BENGALURU: The Karnataka High Court on Thursday sought a response from the state government on the constitution of a committee to oversee implementation of the five guarantee schemes, conferring cabinet minister rank on the president and state minister status on vice-presidents of the committee.
A division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun issued notice to the state government, HM Revanna, president of the Guarantee Scheme Implementation Committee, and vice-presidents SR Patil Byadagi, Dr Pushpa Amarnath and Meharaj Khan. The court sought a response from them, after hearing the petition filed by P Rajeev, former sub-inspector and social activist from Belagavi, questioning the government order dated January 25, 2024, and two other orders dated July 24, 2024.
Senior counsel Aruna Shyam, representing the petitioner, argued that the impugned orders were issued to constitute the committee to oversee implementation of the schemes. The government has proceeded to constitute state-level, district-level and taluk-level guarantee schemes implementing committees, as well as the BBMP guarantee schemes implementing committee.
The counsel also submitted that the content of the impugned order shows that the president and vice-presidents, member and member secretary are to be part of the implementing authorities. The president is given cabinet-rank status and vice-presidents have got state minister status. Those appointed as chairman and vice-chairman are neither cabinet ministers nor ministers of state.
The appointees are political workers of the party who are given these posts, he argued. Shyam argued that these appointees are conferred cabinet-rank salary, pecuniary benefits and perks payable to ministers.
He submitted that not only was the nature of the appointment and manner it was done highly objectionable, but the appointees are play a pivotal role in implementing schemes which are of high public importance and benefit, pointing out that it is a burden on the state’s exchequer.
STATE GETS HC NOTICE OVER WITHDRAWAL OF CASES AGAINST 43 INFLUENTIAL PERSONS
Acting on a PIL challenging the decision taken to direct the Prosecution Department to withdraw criminal cases registered against 43 influential persons, including former ministers, MLAs, and presidents of several organisations, against the opinion of the prosecution and law departments that they are not fit to be withdrawn, the HC issued notice to the state government on Thursday.
A division bench of Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice MI Arun issued notice to the Departments of Home, Prosecutions and Government Litigation, and Law after hearing a petition filed by lawyer Girish Bharadwaj, questioning the order dated October 15, 2024, directing the prosecution department to withdraw 43 cases registered between 2008 and 2023.
Advocate Venkatesh P Dalwai argued that imposing prosecution to withdraw the cases against 43 influential persons is contrary to Section 321 of the CrPC, and also the law laid down by the Supreme Court, as the discretion of withdrawal of cases lies with the prosecutor on case-to-case basis, with the consent of the court.
The cases to be withdrawn involve serious offences such as punishment for unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint, trespass, dacoity, etc., under the provisions of the IPC, Damage to Public Property Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Destruction of Property Act, and Religious Institution (Prevention of Misuse) Act.