Karnataka HC calls on state govt to share stampede report with KSCA, RCB, and DNA entertainment
The court rejected the state's justification for withholding the report, noting that the Supreme Court permits sealed cover confidentiality only in matters involving national security, public interest, or privacy rights—criteria that do not apply in this case.
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice V Kameswar Rao and Justice C M Joshi made these observations on Monday while deciding whether parties involved in the suo motu public interest litigation on the stampede should be given access to the report.
The stampede occurred outside the Bengaluru Chinnaswamy Stadium while RCB was celebrating its maiden IPL title victory inside. Responding to the state government's argument that sharing the report could influence the ongoing judicial commission and magisterial inquiry, the bench called the concern unfounded and lacking in public interest justification.
It emphasised that retired judges and senior All-India Service officers heading the inquiries are not likely to be swayed by the contents of the status report.
The court reiterated that the suo motu proceedings were initiated to determine the cause of the stampede, assess accountability, and suggest preventive measures for the future.
Withholding the report from key parties, while expecting their cooperation, would be "unfair", the bench said. "If the sealed cover is opened and the report is shared with the respondents, they can help the court better understand the sequence of events, contributing factors, and whether the tragedy was avoidable," the judges observed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
2 hours ago
- News18
2003 Bengaluru Techie Murder: SC Upholds Life Sentence Of Law Student Fiancée & Others, But...
Last Updated: The court let the convicts seek pardon from the Karnataka governor under Article 161, citing the crime as a result of youthful misjudgment rather than inherent criminality The Supreme Court on July 14 upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of a then BA-LLB student, her boyfriend, and two others for the murder of her fiancé in 2003. However, while affirming their culpability, the court granted them liberty to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution, noting the psychological and circumstantial complexities that surrounded the crime. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Aravind Kumar dismissed the appeals filed by Kum Shubha alias Shubhashankar and co-accused Arun Verma, Dinesh alias Dinakaran, and Venkatesh, challenging the Karnataka High Court's decision upholding their conviction and sentence for the murder of BV Girish, a 26-year-old software engineer employed with Intel, Bengaluru. The murder, which occurred just two days after the victim's engagement to Shubha, was, in the court's words, not the result of innate criminality but a 'dangerous adventure born out of emotional rebellion and wild romanticism". The court held that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstantial evidence, including continuous call records between Shubha and the co-accused, pointing to a clear conspiracy and 'meeting of minds". The court also acknowledged the mental state of the girl, observing that 'the voice of a young ambitious girl, muffled by a forced family decision, created the fiercest of turmoil in her mind." Ita remarked that this inner conflict, paired with emotional entanglements, culminated in the tragic loss of an innocent life and simultaneously derailed the lives of four young individuals. The bench, however, made it clear that empathy could not override culpability. 'We cannot condone her action as it resulted in the loss of an innocent life," the court said, while also noting that years had passed since the crime and that the appellants were no longer the same individuals they were at the time of the offence. Two of the four convicts were teenagers at the time of the incident, while Shubha had just crossed that threshold. The fourth accused, a 28-year-old man, was recently married and had a child when the appeal was decided. The court acknowledged their middle-aged status today, observing that 'adrenaline-pumped decisions of youth must sometimes be revisited through the lens of reform, not just retribution". Liberty to Seek Pardon While dismissing the appeal and affirming the life sentence, the court invoked Article 161 of the Constitution, allowing the appellants to file petitions for gubernatorial pardon before the governor of Karnataka. The bench expressed hope that the constitutional authority would take into account the entirety of the circumstances surrounding the case. 'We would only request the constitutional authority to consider the same, which we hope and trust would be done by taking note of the relevant circumstances governing the case," the judgment stated. The court granted the convicts eight weeks to file the pardon plea and ordered that they shall not be arrested and that their sentence shall remain suspended until the governor's decision is made. What Happened? According to the prosecution, Shubha was unwilling to marry Girish and confided in her college friend and romantic partner, Arun Verma. Moved by her distress, Verma sought help from his cousin Dinesh, who, in turn, brought in his teenage friend Venkatesh to execute the plan. The engagement took place on November 30, 2003. Two days later, on December 3, Shubha invited Girish to dinner. On their return, they stopped at the 'Air View Point" along the Airport Ring Road to watch planes land, a popular hangout spot in Bengaluru. It was there that Girish was attacked with a steel rod by an 'unknown assailant" and left with critical head injuries. He succumbed to the wounds the following day in the hospital. While initially appearing as a random act of violence, investigations soon revealed a web of mobile communication between the accused. The prosecution's case rested primarily on circumstantial evidence, supported by call detail records (CDR), which placed the accused in constant contact before, during, and after the murder. The trial court convicted all four under Section 302 (murder), read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court affirmed the conviction, following which the appeals landed before the Supreme Court. In perhaps the most humanising portion of the verdict, the SC refrained from using the harsh language usually associated with murder convictions. It instead focused on the circumstances of compulsion, familial pressure, and emotional immaturity, concluding that while the crime cannot be forgiven, the convicts deserve the opportunity for rehabilitation. 