Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka high court orders full disclosure of status report | Bengaluru News

122465066.jpg


Bengaluru stampede: Karnataka high court orders full disclosure of status report
File photo: Footwears lie on the ground outside the Chinnaswamy Stadium following the stampede (Picture credit: PTI)

BENGALURU: Stating that no national security or public interest is involved in keeping documents in a sealed cover, Karnataka high court mandated the disclosure of the June 12 status report on the June 4 M Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede, which claimed 11 lives.The court ordered that the report, along with translations submitted by the state government, should be included in court records and shared with other respondents, Karnataka State Cricket Association, Royal Challengers Bengaluru, and DNA Entertainment Pvt Ltd, and dismissed the previous sealed cover arrangement requested by advocate-general Shashikiran Shetty.A division bench led by acting Chief Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice CM Joshi issued a detailed order after considering submissions of parties involved. The court held Shashikiran Shetty’s arguments as insufficient since sealed cover proceedings are limited to cases involving public interest, national security or privacy rights.The court rejected the govt’s argument that disclosure would influence the magisterial inquiry/judicial commission, noting that this concern doesn’t align with established parameters for sealed cover proceedings. The bench emphasised that neither a retired high court judge nor an all-India service officer heading these inquiries would be susceptible to influence from the state’s status report.The court initiated these proceedings to understand the tragedy’s causes and future preventive measures. The bench felt sharing the report would enable respondents to assist the court better in understanding the facts and circumstances of the June 4 incident.The court also agreed with the assertion that these proceedings don’t fall under Section 192(5) of BNSS, eliminating grounds for investigative confidentiality. It concurred with the submission that the facts presented won’t change after the inquiry reports.





Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *