The Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge Congress leader Sirajuddin alias Siraj Sheik in an alleged case of hurling casteist abuses at party colleague and former MLA Bhima Naik.
File photo of the Karnataka High Court.The Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge Congress leader Sirajuddin alias Siraj Sheik in an alleged case of hurling casteist abuses at party colleague and former MLA Bhima Naik. Dismissing Sheik’s plea challenging a trial court order, Justice M Nagaprasanna Friday observed, “When a politician or their legions hurl caste-laden abuses at a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes in a public place, it is not merely an insult directed at an individual but is an affront to the constitutional promise of equal citizenship.”He further said, “Dignity is not a concession bestowed by the powerful upon the marginalised; it is an inviolable constitutional entitlement of every citizen.” Sheikh had sought discharge in a 2023 case filed under Section 504 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(r) (punishments for atrocities) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case was filed based on a complaint by Bhima Naik’s nephew Manjunath S L. In the complaint, three alleged instances were highlighted wherein the accused allegedly hurled casteist abuses at Bhima Naik. Court’s observations Appearing for Sheik, Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta argued that the complaint should not be entertained because it was lodged by the alleged victim’s nephew and was, therefore, based on hearsay. Representing Manjunath, Advocate KBK Swamy countered the submission by contending that the abuses were admittedly hurled at three public places, not just one.Story continues below this ad The bench noted that the accused was not oblivious of the victim’s caste and said, “Knowledge of that circumstance, therefore, cannot prima facie be brushed aside as either absent or accidental.” “A political dais cannot be converted into a platform for caste humiliation, nor can the din of political rivalry drown the constitutional guarantee of dignity,” it added. The bench pointed out that words uttered at political gatherings do not remain confined between the speaker and the person against whom they are directed; instead, they acquire a distinctly public character. Directing the accused to face trial, the bench noted, “Where the defence requires the court to decipher disputed facts, assess eyewitness testimony and weigh electronic evidence, the answer lies in a trial and not in premature termination of the prosecution.”Story continues below this ad “The Constitution of India has banished untouchability and promised equality, dignity and fraternity; yet, regrettably, the poison of caste sometimes finds expression even in the conduct of those who occupy positions of political power,” the high court stated.
The Court should assure itself and citizens that all projects, big or small, infrastructure or otherwise, should comply with the environmental norms.(Illustration: C R Sasikumar/File) In the early years of Indian Independence, there was no precise environmental policy. The Constitution of India had a few provisions regarding the environment, though the word “environment” was not expressly mentioned. In 1976, Parliament drew upon the commitment made by India at the UN Conference on Human Environment held at Stockholm. The views expressed at the Stockholm Conference form the core of the environmental philosophy of India that has found expression in various statutes and policy pronouncements. These provisions were inserted in the Constitution by the Constitution (forty-second amendment) Act, 1976 (the Amendment Act), which included Article 48A and Article 51A (g).Article 48A is a directive principle of state policy. It advises the state that while framing laws or executing policy decisions, it should endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country. Article 51A is a separate provision under Part IVA providing for fundamental duties of citizens. It says that it shall be the duty of every citizen to protect and improve the natural environment. The Amendment Act introduced a host of provisions, starting from amendments to the Preamble. Some of its provisions became highly controversial, both substantively and in the political and constitutional context as internal Emergency was then in force. Shanti Bhushan, one of India’s most prominent lawyers, became the law minister when a new government came to power in 1977. There was clamour all around that all the amendments should be removed lock, stock and barrel. It is to his eternal credit that, notwithstanding his sharp political disagreement with the outgoing PM and despite overwhelming public demand, he did not touch many of the provisions. Though we had the statutory framework before and after the Stockholm Conference, it is the Bhopal gas leak tragedy of 1984 that really galvanised the Supreme Court into action. In Union Carbide vs Union of India, the Supreme Court developed the doctrine of absolute liability. This is based on the principle that when an enterprise involves inherently dangerous activity and harm results to anybody because of a mishap relatable to the enterprise or activity, the enterprise would be obligated to repay each one of the injured or affected individuals. The polluter pays principle was introduced by the Rio Summit of 1982 and was applied for the first time in India in the case of Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action Vs. Union of India. In the case of Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum vs Union of India, the Supreme Court declared that the precautionary principle includes three major conditions: the state must anticipate, prevent and attack the cause of environmental degradation. It is a preventive principle based on precaution. In my dissenting judgment in Confederation of Real Estate Developers of India (CREDAI) vs Vanashakti, which reviewed the original Vanashakti judgment, I have said that the precautionary principle is the cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence. Polluter pays is only a principle of reparation. In other words, if at all there has to be a grading of the environmental principles, precautionary principle has to be placed above the principle of polluter pays. The principle of sustainable development means that the state must make efforts to maintain a balance between the environment and development. In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum, the Supreme Court held that the precautionary principle and polluter pays principle are essential features of sustainable development. Sustainable development has come to be accepted as a part of customary international law. In the case of M.C. Mehta vs Kamal Nath, famously known as the Span Motel case, the Supreme Court developed the concept of the p
Discussion (0)