Karnataka HC to govt: Waqf property reports placed before Houses?

BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday sought response from the State Government on whether it has placed two separate reports submitted by the Karnataka State Minorities Commission and Karnataka Lokayukta on alleged irregularities in Wakf properties before both Houses of Legislature. 

Hearing a public interest litigation filed by former minister SK Kantha, a division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the government to file its statement of objections pointing out whether the recommendations contained in the report of KSMC is placed before the both the Houses, as per provisions of the KSMC Act. 

The court also directed the state to inform whether it has complied with Section 12(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act on the report dated March 28, 2016, submitted by the Lokayukta, by placing the same before the Houses. 

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel Sridhar Prabhu argued that several anomalies were pointed out in both the reports submitted to the government. Nothing has happened so far, he said. The court orally questioned the State Government as to why it had not placed reports before the Legislative sessions, and sought to know what action it proposes to take on the basis of recommendations made in the reports. 

The PIL sought a CBI probe into the alleged irregularities in Wakf properties and implementation of the Lokayukta report on the issue. The court granted time to the government till August 6, 2021, to submit its response. 

CD-gate: Plea of victim’s father junked
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by the father of the alleged victim in the CD-gate case, allegedly also involving former minister Ramesh Jarkiholi. The father of the victim moved court not to consider her statement recorded by the magistrate.  Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the plea after hearing the arguments of the petitioner’s counsel and Special Public Prosecutor Prasanna Kumar, representing the SIT. He argued that the victim has stated there was no coercion when she gave the statement under Section 164 of CrPC. The father has no locus standi to challenge and evidentiary value of the statement under Section 164 has to be looked into during trial, he argued.