The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday directed the District Magistrate, who is conducting a magisterial inquiry into the police firing during an anti-CAA protest in Mangaluru on December 19, 2019, to issue a public notice asking private individuals and media persons to provide video footage, if available, of the firing and related incidents.

The court also directed the Magistrate to bring all the available video footage on record of the inquiry while directing the State authorities to provide particulars such as length and duration of video footage, recorded in CCTV cameras installed in public places, that is already preserved.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar issued the direction during the hearing of a PIL petition filed by freedom fighter H.S. Doreswamy and former Mayor of Mangaluru K. Ashraf.

On a contention in the petition that no action was taken on the complaints filed by several persons against the police, the court directed the government to inform it about the action taken on the complaints.

The Bench also noted from the preliminary report, submitted in a sealed cover by the District Magistrate, that the magisterial inquiry was in the preliminary stages. According to information submitted by the District Magistrate to the Registrar-General of the High Court, certain statements and some evidence were recorded in January and further proceedings would be held on February 6 to record of the statements of 176 witnesses.

Earlier, Advocate-General Prabhuling K. Navadgi told the Bench that the magisterial inquiry was under way and the National Human Rights Commission, acting on a complaint filed by the petitioner Mr. Ashraf, had also asked the State Human Rights Commission to conduct an inquiry into the firing and submit a report. The Bench said that since the human rights commissions could only make recommendations, writ petitions were required to be maintained.

Dismissed

Meanwhile, the Bench dismissed another PIL petition, filed by I.K. Mohammed Iqbal Elimale and B. Umer, both residents of Sullia taluk in Dakshina Kannada, as they were found to be facing several criminal cases and had not disclosed, as per the court’s earlier direction, the types of social work they were engaged in.

The Advocate-General pointed out that one of the petitioners was facing one criminal case and the other, five. The Bench observed that the petitioners could not be considered pro bono litigants as they had failed to make proper disclosures, including social organisations and works that they are associated with.