of Santhara
A little before 9.30 p.m. on March 21, Piyush Jain, 35, and his wife Varsha Jain, 32, accompanied by some family members, arrived at a compact apartment in Indore's Usha Nagar with their three-year-old daughter, Viyana. The child, whom they carried in their arms, was diagnosed with brain tumour about three months earlier. She was allegedly barely conscious. The parents knocked on the door of Rajesh Muni Maharaj, a Jain monk of the white-clad Shwetambar sect. Madhya Pradesh has the third-largest population of Jains in India, as per the 2011 Census. The monk, who says he was undertaking a religious 'jaap (recital of mantras)' at the time, advised the IT professional couple to initiate Santhara for their daughter. Under the age-old practice in Jainism, a person makes a vow to give up food, water, medicines, and other worldly possessions, and observes a fast unto death, while chanting religious verses. Rajesh Muni says Piyush and Varsha agreed to the process, which began at 9.45 p.m. He offered them religious guidance for about 10 minutes, while his associate, Rajendra Muni Maharaj, wrapped Viyana in a white sheet and placed a white mask on her mouth. At 9.55 p.m., the monk says he asked the child to take 'Pachchhakhan (a vow in Jainism to restrict certain actions and control desire)'. 'I said, 'Beta, bhagwan ke paas jana hai (Child, you must go to god)'.' Rajesh Muni recalls that Viyana, whom he claims was aware of Pachchhakhan through the religious teachings she had been getting from him and her family, slowly folded her hands and accepted the vow. In 10 minutes, she took her last breath with three hiccups, he says. However, Viyana's death only caught media attention in May after her parents received a certificate from the Golden Book of World Records, a U.S.-based organisation. The 'record' declared the child as the 'youngest to vow the Jain ritual Santhara'. The couple and the monks also received felicitations from various Jain community bodies in Indore. As the news of the death and the 'certification' spread, questions were raised about the practice. Pranshu Jain, a 23-year-old social activist from Indore, approached the local Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on May 9 seeking a ban on Santhara for children and people with mental illness. The petition also demanded legal action against those performing the ritual on both these categories of people. The Union and the State governments, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Madhya Pradesh police, and the Indore Collectorate are among the respondents in the case. On June 16, the High Court directed the petitioner to include the girl's parents as respondents too. The matter is now listed for July 8. The petition claims that an individual's consent is necessary to perform Santhara on them, which is difficult in the case of children. 'Rituals like Santhara can be misused by people to 'get rid' of relatives with serious health issues or mental illness, even if that person is not a minor,' says Shubham Sharma, the lawyer representing Pranshu. 'Our only motive is to get justice for Viyana and make sure this does not happen with any other child in future,' he adds. He also says Pranshu has chosen not to interact with the media at the moment. 'Local community leaders have been calling both of us to withdraw the petition. There is so much pressure on him, so he is avoiding public attention as much as possible,' Sharma says, adding that the two, however, have been working to gather details from across the country to strengthen their case in court. Rajesh Muni and Rajendra Muni rubbish the petition filed by Pranshu and call him a 'frustrated person who wants publicity'. After Viyana's death, it was Rajesh Muni who had advised her parents to apply for the Golden Book of World Records certificate and even gave them a letter of reference to 'prove' the claim. He says, 'I have received two proposals to become an acharya [a higher-ranking spiritual leader] after all this has come out.' Santhara as a custom At a 2007 national seminar on bioethics, Kokila H. Shah, who taught Jainism at universities in India, presented a paper that stated that Santhara is different from suicide and euthanasia because death is neither sudden nor the ultimate aim. Santhara is when 'a person voluntarily, when he is nearing his end and when normal life according to religion is not possible due to old age, incurable disease, severe famine', decides to abandon 'all worldly attachments, by observance of austerities, gradually abstaining from food and water, and by simultaneous meditation on the real nature of the self, until the soul parts from the body'. The ritual can only be performed under the supervision of a monk, and the process is called Sallekhana. In August 2015, the Rajasthan High Court had banned the practice and declared it a criminal offence punishable under the then Indian Penal Code. In Nikhil Soni vs Union of India & Others, the High Court had directed the State authorities to treat the practice as 'suicide' and 'abetment to suicide'. The move prompted protests from the members of the Jain community in Rajasthan and other parts of the country, terming the High Court order 'an infringement on secularism'. The protesters claimed that Santhara was not an act of suicide but a 'devout religious practice' and that the High Court had pronounced the judgment without 'understanding the concept and objectives, the element of rationality behind this ancient practice'. That same month, the Supreme Court, hearing a batch of petitions filed by various Jain community bodies, stayed the Rajasthan High Court's order. Claiming that the High Court had not consulted any scholars of Jainism, the community complained that the court had criminalised the philosophy, which was an 'essential' practice for Jainism. The matter is pending in the Supreme Court. In 2016, Aradhana Samdariya, 13, from Hyderabad, allegedly undertook Santhara and died after 68 days of fasting. As per reports at the time, Samdariya's Santhara was turned into a procession, with community members visiting her and clicking pictures with her. Among the visitors were some top politicians from Telangana. Samdariya suffered a heart attack two days after breaking her 68-day fast and died, only to be hailed as a 'bal tapasvi (child monk)'. A large procession was also taken out for her funeral. The reports also claimed that she had undertaken the fast to 'revive her family's declining business'. At the time, the BBC had reported that 640 prominent community members had sent a list of children who had fasted, along with their photographs, to the police to prove that the ritual was part of Jain tradition. Rajesh Muni says once a person begins Santhara, they enter the life of a monk. Their death is celebrated as that of a monk's as the person is believed to have attained 'moksha (salvation)'. Appeals by child rights groups had prompted the police to register a case against the family. Six months after Samdariya died, the police marked the case as 'action dropped'. 