Karnataka High Court Directs Constitution Of Inquiry Commission Into Alleged Assault By Police At Suvarna Soudha

The Karnataka High Court has directed the constitution of the Commission of Inquiry into the alleged assault by the police at Suvarna Soudha, Belagavi in December last year.

The Dharwad Bench was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by four members of the Panchamasali Community, seeking a direction to constitute a Commission of Inquiry as contemplated under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 for enquiring into the police action taken on December 10, 2024 against them and others who were said to have been holding a peaceful protest.

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed, “The inquiry is to be conducted, but by whom is the question. It cannot be by any State agency, as the Police Officers of the State themselves are alleged of assaulting the petitioners in the incident of the day. Therefore, in the considered view, the entire fulcrum of the lis becomes a classic illustration where an appointment of a commission of inquiry, one man or a multi member, under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, need to be constituted for enquiring into the allegations of the incident of the day.”

Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadagi and Advocate Pooja R. Savadatti appeared on behalf of the Petitioners while Advocate General Shashikiran Shetty appeared on behalf of the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioners were the members of Panchamasali Community who were said to have undertaken peaceful protest all over the area requesting the Government to implement the Government Order (G.O.) dated March 27, 2023. It was their case that in terms of the G.O., members of certain sections of the Society were accorded reservation and the Petitioners and the like were denied. The said G.O. was challenged before the Supreme Court in which the State undertook that it would not implement the G.O. until further Orders of the Apex Court. The Petitioners being beneficiaries of the said G.O. made several representations to all the concerned including the Chief Minister (CM) to take necessary steps for implementation of the G.O.

The 1st Petitioner, pontiff who sphere headed the agitation personally met the CM. No response from the State led the members of the community to peacefully protest the apathy of the Government when the same was in winter session at Belagavi. The Petitioners represented to the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi seeking permission to protest who passed an Order prohibiting all vehicles coming towards Suvarna Soudha in the wake of protest. Later he modified the said Order, not permitting the Petitioners to protest. This was challenged before the High Court, which permitted the peaceful protest at Belagavi except that the protestors would not come in tractors and create a law-and-order problem. Thereafter, close to 10,000 persons assembled in Kondaskoppa Village which was about 1.5 kms. from Suvarna Soudha and held a meeting as a prelude to the protest march.

Several members of Legislative Assembly also participated in the meeting and emphasized on the need for the Government’s intervention to address the matter. Some of the members wanted to go to Suvarna Soudha for submitting their representation and hence, they decided to peacefully walk towards Suvarna Soudha and assemble there and request the CM to consider the representation. When things stood thus, it was alleged that the Police machinery charged towards the members assembled there preventing them from approaching Suvarna Soudha and ordered lathi charge totally unprovoked which resulted in grave injuries to several members of the crowd assembled at the said place. Hence, the Petitioners sought an inquiry into the ordering of lathi charge by the Additional Director General of Police.

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, said, “… it is not the case of the State that the petitioners were holding any arms. The protest has gone wrong and going wrong of the protest necessitates an inquiry, as Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. is invoked in spur of moment and lathi charge has also taken place on the spur of the moment.”

The Court also referred to the Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Police Commissioner v. Yash Pal Sharma (2008) in which it held that the protest was peaceful as all the demonstrators or protestors were without any arms and were holding a peaceful march.

The Court, therefore, issued a mandamus to the Respondents i.e., the State authorities to constitute a Commission of Inquiry in terms of 1952 Act on the subject matter and further ordered that the appointed Commission of Inquiry should be single member or a multi member headed by a retired Judge of the High Court.

“The Commission of Inquiry so appointed shall submit its report within three months of such appointment. … The other reliefs sought would remain subject to the report of the inquiry. … The State shall place its decision on the Inquiry report before this Court in due course”, it further directed.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Writ Petition and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- Sri Jagadguru Basava Jaymrityunjay Swamiji & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. [Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.107792 OF 2024 (GM-RES)]

Appearance:

Petitioners: Senior Advocate Prabhuling Navadagi, Advocates Pooja R. Savadatti, and Sanjeevini Navadagi.

Respondents: AG Shashikiran Shetty, AAG Gangadhar J.M., and AGA Sharad V. Magadum.

Click here to read/download the Judgment