Karnataka - Bangalore

Accused in contempt case writes to court

Staff Reporter

HIGH COURTROUND-UP

BANGALORE: The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday received a letter from a resident of Bangalore against whom it had initiated contempt proceedings saying that the two judges constituting a Division Bench, which is hearing a case involving him and his wife, are biased.

Justice R. Gururajan, senior judge of the Bench, asked the State Public Prosecutor to open the letter and hand it over to him. He said his personal assistant had received his personal assistant and that it was being opened by the SPP.

The letter by Professor A. Santhanam, who is currently in Ethiopia in Africa, said that Justice Gurarajan and the other judge in the Bench Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy, were biased against him and that they could not continue to hear the case.

The SPP, who is assisting the court in the contempt proceedings against Prof. Santhanam, said the Professor had written to judges who were earlier hearing the case against him.

He said the accused had written to Justice S.R. Bannurmath when he was heading the Bench with Justice Subash B. Adi.

The SPP submitted that the Professor had levelled allegations against the judges and the High Court. He said the court had directed the police to serve a warrant on Mr. Santhanam.

He said the help of International Police Organisation (Interpol) had been sought to serve the warrant on Prof. Santhanam and his wife Shanti.

He said the High Court had initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against Prof. Santhanam and his wife for writing a letter in which they had levelled scandalous allegations against the judges.

He urged the Bench not to take note of the letter and continue with the proceedings.

Justice Gururajan, speaking for the Bench, said although this was an attempt to delay the hearing of the case and an effort to throw "mud" at Judges, he said it would be appropriate if the case were placed before the Chief Justice.

The Chief Justice could decide whether the same Bench could proceed with the case or another Bench could be constituted.

The SPP then filed a memo detailing the list of properties owned by the accused. He said a direction to the police to list the properties of the accused had been passed earlier and that he was only complying with it.

Contempt petition

against Kumaraswamy

A Division Bench comprising Justice R. Gururajan and Justice C.R. Kumaraswamy on Wednesday adjourned to Monday a criminal contempt case against Chief Minister H.D. Kumaraswamy.

The petitioner, A.V. Amarnathan, a Bangalore-based advocate, had filed the contempt petition, saying that the Chief Minister had defamed members of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) by his utterances against them.

He said the media had carried reports in which Mr. Kumaraswamy had used strong language against the KERC members.

He said the Advocate-General had rejected permission to him to initiate contempt proceedings.

The Bench sought to know from Mr. Amarnathan whether KERC was a court and whether the consent of the Advocate-General was mandatory under Section 15 of the Contempt of Court Act and adjourned further hearing on the case.

BMP polls

The State Government on Wednesday told the Karnataka High Court that the law mandated the Government to conduct delimitation proceedings before holding elections to a local body.

Making these submissions, the Principal Government Advocate said that the delimitation process of the areas that were sought to be merged with the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike were on and that elections to the newly created body would be held once the delimitation was completed.

The court was hearing petitions by the former Mayor P.R. Ramesh and the former councillor Nagaraj seeking expeditious elections to the BMP and against the appointment of an administrator.

The advocate told a Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice, Cyriac Joseph, and Justice B.S. Patil that there was no mala fide on the part of the Government in postponing elections.

Hearing today

The Bench, while adjourning the case to Thursday, asked the Government to counter the petitioners' argument that the process of constituting a greater Bangalore authority had been deliberately delayed and that the appointment of an Administrator could not stand the test of the law.

© Copyright 2000 - 2009 The Hindu