Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka HC questions suspension of 5 cops, seeks govt reply
A bench of Justices SG Pandit and TM Nadaf said the state will have to 'justify whether it was proper to keep the officers under suspension, or, whether shifting them to another post would have been sufficient?'
The court was hearing an appeal filed by the Karnataka government challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) July 1 order quashing Indian police service (IPS) officer Vikash Kumar Vikash's suspension.
Terming the state's suspension order 'mechanical' and not supported by sufficient material, the tribunal had directed the state to 'immediately' reinstate Vikash. It had also suggested that the government extend similar relief to the other four officers suspended along with Vikash, including the then commissioner of police B Dayananda.
Urging the court to stay the tribunal's order, advocate general Shashikiran Shetty on Thursday said that the tribunal had acted in haste and had also overstepped in suggesting the remaining four officers, who were not even parties before it, also be reinstated.
Shetty said the state was ready to show the court that all five officers who had been suspended were guilty of 'dereliction of duty.' 'I will be able to show from the records that the suspension order was justified,' Shetty added.
Shetty told the court that the tribunal had granted Vikash relief on July 1 and he had reported to duty in his uniform on July 2 without waiting for any formal order from the state reinstating him.
The high court, however, said it will hear the matter further on July 9 and until the next hearing, Vikash must show restraint and not precipitate the matter any further.
Also Read: Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka moves HC against quashing of officer's suspension
Vikash's counsel, senior advocate Dhyan Chinappa, assured the court that his client will 'not do anything' until the next hearing before the high court.
Vikash and the four other officers of Bengaluru police were suspended on June 5, a day after the stampede. Vikash had challenged his suspension before the tribunal, claiming he was not responsible for the tragedy and that the police had no prior notice of the Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB)'s Indian Premier League (IPL) victory parade, which triggered the stampede. It blamed RCB for unilaterally announcing the event via Instagram without informing the authorities.
Also Read: HC allows govt to file reply on stampede plea in sealed cover
In its order, the tribunal held that RCB announced free public entry, drawing massive crowds to the stadium, and failed to formally seek police permission or coordinate with authorities for the victory parade and celebrations.
The Karnataka government, however, has challenged the tribunal's order claiming that the revocation of suspension of the officers while the magisterial and judicial inquiries into the stampede were ongoing was likely to adversely impact the probes. Vikash's 'presence in service during this period might adversely affect the examination of witnesses' and undermine the process of justice, the state has argued.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
30 minutes ago
- Time of India
Tooling change
Beijing's weaponisation of engineers must be countered through expansion of Indian engineering beyond IT In yet another example of China's weaponisation of economic interdependencies, Beijing has ordered the pullout of Chinese engineers working at iPhone manufacturer Foxconn's Indian factories. While their strength is less than 1% of Foxconn's employees at Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, they play crucial engineering roles. The move is clearly aimed at disrupting production at these factories and comes on top of Beijing delaying the delivery of critical machinery to Indian operations. This is plain economic bullying. China is using its manufacturing heft to undermine any moves by international players to relocate their production bases to third countries like India. With US & China locked in a strategic-economic tussle – notwithstanding recent attempts at trade war de-escalation – countries like India are getting squeezed. Vietnam just agreed to a trade deal with US that involves accepting 20% tariff on Vietnamese exports to US and an even higher 40% tariff on goods transshipped through the Southeast Asian nation – the latter aimed at stymieing Chinese exports to US via Vietnam. Thus, US is trying to leverage its market size to get concessions from its trading partners, while China is trying to leverage its manufacturing capacity to keep its trading partners locked into Chinese supply chains. But when China was admitted to WTO in 2001, the West and Beijing made an implicit deal: the former will focus on innovation and high-end manufacturing, leaving mid- to low-value manufacturing to the latter. China used this to deliver massive scale and achieve engineering expertise in a wide array of intermediaries and components. As a result, Chinese tooling engineers today are the best in the world. China also refines 90% of global rare earths. And when it comes to India, Chinese supply of APIs, electronic components, chemicals, magnets etc is gargantuan. To reduce this dependency, GOI's PLI schemes have shown promise. But more needs to be done to set up indigenous manufacturing supply chains. A closer look at technical education is imperative. India produces around 1.5mn engineers annually. But only 10% of this number were expected to secure jobs in 2024. Plus, according to some estimates, India produces around 600,000 IT engineers each year. Materials engineers, more relevant for industrial manufacturing, are only in few thousands. Unless this cohort of engineers is boosted through govt investments and policies in relevant sectors, India will continue to be vulnerable to Chinese bullying over supply of critical components and human resource. India must steadily build its technical expertise to expand its manufacturing base and emerge as an alternative to China. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Time of India
