The accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder case have moved the Karnataka High Court alleging Constitutional violations and custodial torture..The writ petition filed through Advocate Amruthesh NP and Virendra Ichalkarnjikar has raised various grievances against both judicial and police authorities in this regard. The petition has been filed on behalf of four accused, i.e. Sujith Kumar, Manohar Edave, Amole Kale and Amit Ramchandra Degvekar. However, it has been contended that accused KT Naveen Kumar has also undergone similar legal violations..All five persons have been accused of being complicit in the murder of journalist-turned-activist, Gauri Lankesh outside her home in September last year..The various violations and irregularities alleged in the petition include the following..Denial of Right to Legal Aid.The petitioners have contended that they were not appropriately informed by the Magistrate of their right to have a lawyer of their choice, appear for them. On various occasions, they were allegedly prevented from meeting their lawyers while in police custody. In this context, the petition also cites violation of Articles 22(1) and 39A of the Constitution..“… ultimately no advocate of the choice of the arrestee was made available… [for] the arrestees including the petitioners and Mr. K.T. Naveen kumar on the first remand as well as on subsequent remands.”.Custodial Torture.In this regard, the experiences of three petitioners, Sujith Kumar, Manohar Edave and Amole Kale have been emphasised..In Edave’s case, the advocates are said to have noted several injuries on his person when they were finally allowed to meet him on May 27, while he was in police custody. On this day, Edave told the advocates that he had been beaten up and thereafter given painkillers. As per his account, he was taken to a private hospital instead of being treated at a government hospital..With respect to Sujith, the petition makes reference to remand proceedings which took place on May 31. During the proceedings, Sujith appears to have informed the Court that he had been beaten up while in custody. The petition contends that the authorities refused to take action despite Sujith’s testimony. However, media reports recording these allegations of assault have been annexed for the Court’s attention..In the case of Amole Kale, the advocates noted that during the remand proceedings which took place on June 14, he had a bruise on his left cheek. No such bruise had been noticed on previous occasions, including on June 11 when advocate Amruthesh had the occasion to meet Kale. The bruise was also absent when Amruthesh’s colleague met Kale the next day..Kale told Amruthesh that he was severely beaten while in police custody. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that his legs have swollen up from custodial torture..A separate affidavit filed by Amruthesh contends that the Magistrate hearing the remand on June 14 was reluctant to record Kale’s injuries, on the ground that he was not the regular judge who usually heard the case. Commenting on the these remand proceedings, the affidavit states,.“…there was a complete lack of seriousness. The whole matter was handled in most casual, routine manner. An attempt was clearly made to shed off the responsibility and liability of an order/proceeding.”.On repeated insistence, the injuries were recorded. However, no action was taken thereafter. In this background, it has been remarked,.“The reluctance of the Magistrate may also arise only from the reason that this is an infamous case and if that is the case, it is quite serious and it is nothing else but getting influenced by what the media publishes, what the people think..If it is not arising out the said influence, then it is all the more serious for the only reason that it shows the casual, mechanical, cavalier and skin-saving approach of the Learned Magistrate.“.Lamenting on the plight on the petitioners, the petition states,.“Firstly, they had nobody to whom they can tell what happened to them. When the petitioners were tortured by police and threatened not to disclose anything before the magistrate, they had nobody to take guidance. They were helpless in the Court. They had no knowledge of the Court proceedings. .Another important fact was that two of the petitioners being Amol Kale and Amit Degvekar not knowing Kannada language could not understand the court proceedings and the formats they were compelled to sign on.”.Remand Proceedings are in complete and utter violation of the directions of the Supreme Court.Taking strong objection to the general manner in which the remand proceedings have been taking place with respect to all of the accused, the petition has prayed that departmental action be taken against the concerned Magistrates, including the 1st ACMM, 5th ACMM, 44th ACMM and 3rd ACMM, Bengaluru (Respondents No. 3 to 6 respectively)..As per the petition, the remand proceedings conducted by these Magistrates are in square violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines. As alleged in the petition, the orders in the case were made in a routine, mechanical manner without application of mind..On one occasion, the remand hearing for Sujith was conducted in-chambers by the Magistrate, without informing his lawyer. In this regard, the petition makes reference to the remand hearing on the morning of May 28 in the Magistrate’s chambers, which was conducted without informing the advocate. Citing this episode, the petition argues,.“Conducting the hearings of remand in closed chambers and that too at odd hours shows that either the Resp. No. 6 had lost sight of her duties and wanted to work as a part of investigating agency. Resp. No. 6 thus conspired with the police to deny/violate the rights of the petitioner or conducted the remand proceedings in a very casual, mechanical manner, acting just as a rubber stamp for the police….…The petitioner does not know when the remand proceedings started and ended. He was not produced before the Magistrate in its strict sense. He was just standing in the Court room and taken out the court hall. This fact itself says a lot.“.As per the petition, a representation calling for necessary action against the Magistrates was also filed on June 13 with the Registrar General of the High court..Relief Sought.Direction to the State to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to each petitioner/accused, for failing to provide necessary legal aid.Initiate departmental inquiries against the concerned Magistrates for dereliction of duty as well as for contempt of the Supreme Court.In view of the apprehension that such violations may be rampant in other similar cases, the petition has also suggested that procedure/guidelines be devised for the police and the Magistrate to follow, where the arrested/ accused is not represented by an advocate when brought before the court.It has also been prayed that the State be directed to publicise the rights of arrested, in public interest.Further, prayer has also been made to direct the National/State Human Rights Commission be directed to devise a plan to ensure the implementation of these rights..Read Writ Petition:.Read Affidavit filed on custodial torture of Accused, Amol Kale:
The accused in the Gauri Lankesh murder case have moved the Karnataka High Court alleging Constitutional violations and custodial torture..The writ petition filed through Advocate Amruthesh NP and Virendra Ichalkarnjikar has raised various grievances against both judicial and police authorities in this regard. The petition has been filed on behalf of four accused, i.e. Sujith Kumar, Manohar Edave, Amole Kale and Amit Ramchandra Degvekar. However, it has been contended that accused KT Naveen Kumar has also undergone similar legal violations..All five persons have been accused of being complicit in the murder of journalist-turned-activist, Gauri Lankesh outside her home in September last year..The various violations and irregularities alleged in the petition include the following..Denial of Right to Legal Aid.The petitioners have contended that they were not appropriately informed by the Magistrate of their right to have a lawyer of their choice, appear for them. On various occasions, they were allegedly prevented from meeting their lawyers while in police custody. In this context, the petition also cites violation of Articles 22(1) and 39A of the Constitution..“… ultimately no advocate of the choice of the arrestee was made available… [for] the arrestees including the petitioners and Mr. K.T. Naveen kumar on the first remand as well as on subsequent remands.”.Custodial Torture.In this regard, the experiences of three petitioners, Sujith Kumar, Manohar Edave and Amole Kale have been emphasised..In Edave’s case, the advocates are said to have noted several injuries on his person when they were finally allowed to meet him on May 27, while he was in police custody. On this day, Edave told the advocates that he had been beaten up and thereafter given painkillers. As per his account, he was taken to a private hospital instead of being treated at a government hospital..With respect to Sujith, the petition makes reference to remand proceedings which took place on May 31. During the proceedings, Sujith appears to have informed the Court that he had been beaten up while in custody. The petition contends that the authorities refused to take action despite Sujith’s testimony. However, media reports recording these allegations of assault have been annexed for the Court’s attention..In the case of Amole Kale, the advocates noted that during the remand proceedings which took place on June 14, he had a bruise on his left cheek. No such bruise had been noticed on previous occasions, including on June 11 when advocate Amruthesh had the occasion to meet Kale. The bruise was also absent when Amruthesh’s colleague met Kale the next day..Kale told Amruthesh that he was severely beaten while in police custody. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that his legs have swollen up from custodial torture..A separate affidavit filed by Amruthesh contends that the Magistrate hearing the remand on June 14 was reluctant to record Kale’s injuries, on the ground that he was not the regular judge who usually heard the case. Commenting on the these remand proceedings, the affidavit states,.“…there was a complete lack of seriousness. The whole matter was handled in most casual, routine manner. An attempt was clearly made to shed off the responsibility and liability of an order/proceeding.”.On repeated insistence, the injuries were recorded. However, no action was taken thereafter. In this background, it has been remarked,.“The reluctance of the Magistrate may also arise only from the reason that this is an infamous case and if that is the case, it is quite serious and it is nothing else but getting influenced by what the media publishes, what the people think..If it is not arising out the said influence, then it is all the more serious for the only reason that it shows the casual, mechanical, cavalier and skin-saving approach of the Learned Magistrate.“.Lamenting on the plight on the petitioners, the petition states,.“Firstly, they had nobody to whom they can tell what happened to them. When the petitioners were tortured by police and threatened not to disclose anything before the magistrate, they had nobody to take guidance. They were helpless in the Court. They had no knowledge of the Court proceedings. .Another important fact was that two of the petitioners being Amol Kale and Amit Degvekar not knowing Kannada language could not understand the court proceedings and the formats they were compelled to sign on.”.Remand Proceedings are in complete and utter violation of the directions of the Supreme Court.Taking strong objection to the general manner in which the remand proceedings have been taking place with respect to all of the accused, the petition has prayed that departmental action be taken against the concerned Magistrates, including the 1st ACMM, 5th ACMM, 44th ACMM and 3rd ACMM, Bengaluru (Respondents No. 3 to 6 respectively)..As per the petition, the remand proceedings conducted by these Magistrates are in square violation of the Supreme Court’s guidelines. As alleged in the petition, the orders in the case were made in a routine, mechanical manner without application of mind..On one occasion, the remand hearing for Sujith was conducted in-chambers by the Magistrate, without informing his lawyer. In this regard, the petition makes reference to the remand hearing on the morning of May 28 in the Magistrate’s chambers, which was conducted without informing the advocate. Citing this episode, the petition argues,.“Conducting the hearings of remand in closed chambers and that too at odd hours shows that either the Resp. No. 6 had lost sight of her duties and wanted to work as a part of investigating agency. Resp. No. 6 thus conspired with the police to deny/violate the rights of the petitioner or conducted the remand proceedings in a very casual, mechanical manner, acting just as a rubber stamp for the police….…The petitioner does not know when the remand proceedings started and ended. He was not produced before the Magistrate in its strict sense. He was just standing in the Court room and taken out the court hall. This fact itself says a lot.“.As per the petition, a representation calling for necessary action against the Magistrates was also filed on June 13 with the Registrar General of the High court..Relief Sought.Direction to the State to pay compensation of Rs 1 lakh to each petitioner/accused, for failing to provide necessary legal aid.Initiate departmental inquiries against the concerned Magistrates for dereliction of duty as well as for contempt of the Supreme Court.In view of the apprehension that such violations may be rampant in other similar cases, the petition has also suggested that procedure/guidelines be devised for the police and the Magistrate to follow, where the arrested/ accused is not represented by an advocate when brought before the court.It has also been prayed that the State be directed to publicise the rights of arrested, in public interest.Further, prayer has also been made to direct the National/State Human Rights Commission be directed to devise a plan to ensure the implementation of these rights..Read Writ Petition:.Read Affidavit filed on custodial torture of Accused, Amol Kale:
