Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit, J., quashed the criminal proceedings against 9 foreign nationals belonging to the Tablighi Jamaat while directing FRRO to issue exit permits with imposing a fine and the undertaking to not visiting India for next ten years.

Present petitions challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings inter alia under the provisions of the Foreigners Act, 1946 for the violation of VISAS in question.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the initiation of criminal proceedings is on a wrong assumption of a jurisdictional fact namely the nature of VISA.

Further, he added that the State is proceedings on a demonstrably wrong premise that the VISAS in question are all Tourist VISAS when they are not.

Central Government holds the power to relieve the foreigners of the criminal action after accepting the fine amounts in terms of the extant norms and therefore, that benefit needs to be extended to the accused.

Decision

Bench observed that there is no dispute as to the 9 of the 16 accused being foreigners who gained entry to India on the basis of VISAS in question.

Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 criminalizes violation of the conditions of VISA and prescribes punishment of imprisonment that may extend to 5 years and also unlimited fine.

Hence in view of the above, the case thus only revolves around one factor namely the nature of VISA.

Accused’s travel documents show that the VISAS in question granted to them answer the description of and bear the nomenclature “e-Tourist Visa”.

“E-VISAS are granted only for the specified purposes and not granted for any other purpose, the missionary activities such as propagation of religion, participating in religious congregation and proselytization are not entitled as the permissible activities.”

Adding to the above, the Court stated that there is no specific prohibition in the Visas in question for preaching religious principles in the Tablighi congregation, hence what is not provided for in the Visa, is deemed to be impermissible.

Court held that there is absolutely no justification for the allegation of the petitioners that the criminal proceedings initiated by respondent-police, with the prejudice generated by the Media propaganda and for the statistical purpose of the State, there is no iota of material for entertaining such baseless grievance.

Bench laid down the following directions:

  • FRRO is directed to issue exit permits to the petitioners and ensure their exit from the country.
  • Petitioners shall pay the fine amounts and file an undertaking to the effect that they would not visit this Country within the next 10 years.[Farhan Hussain v. State, Criminal Petition No. 2376 of 2020, decided on 05-08-2020]
Case BriefsCOVID 19High Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Aravind Kumar and M.I. Arun, JJ., addressed the matter wherein the notification issued by the Karnataka Examination Authority was questioned and stay on the same was sought.

What does the KEA Notification says?

KEA had issued the Time Table for conducting Common Entrance Test-2020 on 30-07-2020, 31-07-2020 and 01-08-2020.

High Court’s decision, dated 28-07-2020:

“During the last two weeks, everyday, more than 5,000 COVID-19 positive cases are being detected in the State and more than 2,000 cases are being detected in the city of Bengaluru. It is reported that more than 5,000 areas in the city of Bengaluru have been declared as containment zones apart from the containment zones in the other cities.

SOP of the State Government dated 17th April 2020 clearly lays down that no one is allowed to leave the containment zones. Moreover, the public transport will not be available. It is also contended that some students from other States will also be appearing for CET. It is true that the petitioners have approached the Court belatedly. However, there is a drastic change in the situation everyday. We, therefore, direct the State Government to immediately reconsider the decision of holding CET considering the aforesaid aspects.

The State Government shall place its decision on record tomorrow (29th July 2020).”

Petitioners proposed that the CET-2020 examination would result in pushing the candidates to the risk of COVID-19 and they being infected and students as well as their parents who are in the containment zones would not be permitted to come out of their homes as it would be contrary to the Standard Operating Procedure issued.

Bench on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the matter, cleared that it is not expressing or opining the cancellation or postponement of the CET-2020 examination.

In accordance to the SOP extended for conducting the CET-2020 examination, separate rooms have been provided for COVID-19 positive candidates and it is also stated that the candidates should inform COVID-19 status to the examination authorities well in advance.

Candidates have also been asked to produce a certificate certifying them that they are fit to write the examinations.

Court observes that it cannot lose sight of the fact that more than 1,84, 368 students have already downloaded the hall tickets for attending the examination scheduled to commence from 30-07-2020 which clearly indicates their interest and preparedness of the students who did not approach the Court.

Bench, however, made it clear that on no ground whatsoever, a candidate shall be prevented from attending the examination scheduled to be held from 30-07-2020 and all logistic support shall be extended by the State to ensure such of the candidates who require medical attention, transportation, food and other facilities.

Transportation to Candidates

State shall also ensure that all necessary instructions and information is issued to the authorities for ensuring that no candidate and/or parents and guardians accompanying them are prevented from proceeding from their place of residence/stay to examination centre on account of same being contaminated zone or otherwise.

On case to case basis State shall also provide transportation to candidates who may be in need of such transportation.

If a candidate fails to furnish that he/she is fit to write the examination, then the same can be a ground to prohibit them from taking up the examination.

Executive Director, Sri Venkata Raja submitted that the SOP would be uploaded to the web portal of Karnataka Examination Authority. [Abdulla Mannan Khan v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 8916 of 2020, decided on 29-07-2020]


Also Read:

Breaking | Karnataka HC denies to stall Karnataka Common Entrance Test (KCET); CET to be conducted as scheduled

Hot Off The PressNews

Supreme Court: The bench of Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha Bose, JJ  has dismissed a plea by a district judge challenging the appointment of a ‘junior’ judicial officer as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court and seeking a stay on his swearing-in contending that it breaches the seniority rule.

The bench took up the matter through video conferencing at 10 am, just half an hour before the scheduled swearing-in of judicial officer Padmaraj N Desai as an additional judge of the Karnataka High Court and dismissed it saying the Court cannot entertain such plea at the eleventh hour. The Court said that it generally does not interfere with the President’s order on appointment of judges at the eleventh hour.

