The Karnataka assembly on Wednesday saw the ruling BJP and the opposition members lock horns over the alleged police excesses during the Mangaluru violence that broke out during an anti-CAA protest on December 19, 2019. The trigger for the heated debate in the house was the Karnataka High Court granting bail to the 21 accused in the Mangaluru incident that claimed two lives in police firing.
The house that turned chaotic several times, no doubt, seems to be in a state of confusion over what qualifies as "subjudice".
The leader of opposition, Siddaramaiah, who initiated the discussion on the anti-CAA protests, chose to elaborate on the Mangaluru violence, calling it an exception. "The anti-CAA protests is getting huge with students, intellectuals, activists and academics joining the movement to oppose the new citizenship act. Article 19 Clause 1A of the Constitution allows peaceful protests. In Keshavananda Bharati case, it says no Parliament or state government or government of India can alter the basic principles of the Constitution. In Karnataka, protests were peaceful, but the government chose to impose prohibitory order between December 18 and 22," alleged Siddaramaiah.
The Supreme Court has clearly stated the circumstances under which CrPC Section 144 can be imposed. The authority who gives orders should have adequate information," he added. The high court, in response to a PIL against imposition of Section 144, has ruled that the prohibitory order on December 19, 2019, was not at all legal, he noted.
Law minister J.C. Madhuswamy intervened asking who can to take the call on the legality of imposition of Section 144. "You go to the courts seeking a clarification," suggested Siddaramaiah.
The former chief minister of Karnataka also defended his party colleague and MLA U.T. Khader on the latter's statement that if CAA was implemented the state, it would burn. Citing the Kedarnath Singh versus Bihar case (on IPC 124A-sedition), Siddaramaiah said the courts had clarified under what circumstances sedition charges could be slapped.
Madhuswamy objected to Siddaramaiah defending Khader in the house in a matter that is subjudice, saying it would influence the case.
Siddaramaiah hit back saying he was refering to the case as it was a "false" sedition case being slapped by the BJP government. In response, the law minister reminded that it was the prerogative of the court to decide whether the act amounts to sedition or not.
Siddaramaiah alleged that the police, which gave permission for the protest earlier, did not inform people of the prohibitory order. "No such information was available to the people. The police did this with the ill intention to curb protests, and the people naturally exhibited resistance. The police started lathicharge on passersby all of a sudden in public places. A group of 100-150 people had reached the protest venue and police had outnumbered them," narrated Siddaramaiah, also citing a report by a people's tribunal, headed by retired SC judge Justice Gopala Gowda and comprising journalist Sugata Srinivasraju and advocate BT Venkatesh, which held public hearing on January 6 and 7. "The tribunal observed the situation did not warrant imposition of Section 144," he quoted.
BJP MLA from Karkala and chief whip Sunil Kumar demanded that other matters mentioned in the report like masked men hurling petrol bombs should also be made public. Home minister Basavaraj Bommai said, "In Mangaluru riots, our police have ably handled the situation and there is enough evidence to prove that."
"It is government-sponsored and pre-meditated act says the the court order in the bail plea," said Siddaramaiah, citing Justice John Michael D'Cunha, who had perused the materials furnished by the prosecution. Justice D'Cunha had said that in contrary to the assertions, no material was produced before the court showing the presence of any one of the petitioners in the spot with weapons. Nor was there a Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000 armed with weapons.
Madhuswamy intervened to say the prosecution had not submitted evidence or filed a charge-sheet. "The order in the bail applications cannot be deemed as final decision of the court. It is still under adjudication.And bail is not acquittal," insisted Madhuswamy.
JD(S) leader H.D. Kumaraswamy said, "In that case, it is the failure of the law department as the 21 accused in the Mangaluru violence have got bail. Moreover, the court has made such strong remarks against the police and the government."
The high court in its order has observed that "Overzealousness of Mangaluru city police in handling anti-CAA protests was evident from the fact that they registered FIRs under IPC Section 307 (attempt to murder) against persons they themselves had killed in the firing last year on December 19."
The court has also remarked that the accused involved in alleged violence were identified on the basis of their affiliation to Popular Front of India (PFI) and being members of the Muslim community. "The failure to file FIRs against police officers on the basis of complaints by the victims on basis of cognizable offences shows that a deliberate attempt was under way to cover up police excesses by whimsically implicating the innocents."
