The Supreme Court Collegium in its meeting held on 17th August, 2021 has approved the proposal for appointment of following Additional Judges of the Karnataka High Court as Permanent Judges of that High Court:
On 5 August 2019, Home Minister Amit Shah announced in the Rajya Sabha that the President of India had issued The Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 2019 (C.O. 272) under Article 370, superseding the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order, 1954. The order stated that all the provisions of the Indian Constitution applied to Jammu and Kashmir. Whereas the 1954 order specified that only some articles of the Indian constitution to apply to the state, the new order removed all such restrictions. This in effect meant that the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir stood abrogated.
While few consider this as a masterstroke of correcting the historical blunder, many do not know that Modi Government was contemplating to meet bigger challenge i.e. withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan and re-emergence of Taliban.
Modi Government was clearly aware of the possible regional power shift and that India would be facing extended neighbourhood that would give Pakistan a bigger arena.
The Pentagon announced on 17 November 2020, that it would reduce the number of US forces in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 2,500 by mid-January, i.e. by 15 January 2021, before President Trump’s term of office expires on 20 January 2021.
But Modi’s foreign policy and his relations with world leaders paid huge dividends. Modi government was privy to some of the most sensitive discussions that occurred prior to Pentagon announcement in November 2020.
Today there is a prediction that a new alliance may be coming together with a Taliban led Afghanistan at the core, including China, Russia, Turkey with Qatar and possibly Iran playing supplementary roles. This would be a source of growing concern to India, which is playing much closer to the US.
This was predicted and discussed in closed corridors in the beginning of 2019 itself. The new alliance would’ve been certainly be a golden opportunity for Pakistan and the separatist forces inside India to raise Kashmir issue. The resultant position would’ve been a total disaster.
The decision to secure Jammu and Kashmir within its fold once and for all was made at this juncture. The questionable alliance Modi government had with People’s Democratic Party (PDP) was not without any clear agenda i.e. to save Kashmir.
Though Modi described BJP’s decision to form a government in Jammu and Kashmir PDP as the party’s “mahamilawat”, the stage was already/clearly set. Very few then, and everyone now, know the alliance and the fallout was deliberate.
If the decision to secure J & K within its strong fold was not taken in 2019, by 2024 or even much earlier, the new diabolic alliance would’ve had a field day. Jammu and Kashmir would’ve been unofficially declared by the alliance as new ‘buffer state’ between India and Pakistan. This would’ve been only the beginning of the end i.e. engulfing J & K within the alliance fold.
Those who attacked Modi Government decision were deliberately kept in darkness. The reasons are not very difficult to perceive…….
A Kannadiga who “drafted” the Constitution of India – B.N.Rau (Sir Benegal Narasimga Rau). – A Hero we’ve all forgotten.
Brother of B.Shiva Rau who authored “Framing of the Indian Constitution”
Narsing Rau was born in Mangalore on 26 February 1887 in a family of intellectuals. His father Benegal Raghavendra Rau was an eminent doctor. Narsing Rau passed Matriculation in 1901 from the Canara High School, Mangalore, topping the list of students of the entire Madras Presidency. He stood first in the entire University in the F.A. (Intermediate) examination and gained his degree with First Class marks in English, Sanskrit, and Mathematics. On a scholarship, he proceeded to Trinity College, Cambridge, and took his Tripos in 1909, just missing the Senior Wranglership.
A graduate of the Universities of Madras and Cambridge, Rau entered the Indian civil service in 1910. After revising the entire Indian statutory code (1935–37), he was knighted (1938) and made judge (1939) of the Bengal High Court at Calcutta (Kolkata). His writings on Indian law include a noted study on constitutional precedents as well as articles on human rights in India. He served briefly (1944–45) as Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir state. From February 1952 until his death, he was a judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice, The Hague. Before his election to the court, he was regarded as a candidate for secretary-general of the United Nations.
B. N. Rau was appointed as the Constitutional Adviser to the Constituent Assembly in formulating the Indian Constitution. He was responsible for the general structure of its democratic framework of the Constitution and prepared its original draft.
The Constituent Assembly’s resolution setting up the Drafting Committee, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, declared that it was being set up to “Scrutinise the Draft of the text of the Constitution prepared by the Constitutional Adviser giving effect to the decisions taken already in the Assembly and including all matters ancillary thereto or which have to be provided in such a Constitution, and to submit to the Assembly for consideration the text of the Draft Constitution as revised by the Committee.” There already was a Draft in existence when this Committee was set up.
The President of the Constituent Assembly Rajendra Prasad, before signing the Constitution on 26 November 1949, thanked Rau for having “worked honorarily all the time that he was here, assisting the assembly not only with his knowledge and erudition but also enabled the other members to perform their duties with thoroughness and intelligence by supplying them with the material on which they could work.”
B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka
Recently Supreme Court has come down heavily on the authorities responsible for making appointments to the various tribunals for their failure to fill up vacancies. Two days back, the Supreme Court took the Union Government to task for not ordering appointment of judges to the various High Courts, even though the Supreme Court collegium has made the recommendation a second time, in which event the Government is mandatorily bound to pass orders for appointment. Whenever the question of failure to fill up vacancies of High Court judges arose, the Union Government and the Supreme Court collegium have consistently put the blame on each other. The public have no means to know the true position, as these are confidential communications between the two and the same is not in public domain. However as of now there are 416 posts remaining vacant in various High Courts out of about 1100 sanctioned posts.
Today the newspapers while publishing the news about retirement of Justice Rohington Nariman have reported that as of now there are nine vacancies in the Supreme Court and one more judge is about to retire within few days when the vacancies will be 10 out of sanctioned strength of 34 judges. It is also reported that there has been not a single judge appointed to the Supreme Court during last 22 months, though during this period as many as eight judges retired at intervals. According to convention regarding any vacancy, the Supreme Court collegium is required to recommend name well in advance. Failure of the Supreme Court collegium to send single name for appointment to the Supreme Court during the last 22 months is a matter of grave concern, particularly having regard to huge pendency in the Supreme Court also. For this situation in the Supreme Court now, none can be held responsible except the Supreme Court collegium. It is not a case where the Union Government failed to appoint in spite of the recommendation by the collegium.
It is relevant to recall that the power of selection of judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts vested with the Union Government (according to the provisions of the Constitution) subject to consultation with the Chief Justice of India, right from 1950 till the year 1993. However, a nine judge bench of the Supreme Court by the judgment in the Second Judges case virtually divested the Union Government of this power and invested the same exclusively in the Supreme Court collegium. Thus, the collegium system came to be introduced through this judgment, though the constitution does not provide for it. This judgment was the subject of severe criticism and many felt that the Supreme Court has virtually rewritten the constitution so far as the selection and appointment to the higher judiciary is concerned. The attack on the collegium system came not only from eminent advocates and jurists but also former supreme court judges who were members of the collegium earlier.Consequently there was widespread demand for appointment of a National Judicial Commission for selection of judges to the Supreme Court and the High Courts. After so many years, ultimately, the Union Government acceded to this demand and introduced 99th Constitution Amendment Bill and the NJAC Act for entrusting the power of selection to a Judicial Commission. These were unanimously passed by both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha with only one member dissenting in Rajya Sabha. Soon the Supreme Court entertained a PIL challenging the NJAC Act as also the Constitution Amendment and a Constitution Bench struck down both these enactments on the ground that they impaired the independence of the judiciary which is a basic structure of the Constitution. This judgment was also the subject matter of criticism both for its faulty reasoning as also for enabling continuation of much maligned collegium system which had attracted criticism of favouritism and nepotism.
However the said criticism had no effect on the Supreme Court and collegium system continued with all its evil consequences resulting in accusations that the whole system has failed. This perception of failure is now demonstrated by the developments in the Supreme Court, as the collegium was unable to send even one recommendation for appointment to the Supreme Court resulting in nine vacancies out of 34. None can say that there are no suitable candidates either from the Bench or the Bar to fill up these posts. It is unnecessary to emphasize the urgent need for the Supreme Court to function with full strength, and as many as nine vacancies are too serious a matter to be ignored.
Then what is the solution? In the first place the collegium system which has continued with all short comings has to be discontinued, as its failure is now well demonstrated. The Supreme Court must be gracious enough not only to admit the failure of the system but also realize the serious error committed by it in striking down the NJAC Act and the companion Constitution Amendment. The Supreme Court should be magnanimous enough to own its mistake and review the judgment in NJAC case if necessary, by a larger Bench, thus paving way for NJAC Act to come into force forthwith.
ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವಕೀಲರು ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವಕೀಲರಿಗಿ0ತ ಕೀಳು ಎ0ದು ಠರಾವು ಮಾಡಿದ ಹಿನ್ನೆಲೆಯಲ್ಲಿಯೇ ಈಗ ಸುಪ್ರೀ0 ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಬಾರ್ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಶನ್ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸೇರಿದ0ತೆ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಿಗೆ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವಕೀಲರನ್ನು ನೇಮಿಸಲು ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ತಯಾರಿಸಿದೆ! (ಪಟ್ಟಿಯನ್ನು ನೋಡಿ)
ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರಿಗೆ ಮಾತ್ರ ಈ ರೀತಿ ಅಧಿಕಾರವಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಸುಪ್ರೀ0 ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಬಾರ್ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಶನ್ ಅತ್ಯ0ತ ಅಹ0ಕಾರದಿ0ದ ನಡೆಯುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಯಾರ ಹಿಡಿತವೂ ಇಲ್ಲದ ಈ ಅಸೋಸಿಯೇಶನ್ ಕೆಲವೊ0ದು ಪಟ್ಟಭದ್ರ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿಗಳ ಮನೆಯಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಿಗಳು ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಮು0ದೆ ವೃತ್ತಿ ಮಾಡುತ್ತಿರುವ ವಕೀಲರನ್ನು ದೇಶದ ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಿಗೆ ತು0ಬಲು ತರಾತುರಿ ನಡೆಸಿವೆ.
ಇ0ತಹ ಕಾನೂನು ಬಾಹಿರ ದುರ್ನಡತೆಯನ್ನು ನಾವೆಲ್ಲರೂ ಖ0ಡಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರಾದ ಶ್ರಿ. ಎಲ್. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ ಬಾಬು ಹಾಗೂ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾದ ಶ್ರಿಯುತರಾದ ಬಿ.ವಿ. ಶ್ರೀನಿವಾಸ್, ವಿಶಾಲ್ ರಘು, ಮದುಸೂದನ್ ಹಾಗೂ ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್ ಇವರು ತಾರೀಖು 3 ಆಗಸ್ಟ್ ರ0ದು ಗೌರವಾನ್ವಿತ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರನ್ನು ಭೇಟಿಯಾಗಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿಗೆ ಭೇಟಿ ಕೊಡಲು ವಿನ0ತಿಸಿದರು.
ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯದಿ0ದ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರಾದ ವಕೀಲರ ಚಿತ್ರಗಳನ್ನು ಅನಾವರಣ ಮಾಡಲು ಗೌರವಾನ್ವಿತ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರನ್ನು ವಿನ0ತಿಸಲಾಯಿತು.
ಈ ಸ0ದರ್ಭದಲ್ಲಿ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಇತಿಹಾಸ, ಕಾರ್ಯವೈಕರಿ, ಸಾದನೆಗಳನ್ನು ಅಧ್ಯಕ್ಷರು ವಿವರಿಸಿದರು.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ಹಲಾವಾರು ವಕೀಲರು ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಮುಖ್ಯಮ0ತ್ರಿಗಳೂ ಆಗಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ತಿಳಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಶ್ರಿಯುತರಾದ ಕೆ.ಸಿ.ರೆಡ್ದಿ, ಕೆ0ಗಲ್ ಹನುಮ0ತಯ್ಯ, ಕಡಿದಾಳ್ ಮ0ಜಪ್ಪ, ನಿಜಲಿ0ಗಪ್ಪ, ಬಿ.ಡಿ. ಜತ್ತಿ, ಎಸ್. ಆರ್. ಕ0ಠಿ, ವೀರೇ0ದ್ರ ಪಾಟೀಲ್, ರಾಮಕಷ್ಣ ಹೆಗಡೆ, ಎಸ್. ಆರ್, ಬೊಮ್ಮಾಯಿ, ಎಸ್. ಬ0ಗಾರಪ್ಪ, ವೀರಪ್ಪ ಮೊಯಿಲಿ, ಜೆ.ಹೆಚ್. ಪಟೇಲ್, ಎಸ್. ಎಮ್. ಕೃಷ್ಣ, ಎನ್. ಧರಮ್ ಸಿ0ಗ್, ಸದಾನ0ದ ಗೌಡ, ಜಗದೀಶ ಶೆಟ್ಟರ, ಸಿದ್ದರಾಮಯ್ಯ ಇವರೆಲ್ಲರೂ ವಕೀಲ ವೃತ್ತಿಯಿ0ದ ಪ್ರಾರ0ಭಿಸಿ ಮುಖ್ಯಮ0ತ್ರಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಸೇವೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಶ್ರಿಯುತರಾದ ಕೆ.ಸಿ.ರೆಡ್ಡಿ, ಬಿ.ಡಿ, ಜತ್ತಿ, ರಾಮಾ ಜೋಯಿಸ್, ಎಸ್. ಎಮ್. ಕೃಷ್ಣ ಇವರುಗಳು ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರಾಗಿಯೂ ಸೇವೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕದ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳಾದ ಶ್ರಿಯುತ ಕೆ.ಎಸ್. ಹೆಗಡೆ, ಜಗನ್ನಾಥ ಶೆಟ್ಟಿ, ಇ.ಎಸ್. ವೆ0ಕಟರಾಮಯ್ಯ, ಎಮ್. ಎನ್. ವೆ0ಕಟಾಚಲಯ್ಯ, ಎನ್. ವೆ0ಕಟಾಚಲ, ಶಿವರಾಜ್ ಪಾಟೀಲ್, ರವೀ0ದ್ರ, ವಿ. ಗೋಪಾಲ ಗೌಡ, ಹೆಚ್. ಎಲ್. ದತ್ತು, ಅಬ್ದುಲ್ ನಝೀರ್, ಮೋಹನ ಶಾ0ತನಗೌಡರ ಹಾಗೂ ಎ. ಎಸ್. ಬೋಪಣ್ಣ ಇವರು ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿಗಳಾಗಿ ಸೇವೆ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತು ಕಳೆದ ಹಲವಾರು ದಶಕಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದ ಸಾದನೆ ಹಾಗೂ ವಕೀಲರ ಜ್ನ್ಯಾನಾರ್ಜನೆ, ಕಲ್ಯಾಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಕೈಗೊ0ಡಿರುವ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ರಾಜ್ಯಪಾಲರು ಮೆಚ್ಚುಗೆ ವ್ಯಕ್ತಪಡಿಸಿದರು.
ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಆಹ್ವಾನವನ್ನು ಪರಿಗಣಿಸುವುದಾಗಿ ಗೌರವಾನ್ವಿತ ರಾಜಪಾಲರು ಭರವಸೆ ನೀಡಿದರು.
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಕಾನೂನು ಸೇವಾ ಪ್ರಾದಿಕಾರವು ಇದೇ ತಿ0ಗಳು ತಾರೀಖು 14 ರ0ದು ಬೃಹತ್ ಲೋಕ ಅದಾಲತ್ ಅನ್ನು ಹಮ್ಮಿಕೊ0ಡಿದೆ. ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳ ಸಮುಚ್ಚಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈ ಲೋಕ ಅದಾಲತ ನಡೆಯಲಿದೆ. ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆ ಪೂರ್ವ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ಕಕ್ಷಿದಾರರು ತಮ್ಮ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳ ನಿವಾರಣೆಗೆ ಸ0ಬ0ದಪಟ್ಟ ಕಾನೂನು ಸೇವಾ ಪ್ರಾದಿಕಾರ/ಸಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಆಗಸ್ಟ 14ರ ಮು0ಚೆ ನೇರವಾಗಿ, ಆನ್ ಲೈನ್, ವಿಡಿಯೋ ಸಬೆ, ಇಮೈಲ್, ಎಸ್. ಎಮ್. ಎಸ್ ಸ0ದೇಶ, ವಾಟ್ಸಪ್ ಮುಖಾ0ತರ ಸ0ಪರ್ಕಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿ ಕೋರಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಬಾಕಿ ಇರುವ ಮೊಕದ್ದಮೆಗಳ ಕಕ್ಶಿದಾರರು ತಮ್ಮ ವ್ಯಾಜ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ತ್ವರಿತವಾಗಿ ಹಾಗೂ ಖರ್ಚು ಇಲ್ಲದೆ ಪರಿಹರಿಸಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು ಉಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ, ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಹಾಗೂ ತಾಲೂಕು ಮಟ್ಟದ ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಶ್ವತ ಕಾನೂನು ಸೇವಾ ಸಮಿತಿಗಳನ್ನು ಮೇಲೆ ಹೇಳಿದ ರೀತಿ ಸ0ಪರ್ಕಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿ ಕೋರಲಾಗಿದೆ.
ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಮಾಹಿತಿಗಾಗಿ ಸ0ಪರ್ಕಿಸಿ:
ನ್ಯಾಯ ಸ0ಯೋಗ, ನ್ಯಾಯ ದೇಗುಲ, ಮೊದಲನೇ ಮಹಡಿ, ಹೆಚ್. ಸಿದ್ದಯ್ಯ ರಸ್ತೆ, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು, 560027.
ದೂರವಾಣಿ: 080-22111730
ವೆಬ್ ಸೈಟ್ ವಿಳಾಸ. http://www.kslsa.kar.nic.in
ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ, ಜಿಲ್ಲಾ ಕಾನೂನು ಪ್ರಾದಿಕಾರ
ಕಾರ್ಯದರ್ಶಿ, ತಾಲೂಕು ಕಾನೂನು ಸಮಿತಿ,
ಸಹಾಯವಾಣಿ: 1800-425-90900
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ತಿನ ಸದಸ್ಯರಾದ ಎಸ್. ಬಸವರಾಜ್ ಅವರು ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಇರುವ ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಅರ್ಜಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ಟರ್ಪ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ ಜಾಗವನ್ನು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್, ಮತ್ತು ಲಾ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿಗೆ ನೀಡಲು ಕೋರಿದ್ದಾರೆ. ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ವಕೀಲರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ಅಂಕುರ್ ಕುಲಕರ್ಣಿ ಅರ್ಜಿದಾರರನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿನಿದಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ.
ರಿಟ್ ಅರ್ಜಿ 31200/2009 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ತೀರ್ಪನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಟರ್ಫ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ನ ಮೇಲ್ಮನವಿ ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಿದೆ. ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಈ ತೀರ್ಪಿನ ಪ್ರಕಾರ, ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಟರ್ಫ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ಗೆ ಜಾಗ ಖಾಲಿ ಮಾಡಲು ನಿರ್ದೇಶನ ನೀಡಿದೆ. ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ರೇಸ್ ಕೋರ್ಸ್ ಪ್ರದೇಶವನ್ನು ಮಿನಿ ಸಾಮಾಜಿಕ ಅರಣ್ಯವಾಗಿ ಅಭಿವೃದ್ಧಿಪಡಿಸಲು ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ನಿರ್ದೇಶನ ನೀಡಿದೆ. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಟರ್ಫ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ ಪ್ರದೇಶವು ಸುಮಾರು 80 ಎಕರೆ ಅಳತೆ ಹೊಂದಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ಇದು ನಗರದ ಮಧ್ಯದಲ್ಲಿದೆ.
ಅರ್ಜಿಯ ವಿಷಯಗಳು: – (1) ರಾಜ್ಯದ ಅತ್ಯುನ್ನತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಾದ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ಪೀಠವನ್ನು ಜಾಗದ ಕೊರೆತೆ ಕಾಡುತ್ತಿದೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಗಳು, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಕೋಣೆಗಳು, ಕಚೇರಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಪಾರ್ಕಿಂಗ್ ಸ್ಥಳಗಳಂತಹ ಕೆಲವು ಮೂಲಭೂತ ಸೌಲಭ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಪೂರೈಸಲು ಸ್ಥಳಾವಕಾಶದ ಕೊರತೆಯಿಂದಾಗಿ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಕಟ್ಟಡವು ಬಳಲುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಆಗಿನ ಮುಖ್ಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಮೂರ್ತಿ ಪಿ.ಸಿ. ಜೈನ್ ಮತ್ತು ಅಂದಿನ ಸರ್ಕಾರದಿಂದ ಸಕಾರಾತ್ಮಕ ಪ್ರತಿಕ್ರಿಯೆಯು ಕಬ್ಬನ್ ಪಾರ್ಕ್ ಎದುರು ಹೊಸ ಬ್ಲಾಕ್ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣಕ್ಕೆ ಕಾರಣವಾಯಿತು. ಸಂಪೂರ್ಣ ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ವಿಸ್ತರಣಾ ನಕಾಶೆಯನ್ನು ಅನ್ನು 1995 ರಲ್ಲಿ ತಯಾರಿಸಲಾಯಿತು, ಇದು 2,40,508 ಚದರ ಅಡಿ ವಿಸ್ತೀರ್ಣದಲ್ಲಿ ವ್ಯಾಪಿಸಿದೆ. ಆದಾಗ್ಯೂ, ವಾಸ್ತುಶಿಲ್ಪದ ಸಮಗ್ರತೆಯನ್ನು ಕಾಪಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಲು, ಹೊಸ ಕಟ್ಟಡವನ್ನು ಹಳೆಯ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣದ ನಿಖರವಾದ ಪ್ರತಿರೂಪವಾಗಿ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಅಗತ್ಯವಿರುವ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ಹಾಲ್ಗಳು, ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಕೋಣೆಗಳು, ಕಛೇರಿ ಮುಂತಾದ ಹಲವು ಅಂಶಗಳಿಗೆ ಹೆಚ್ಚಿನ ಅವಕಾಶವಿಲ್ಲದೆ. ಹೊಸ ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ವಿನ್ಯಾಸವು ಹಳೆಯದರೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮಿಳಿತಗೋ0ಡಿದೆ.
(2). ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು, ಧಾರವಾಡ ಮತ್ತು ಕಲಬುರಗಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಧಾರವಾಡ ಮತ್ತು ಕಲಬುರಗಿಯಲ್ಲಿನ ಹೊಸ ಪೀಠಗಳನ್ನು ಕ್ರಮವಾಗಿ 4 ಮತ್ತು 5 ಜುಲೈ 2008 ರಂದು ಉದ್ಘಾಟಿಸಲಾಯಿತು. ಧಾರವಾಡ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಪೀಠ 25 ಆಗಸ್ಟ್ 2013 ರಿಂದ ಶಾಶ್ವತ ಆಗಿ ಮತ್ತು ಕಲಬುರಗಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಪೀಠ 31 ಆಗಸ್ಟ್ 2013 ರಿಂದ ಶಾಶ್ವತ ಆಗಿ ಮಾರ್ಪಟ್ಟಿವೆ.
(3). ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಅನುಮೋದಿತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾದೀಶರ ಸ0ಖ್ಯೆ 62 ಆಗಿದೆ. ಈಗ 47 ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರು ಇದ್ದಾರೆ. ಕೆಲವೇ ತಿ0ಗಳುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಹೊಸ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರನ್ನು ನೇಮಕ ಮಾಡುವ ಸಾಧ್ಯತೆಯಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ಪೀಠದ ಸಭಾಂಗಣಗಳ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆ 38 ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಕೋಣೆಗಳು 40 ಇವೆ. ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿನ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಪೂರ್ಣವಾಗಿ ಕಾರ್ಯನಿರ್ವಹಿಸಲು 62 ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಸಭಾಂಗಣಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಅದೇ ಸಂಖ್ಯೆಯ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಕೊಠಡಿಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರಬೇಕು. ಈಗಿನ ಪರಿಸ್ತಿತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಇದು ಅಸಾದ್ಯ. ಒಂದು ಸಭಾಂಗಣವನ್ನು ಎರಡು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಸಭಾಂಗಣಗಳಾಗಿ ಮಾರ್ಪಡಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ ಮತ್ತು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಧೀಶರ ಕೋಣೆಗಳನ್ನು ಸರದಿ ಕ್ರಮದಲ್ಲಿ ಬಳಸಲಾಗುತ್ತದೆ. ನೆಲಮಾಳಿಗೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸುಮಾರು 60,000 ಚದರ ಅಡಿ ವಿಸ್ತೀರ್ಣವನ್ನು ವಿವಿಧ ಕಚೇರಿಗಳ ಉದ್ದೇಶಗಳಿಗಾಗಿ ಬಳಸಲಾಗುತ್ತಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ಹಿತಾಸಕ್ತಿ ನೆಲಮಾಳಿಗೆಯ ಬಳಕೆಯನ್ನು ಪ್ರಶ್ನಿಸಿದೆ. ಈ ಪ್ರದೇಶವನ್ನು ಖಾಲಿ ಮಾಡಿದರೆ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ಪೀಠಕ್ಕೆ ಇನ್ನೂ 60,000 ಚದರ ಅಡಿ ಅಗತ್ಯವಿದೆ.
(4) ಕಬ್ಬನ್ ಪಾರ್ಕ್ ಎದುರಿಸುತ್ತಿರುವ ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿನ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದ ಕಟ್ಟಡವು ಹೊಸ ಕಟ್ಟಡವಾಗಿದೆ. ಆದಾಗ್ಯೂ, ತಾಂತ್ರಿಕವಾಗಿ ಹೊಸ ಅನೆಕ್ಸ್ ಕಟ್ಟಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಯಾವುದೇ ಹೆಚ್ಚುವರಿ ಮಹಡಿಗಳನ್ನು ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲು ಸಾಧ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಈಗಿನಂತೆ, ಹಳೆಯ ಕಟ್ಟಡದೊಂದಿಗೆ ಮಿಳಿತ ಮಾಡಲು ನೆಲ ಮತ್ತು ಮೊದಲ ಮಹಡಿಯನ್ನು ಮಾತ್ರ ನಿರ್ಮಿಸಲಾಗಿದೆ.
(5) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್ 1961 ರಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥಾಪನೆಯಾದರೂ ತನ್ನದೇ ಸ್ಥಳ / ಕಟ್ಟಡದ ಹುಡುಕಾಟದಲ್ಲಿತ್ತು. ಈಗಿನ ಹಳೆಯ ಚುನಾವಣಾ ಆಯೋಗದ ಕಟ್ಟಡವನ್ನು ಷರತ್ತಿಗೆ ಒಳಪಟ್ಟು ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ. ಒ0ದು ಲಕ್ಷಕ್ಕೂ ಹೆಚ್ಚು ವಕೀಲರನ್ನು ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಸುವ ಪ್ರಧಾನ ಶಾಸನಬದ್ಧ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಯಾಗಿರುವ ಪರಿಷತ್ ತನ್ನದೇ ಆದ ಕಟ್ಟಡವನ್ನು ಕೋಣೆಗಳು, ಕಚೇರಿಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಸಭಾಂಗಣಗಳೊಂದಿಗೆ ಹೊಂದಿರಬೇಕು. ಆದರೆ ಈಗ ಇದು ಸಾದ್ಯವಿಲ್ಲ. ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿ ತನ್ನ ಕಾರ್ಯಕ್ರಮಗಳನ್ನು ನಡೆಸಲು ಸ್ಥಳವಿಲ್ಲ.
(6) ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ಕ್ಯಾಬಿನೆಟ್ ಈಗಾಗಲೇ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಟರ್ಫ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ ಅನ್ನು ಸ್ಥಳಾಂತರಿಸಲು ನಿರ್ಧರಿಸಿದೆ. ಇಡೀ ಭೂಪ್ರದೇಶ 85 ಎಕರೆ ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಸೇರಿದೆ. ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ಟರ್ಫ್ ಕ್ಲಬ್ನ ಸ್ಥಳಾಂತರ ಸನ್ನಿಹಿತವಾಗಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ ಈ ವಿಷಯ ಈಗ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಲ್ಲಿದೆ. ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಕೀರ್ಣ ನಿರ್ಮಾಣಕ್ಕಾಗಿ ಇಡೀ ಪ್ರದೇಶವನ್ನು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗಕ್ಕೆ ನೀಡಬಹುದು ಮತ್ತು ಒ0ದು ಕೋಟಿ ಚದರ ಅಡಿ ನಿರ್ಮಿತ ಪ್ರದೇಶವನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರಬಹುದು. ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರಿನ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳನ್ನು ಕಟ್ಟಡದಲ್ಲಿ ಸ್ಥಳಾವಕಾಶ ಕಲ್ಪಿಸಬಹುದು. ಈ ಕಟ್ಟಡವು ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಉಚ್ಚನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಬೆ0ಗಳೂರು ಪೀಠ, ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ರಾಜ್ಯ ವಕೀಲರ ಪರಿಷತ್, ವಕೀಲರ ಅಕಾಡೆಮಿ, ವಕೀಲರ ಸಂಘ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಕ್ರಿಮಿನಲ್ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಕಾರ್ಮಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಕೌಟು0ಬಿಕ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ, ಮತ್ತು ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು, ಸಭಾಂಗಣಗಳು, ಸಭೆ ಸಭಾಂಗಣಗಳು, ವಕೀಲರಿಗಾಗಿ ಕೋಣೆಗಳು ಸೇರಿದಂತೆ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ಅತ್ಯಾಧುನಿಕ ರಚನೆಯಾಗಿರಬಹುದು.