Shivamogga principal district judge RKGMM Mahaswamiji has challenged the appointment of judicial officer Padmaraj N Desai as additional judge of the Karnataka High Court on the ground of seniority. The plea of Mahaswamiji said,

“It is a case of superseding/passing over of a senior District judge (who was appointed on February 25, 2008, under reserve category ie., schedule caste) by junior district judge and recommendation of Respondent No. 11 (P N Desai) by the collegium of Karnataka High Court is unlawful, arbitrary, and in clear violation of statutory rules / administrative instructions contained in the official memorandum dated October 9, 1985, and involved bias of malafide and it clearly violated the functional rights guaranteed to the Petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.”

He had said that if the interim relief of staying the swearing-in ceremony of judicial officer Padmaraj N Desai as an additional judge of Karnataka High Court is not granted then the purpose of the petition will be defeated and it may cause failure of complete justice and clear infraction of fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

According to the notification issued by the registrar general of the Karnataka High Court, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar, Justice Makkimane G Uma, Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar and Justice Padmaraj N Desai, were to take oath of additional judges of Karnataka High Court at 10.30 am.

(Source: PTI)

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints S/Shri (1) Shivashankar Amarannavar, (2) Smt. Makkimane Ganeshaiah Uma, (3) Vedavyasachar Srishananda, (4) Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, and (5) Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai, to be Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court, in that order of seniority, for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 30-04-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium Statement

Supreme Court Collegium has approved the proposal for elevation of the following Judicial Officers as Judges of the Karnataka High Court:

  1. Shri Shivashankar Amarannavar,
  2. Smt. M. Ganeshaiah Uma,
  3. Shri Vedavyasachar Srishananda,
  4. Shri Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, and
  5. Shri Padmaraj Nemachandra Desai.


Supreme Court of India

[Collegium Statement dt. 20-04-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

President appoints the following Additional Judges to be Judges of Karnataka High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.:

(i) Mohammad Nawaz,

(ii) Harekoppa Thimmanna Gowda Narendra Prasad,

(iii) Ashok Golappa Nijagannavar,

(iv) Hethur Puttaswamygowda Sandesh, and

(v) Krishnan Natarajan 


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 21-02-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 05-02-2020 approved the proposal for appointment of following five Additional Judges of Karnataka High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:

1. Shri Justice Mohammad Nawaz,
2. Shri Justice H.T. Gowda Narendra Prasad,
3. Shri Justice Ashok G. Nijagannavar,
4. Shri Justice Hethur P. Sandesh, and
5. Shri Justice Krishnan Natarajan


[Collegium Statement dt. 05-02-2020]

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Appointment of Additional Judges as Judges of Karnataka High Court

President is pleased to appoint S/Shri Justices:

(1) Dixit Krishna Shripad,

(2) Shankar Ganapathi Pandit,

(3) Ramakrishna Devdas

(4) Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna Shyam Prasad,

(5) Siddappa Sunil Dutt Yadav,

Additional Judges to be Judges of the Karnataka High Court with effect from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.


Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 02-01-2020]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Order of Appointment of 4 Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court

President is pleased to appoint the following four to be the Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court in the order of seniority for a period of two years with effect from the date they assume of their respective offices:

  • Singapuram Raghavachar Krishna Kumar
  • Ashok Subhashchandra Kinagi
  • Suraj Govindaraj 
  • Sachin Shankar Magadum

Ministry of Law and Justice

[Notification dt. 19-09-2019]

Appointments & TransfersNews

Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ., recommends the appointment of Justice A.S. Oka as Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court.

Mr Justice A.S. Oka is the senior-most Judge from Bombay High Court and is functioning in that High Court since his elevation. Having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium finds Mr Justice A.S. Oka suitable in all respects for being appointed as Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

While making the above recommendation the Collegium is conscious of the fact that consequent upon the proposed appointment, there will be two Chief Justices from Bombay High Court which is the second largest High Court in the country with a sanctioned strength of 94 Judges.

[Dated: 08-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Supreme Court of India

Appointments & TransfersNews

Proposal for the appointment of Dr. (Smt.) Shashikala Moody Anandappa Urankar, Judicial Officer as Judge of the Karnataka High Court.

On the basis of material on record and having regard to all relevant factors, the Collegium comprising of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and S.A. Bobde and N.V. Ramana, JJ.,  is of the considered view that the proposal for the elevation of Dr. (Smt.) Shashikala Moody Anandappa Urankar, Judicial Officer, deserves to be remitted to the Karnataka High Court. The Collegium resolves to recommend accordingly.

[Notification dt. 01-04-2019]

Collegium Resolutions

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in  exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of  Article 224 of the Constitution of India, appointed S/Shri Mohammad Nawaz and Harekoppa Thimmanna Gowda Narendra Prasad, to be Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court, in that order of seniority,  for a period of two years with from the date they assume charge of their respective offices.

Ministry  of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The President in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (1) of Article 222 of the Constitution of India, after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, transferred Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, as the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court and directed him to assume charge of the office of the Chief Justice of the Karnataka High Court on or before 20th February, 2018.

Ministry  of Law and Justice

Appointments & TransfersNews

The  President in  exercise   of  the  powers  conferred   by  clause  (1)  of  Article  224  of  the Constitution   of  India,   appointed   S/Shri   (i) Dixit  Krishna Shripad,  (ii)  Shankar   Ganapathi   Pandit,  (iii)  Ramakrishna   Devdas   (iv)  Bhotanhosur Mallikarjuna   Shyam  Prasad,   and  (v) Siddappa   Sunil  Dutt  Yadav,  to  be  Additional Judges  of  the  Karnataka   High  Court,  in that  order  of  seniority,   for  a period  of two years with effect  from the date they assume  charge  of their offices.

Ministry   of Law  and  Justice