112 Santharas and counting Rajesh Muni, who became a monk in 2001, boasts of having performed 112 Santharas across the country over the years. A native of Khargone, about 130 km from Indore, he holds an MSc degree in Mathematics and comes from a business family. He says he left his home after an argument with his brother and became a monk. In 2021, he completed his PhD in Santhara from Kalinga University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, and has been an advocate for it. Chain Singh Surana, 81, who lived in Indore, died on June 29 night after 15 days of Santhara under Rajesh Muni's 'supervision'. At Chain Singh's home in Mahaveer Bagh Colony on the 14th day of the practice, his son, Pushpendra Singh Surana, says his father had himself wished for Santhara a few weeks ago and asked Rajesh Muni for it. 'He did not have any illness, but his body had become really weak with age. The doctors had also said the days ahead would be difficult. So when he asked, we called Muni Maharaj, who came and inspected his health before starting the ritual,' says Pushpendra, as he receives relatives who come by to pay their respects. A day before his death, Chain Singh lay in a room at home, covered in a white sheet, surrounded by relatives, who were chanting religious incantations. Pushpendra says accepting his father's decision for Santhara was difficult for the family, but they made their peace 'knowing that he will attain moksha'. Chain Singh's funeral procession, called dol yatra in Jainism, was taken out on June 30 to celebrate his life and death by Santhara. Consent and choice Viyana's parents talk about their daughter's suffering after she was diagnosed with brain tumour in January this year. 'She was treated at Tata Memorial Hospital in Mumbai. She was better after the operation and we brought her home, but in March the tumour resurfaced. The doctors advised against another surgery so quickly, and her condition kept deteriorating,' Varsha says. Piyush, however, does not wish to recall the trauma. 'Every time we talk about her, everything comes back. We cannot go through this again and again,' he says. Vishank Sagar Maharaj, a Meerut-based Digambar Jain monk who was among the prominent voices against the Rajasthan High Court's ban, stresses that it is necessary to take a person's consent before performing the ritual on them. 'It is not Santhara if the person undertaking it is not in a condition to decide anything. Even though there is no specific age bar for undertaking Santhara, it is important that the person seeks it themselves,' says Sagar. 'In this case, if it was not the child's own decision, it is wrong.' Senior journalist Praveen Khariwal, president of the State Press Club and member of the Jain community, says there is no evidence of giving Santhara to a child this young in the community's history. 'In his desire to create a record of [performing] Santhara rituals, the monk has not done any good to the religion.' Rajesh Muni argues that parents have a right to decide for their children in 'exceptional situations'. 'Even a one-day-old infant or a person in a coma can undertake Santhara if their family consents to it. This cannot be termed suicide or murder,' he says. He adds that children from any religion are initiated into its teachings and practices, and draws a parallel to children in the Muslim community fasting during Ramzan. Further defending the practice, he says a person is allowed to break the fast themselves and a doctor too may intervene. He cites Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the freedom to profess, practice, and propagate religion. He claims he is not aware of Article 21, which states that no person shall be deprived of their life or personal liberty, except according to procedure established by law. Edited by Sunalini Mathew
India Gazette
6 hours ago
- India Gazette
WB authorities too
Kolkata (West Bengal) [India], July 5 (ANI): BJP MLA Sankar Ghosh on Saturday doubted if West Bengal's Higher Education authorities would fully enforce the High Court's order shutting down student union offices in colleges and universities. He called them 'spineless' before the ruling TMC. 'Without student union elections, how can a union room function as a component of the college or university? All these issues are well known to the college or university authorities... They are spineless in front of the ruling party, TMC,' Ghosh told ANI. 'Now, the High Court has passed an order. But after such an order is passed, who will execute it? The principal governing body, run by the TMC party office, holds executive authority. They likely won't close the union room permanently, just temporarily for show. The main issue is that West Bengal's entire administrative system is broken,' he added. The Calcutta High Court on Thursday directed the West Bengal Higher Education Department to ensure that the union rooms in all colleges and universities in the state remain locked till the time the students' union elections in those institutes are conducted and the results declared. The Court passed the order in the case of a law student's alleged rape in the student union room of the South Calcutta Law College. Earlier, the High Court sought a response from the West Bengal Government on three Public Interest Litigations (PILs) regarding the alleged gangrape. The Court also questioned why the governing body of the college was not included in the case. On July 2, Kolkata Police stated that the Detective Department of the police force would take over the investigation in the alleged gang rape case. Earlier, BJP's fact-finding committee member Manan Kumar Mishra stated alleged that the police were 'hiding' the family of the rape survivor and not allowing anyone to meet the security guard, who is the fourth accused in the incident. He further alleged that there was an attempt to 'tamper' with the First Information Report (FIR) to change the name of the accused. (ANI)