(7) ಈಗ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳು ಬೆಂಗಳೂರು ನಗರದಾದ್ಯಂತ ಹರಡಿಕೊಂಡಿವೆ. ಒಂದು ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯದಿಂದ ಮತ್ತೊ0ದಕ್ಕೆ ತಲುಪುವುದು ದುಃಸ್ವಪ್ನವಾಗಿದೆ. ಸಮಗ್ರ, ಸಂಯೋಜಿತ ಮತ್ತು ಏಕೀಕೃತ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಕೀರ್ಣವೊ0ದೇ ಶಾಶ್ವತ ಪರಿಹಾರವಾಗಿದೆ. ಎಲ್ಲಾ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಸ ಜಾಗಕ್ಕೆ ಸ್ಥಳಾಂತರಿಸಿದರೆ, ಪ್ರಸ್ತುತ ನಗರದಲ್ಲಿ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗಳ ಸ್ವಾದೀನದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಸುಮಾರು 20,00,000 ಚದರ ಅಡಿಗಳನ್ನು ಸರ್ಕಾರಕ್ಕೆ ಲಭ್ಯವಾಗುವಂತೆ ಮಾಡಬಹುದು. ಆಟ್ಟಾರ ಕಚೇರಿಯನ್ನು ವಸ್ತುಸಂಗ್ರಹಾಲಯವಾಗಿ ಪರಿವರ್ತಿಸಬಹುದು ಮತ್ತು ಕಬ್ಬನ್ ಪಾರ್ಕ್ ಎದುರು ಇರುವ ಕಟ್ಟಡವನ್ನು ಕಾನೂನು ಸಚಿವಾಲಯ ಮತ್ತು ಇತರ ಇಲಾಖೆಗಳಿಗೆ ಬಳಸಬಹುದು.
(8) ನ್ಯಾಯಾಂಗ ಸಂಸ್ಥೆಗೆ ಸಾಕಷ್ಟು ಸ್ಥಳಾವಕಾಶ ಮತ್ತು ಮೂಲಸೌಕರ್ಯಗಳನ್ನು ಹೊಂದಿರುವ ಸ್ವಂತ ಸ್ವತಂತ್ರ ಕಟ್ಟಡಗಳನ್ನು ಒದಗಿಸಬೇಕಾಗಿದೆ. ಈ ವಿಷಯದಲ್ಲಿ ಸರ್ವೋಚ್ಚ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯ ಹಾಗೂ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ಒಳ್ಳೆಯ ನಿರ್ಧಾರ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತದೆ ಎ0ದು ಆಶಿಸೋಣ.
B.V.Acharya, Senior Advocate and former Advocate General for Karnataka.
In view of the continued and large scale misuse of the law of sedition (section 124A of IPC),of late there has been public debate and discussion on this topic. While many persons have been pleading for repeal of the said provision, few have been advocating for its retention on the ground that its repeal will encourage anti-national elements to incite hatred and contempt against the Government established by law leading to violence and law and order problem.
It is useful to refer to the origin of the enactment of this law in India. It is in the year 1870 that this provisions (Section 124A) was inserted in the Indian Penal Code by Act 27 of 1870. It is significant to note that this provision was inserted by the British Government sometime after the Sepoy Mutiny which is considered by some as first war of independence, the whole object of the provision was to terrorise people who were revolting against the British Government and were demanding freedom. The provision was thus aimed at helping the British Government to continue colonial rule in the country without any rebellion or protest by the local people. This provision is thus a colonial legacy.
The gist of the offence is any act which results in bringing hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction towards the Government established by law in India. It is specified that dissatisfaction includes disloyalty and feelings of enemity. Without doubt, the whole object was to make it punishable offence for Indian people who show disloyalty to the British Government or exhibit hatred or contempt towards it. Though by way of explanation it is clarified that any disapprobation of Government measures by lawful means is not an offence, the same had little effect of diluting the culpability expressed in the main section. The object of the provision is amply demonstrated by the fact that many leaders of the freedom movement including the Father of the Nation were tried and punished under this provision resulting in their long term imprisonment.
The object of this provision did not survive, once India got its independence and the colonial rule of the British came to an end. However, the provision still continues to be on the statute book even today, and the ruling parties have been misusing this provision to threaten and silence criticism of the Government by opposition parties. No party which came to power thought of repealing the same as it served the interest of the Government of the day.
Now a writ petition has been filed before the Supreme court challenging the validity of the provision on the ground that it violates fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression.
On an earlier occasion in the year 1962 the constitutional validity of the said provision was challenged before the Supreme Court on similar grounds. A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity interpreting the provision in the context of explanation to the said section and holding that it is only when the action has tendency to create public disorder or disturbance of law, that the section gets attracted and that any criticism of the Government, however strongly worded without inciting violence does not amount to an offence. The same view has been reiterated in subsequent rulings. Notwithstanding the same, law enforcing agencies ignoring them have been misusing the provision to please political masters.
The Bench of the Supreme Court presided over by the Hon’ble Chief Justice has now advised the Union government to revisit the law. In my opinion, in a democratic country like India where freedom of speech and expression finds a predominant position such as Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code can have no place. In a democracy, there is bound to be criticism of the government which may lead to hatred, contempt or dissatisfaction towards it. The same cannot be an offence and misuse of this provision to silence this criticism is highly objectionable. To take care of acts of violence and law and order problem, there are other laws in the statute book. Hence no case for retention of this provision is tenable
I hope the Government of India will take note of the overwhelming public opinion as also prima facie opinion of the Supreme Court and take immediate steps to repeal this very much misused provision.
S. Basavaraj, Member, Karnataka State Bar Council
Advocates boycotting courts hurts no one except their own clients. Bar Associations call for boycott of courts for reasons which are not fully justifiable. We abstain from courts and cause immense damage to our clients who would’ve traveled many miles leaving their business or agricultural work to give evidence. Boycotting courts will not serve any purpose whatsoever.
Members of the Bar can convey their strongest protest in better ways. Symbolic protest by leaders of the Bar would convey the message more effectively.
In this regard please the order of the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Contempt of Court case number 8 of 2021 which is self explanatory.
12:3:2021. This is a suo motu proceeding for criminal contempt on account of the alleged breach of directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Ex.Capt.Harish Uppal .v. Union of India and Others . There are a large number of instances in the recent past where Bar Associations in Districts and/or Taluks have taken recourse to boycotting the Courts. Notwithstanding the pronouncement of law by the Apex Court in the case of Ex.Capt.Harish Uppal (supra) and in the case of Krishnakant Tamrakar .v. State of Madhya Pradesh , the members of some of the Bar Associations have taken recourse to boycotting the Courts.
2. Due to the pandemic, arrears in all the Courts have multiplied. Moreover, there is a direction issued on the administrative side to dispose of all old cases in a time bound manner. As noted in the order dated 11th February, 2021, the object of initiating suo motu contempt proceedings against the Bar Associations is not to penalize anyone, but to ensure that the law laid down by the Apex Court is respected and implemented by the members of the Bar.
3. There cannot be any dispute that the members of the Bar are the most important stake holders in the judicial system. The system can function efficiently only with their co-operation. It is the duty of the Judges and the members of the Bar to make all possible efforts to achieve the object for which the institution of the Judiciary exists. The said object is to render expeditious and effective justice to the common man. The members of the Bar have a right to make protest. But, there are other methods of making a protest. By taking recourse to abstaining from the Court work, the litigants suffer.
4. We issue notice to the accused returnable on 12th April, 2021.
5. It will be appropriate if the learned Advocate General appears and assists the Court. We are seeking the assistance of the learned Advocate General as he is the leader of the Bar by virtue of his constitutional position.
6. The Registrar (Judicial) will forward copies of the contempt petition and a copy of this order to the learned Advocate General to enable him to appear and assist the Court. Needless to add that during the pendency of this petition, it will be always open for the learned Advocate General to hold meetings with the concerned Bar Associations with a view to persuade them to give an assurance to abide by the law laid down by the Apex Court.
12:4:2021. 1. Shri H.Pavan Chandra Shetty, the learned counsel representing the respondents states that the respondents will tender an apology and give an undertaking not to violate the law laid down by the Apex Court. He states that Shri H.V.Vishal Raghu, the learned Member of the Karnataka Bar Council is personally present in the Court and he has taken the initiative to explain to the members of the Bar, the correct legal position.
2. We have also shown the report dated 9th April 2021 submitted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mandya addressed to the Registrar General of this Court to the learned counsel representing the office bearers of the Bar Association at Mandya.
3. The learned Advocate General rightly submitted that if the members of the Bar who are the respondents in the contempt petitions tender apology and agree to abide by the law, the proceedings can be dropped. In fact, paragraph 2 of the order dated 12th March 2021 itself records that the purpose of initiating the suo motu contempt proceedings against the office bearers of the Bar Associations was not to penalise anyone but, to ensure that the law laid down by the Apex Court is respected and implemented by the members of the Bar.
4. The learned counsel representing the members of the Bar from Mandya states that the members of the Bar have been active and they have always taken up the public causes. While everyone will appreciate the proactive role played by the members of the Bar for helping the society at large, it is their duty to ensure that the functioning of the Court is not affected in any manner. If the functioning of the Court is affected, it is the common man who suffers.
5. To enable the learned counsel for the respondents to file the statements on oath, these petitions shall be listed under the caption of Orders on 22nd April 2021 at 10.30 a.m.
7:6:2021. Only the tenth respondent/tenth accused is represented by an advocate. He states that the tenth accused will file an affidavit.
The first accused is present along with certain other accused through video conferencing. As of today, he is not in a position to take a clear stand whether he wants to justify the conduct on the basis of which the present proceedings have been initiated. He, however, states that due to lockdown, he and other accused could not come down to Bengaluru and therefore, they may be granted time to file statement of objections.
Only because a prayer is made for adjournment on the ground that the accused want to take legal advice that we finally grant time to all the accused to file statement of objections till 20th July 2021.
List the petition on 22nd July 2021
Daksha Legal