'This Court seeks to view the matter from a different perspective, only for the purpose of giving a new lease of life to the appellants," the judgment said, striking a rare balance between justice for the deceased and reformative justice for the offenders. Under Article 161, a governor has constitutional power to pardon, remit, or suspend a sentence. The Supreme Court's order does not mandate such relief but merely permits the convicts to make the request. The final decision lies with the governor of Karnataka, who must weigh the circumstances, including the gravity of the offence and the passage of time, before granting any clemency. Until then, the sentence imposed on the convicts remains suspended, and they won't be taken into custody. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! view comments First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
AIFF keen on 10-year approval to run ISL, undecided on relegation
The ISL, which began with eight teams in 2014, was accorded the top league status in 2019 when a roadmap was agreed by all stakeholders Panaji: The All India Football Federation (AIFF) wants to continue with the Indian Super League (ISL) as the country's top-tier league for the next 10 years but has called for discussions on 'matters of promotion and relegation.' The ISL began as an eight-team, two-month, IPL-style tournament in 2014, but was accorded the top league status in 2019 when a roadmap was agreed by all stakeholders. According to the roadmap, promotion was started from the 2022-23 season with the I-League winners -- Punjab FC first and Mohammedan Sporting Club later – qualifying on sporting merit. The organisers have not implemented relegation. In its official proposal to the marketing partners, AIFF has told FSDL, a joint venture between Reliance and Star which runs the top league, they are ready to issue a '10-year sanction to run ISL with a clear calendar window' and provide 'full commercial freedom' to run the league. 'Matter of promotions and relegations from ISL may be discussed, the principles and impact on AFC Roadmap for Indian football may be considered,' states the proposal titled 'Indian Football Landscape', AIFF Vision for the ISL 2026-2035. TOI has a copy of the proposal which also allows the ISL champions to take the top spot in Asian competitions, while the second spot will be reserved for the I-League winners, a change from the existing system that allows the Super Cup champions to represent the country in continental competitions. For the new Master Rights Agreement (MRA) – where AIFF retains all non-ISL rights including national team competitions -- the federation wants the marketing partners or league owners to make an annual solidarity payments to AIFF game development fund of Rs. 50 crore or 10% of the total league revenue in 2026, whichever is higher, with 5% annual increment. According to minutes of the MRA task force meeting, AIFF wants a 'reliable source of revenue to ensure the effective development of youth and grassroots football, as well as the smooth organisation of competitions across the country.' The proposal has not found favour with the marketing partners, who have suggested formation of a new holding company with clubs (60%), FSDL (26%) and AIFF (14%) as the shareholders. 'In the current system, stakeholders lose approximately Rs 500 crore annually and it makes no sense to continue losing big money,' a source who has been tracking the developments told TOI. 'Business as usual will not be sustainable for anyone. It will only put higher demands on sponsors and there won't be return on investment.' Despite the logjam, AIFF remains confident that it can find a solution to the impasse at a time when the country's top-tier league has been kept on hold due to uncertainty over the 15-year MRA which ends on Dec 8. 'The AIFF cannot act right now because the Supreme Court made an observation (on April 26) that the renewal of the Master Rights Agreement should not be done until its order. We are now waiting the SC order, so that the path becomes clear,' said a senior official. AIFF officials said they have been in touch with their marketing partners since Sept 19 last year, when the then secretary general P Anilkumar first sought a meeting with FSDL. In another letter dated Nov 21, the secretary said 'AIFF would like to engage in a constructive dialogue to explore possibilities for extending or renewing the partnership under mutually beneficial terms and help foster a new era of football development, marketing and popularity of the game in India. ' Since then, three meetings have been held this year between high-ranking AIFF and FSDL officials in Delhi and Mumbai.
Time of India
4 hours ago
- Time of India
HC orders special meeting to consider no-confidence motion against Karaikudi mayor
Madurai: Madras high court on Tuesday directed the Karaikudi corporation commissioner to convene a special council meeting to decide on the representation made by councillors to consider a no-confidence motion against mayor S Muthudurai of DMK. Justice C Saravanan passed the order while disposing of a petition filed by V Ramkumar, the AIADMK councillor of ward 22. The petitioner stated that out of the 36 councillors in the corporation, one councillor had resigned. Among them, he along with 22 councillors made a representation for initiating a no-confidence motion against the mayor, due to administrative inefficiency, public dissatisfaction, and failure to discharge duties in accordance with the law, on July 10. Despite the representation with the required quorum as per the statute, no action has been taken to convene the special meeting or process the same, he added. The petitioner stated that the inaction of the authorities is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of the mandatory procedure laid down under Section 51 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act and Rule 161 (3) of the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Rules. Hence, the petitioner moved court.