41 minutes ago
- Time of India
Centre's pick & choose policy hits HC judge appointments
Representative image NEW DELHI: Advocate Ramaswamy Neelakandan prepared for life as a high court judge by returning case files to clients after the CJI-led Supreme Court collegium on Jan 17, 2023, recommended to Union govt to appoint him, along with four other advocates, including L C Victoria Gowri, as judges of Madras high court. The Union govt appointed all of them as judges, except Neelakandan. Though names of the five advocates were sent by the SC collegium on the same day, the govt appointed them in batches - three on Feb 7, 2023, and the fourth on Feb 27, 2023. Neelakandan, who belongs to the OBC community, shares his fate with 28 other advocates, whose names were recommended to the govt by the collegium between Jan 2023 and April this year. The Centre's pick and choose policy has left them in suspense - whether to resume practice or keep waiting for the Centre's nod to become an HC judge. While Neelakandan's wait has stretched beyond 29 months, advocate Subhash Upadhyay, whose name was recommended by collegium on April 12, 2023, for judgeship in Uttarakhand HC, is waiting for his warrant of appointment for the last 26 months. Along with Upadhyay, the collegium had recommended names of three advocates and a judicial officer for appointment as judges of the HC. Only Upadhyay's name was left out. Like him, advocate Arun Kumar is awaiting action on collegium's May 9, 2023, recommendation for his appointment as Allahabad HC judge. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Birla Evara 3 and 4 BHK from ₹ 1.75 Crore* Birla Estates Learn More Undo On Oct 17, 2023, the collegium recommended the names of five advocates for appointment as judges of Madhya Pradesh HC. Among them, only advocate Amit Seth is still awaiting appointment. Of the 29 advocates still awaiting appointment as HC judges, five are women advocates. Among them, the one enduring the longest wait is advocate Shamima Jahan, whose name was recommended by the collegium on Jan 4, 2024, for appointment as a judge of Gauhati HC. Other women advocates sharing Jahan's fate are Sreeja Vijayalakshmi (name recommended on April 16, 2024), Tajal Vashi (Oct 15, 2024; Gujarat HC), Shwetasree Majumder (Aug 21, 2024; Delhi HC), and Sheetal Mirdha (March 5, 2025; Rajasthan HC). Despite successive chief justices, including the incumbent CJI B R Gavai, impressing upon the Union govt not to pick and choose from the list and avoid making staggered appointments from the same batch, the govt has not abandoned the practice which creates seniority issues in constitutional courts where merit and seniority are two crucial factors for career advancement. Interestingly, the collegium's recommendations for appointment of judges to Supreme Court have been speedily processed and implemented by the govt, in some cases the appointments have come through within three days of the recommendation. The collegium recommended to the govt on May 26 to appoint Justices N V Anjaria, Vijay Bishnoi and A S Chandurkar as judges of the SC. The three took oath as Supreme Court judges on May 30. On May 26, the collegium recommended appointments of chief justices to five HCs, transfers of four HC CJs and transfer and repatriation of 22 HC judges. More than a month later, govt is yet to give effect to the appointments and transfers of HC CJs and judges.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Karnataka high court defers hearing on govt petition against IPS officer's suspension revocation
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court deferred the hearing until July 9 regarding the state govt's petition challenging the CAT's decision to nullify IPS officer Vikash Kumar Vikash's suspension. The understanding reached ensures Vikash would not file a contempt petition citing that he was not reinstated. On July 1, the CAT Bengaluru bench overturned Vikash's suspension dated June 5 related to the June 4 stampede at Chinnaswamy Stadium which resulted in 11 fatalities. Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty, representing the state govt, argued that Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) should contest the tribunal's order as they were deemed responsible for the crowd gathering. He requested a stay on the tribunal's order and noted that other suspended officers did not challenge their suspensions and there was no interim order in favour of Vikash as well. Senior advocate Dhyan Chinnappa, representing Vikash, expressed readiness to present arguments and assured the officer would not pursue contempt proceedings regarding his reinstatement. The division bench, led by Justice SG Pandit, acknowledged the senior advocate's statement and scheduled the matter for final disposal, requiring the advocate general to submit all relevant materials. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru The tribunal, in its decision to revoke the suspension, highlighted the state govt's mechanical approach without substantial grounds. It suggested extending similar relief to other suspended officers and noted RCB's social media posts inviting people as the primary cause of the crowd gathering. The govt's petition argues that the tribunal overlooked crucial aspects of the suspension order indicating officers' duty dereliction. They contend the tribunal conducted proceedings akin to a departmental inquiry, contradicting established legal principles for suspension cases. The govt maintains that despite ordering magisterial and commission enquiries, sufficient evidence exists regarding the officer's dereliction of duties. They assert the tribunal misunderstood these enquiries' significance and seek the high court's intervention, having submitted relevant documentation, including Karnataka Police Manual excerpts and event chronology in a sealed cover.
