Editorji is a popular short video news and information platform based in India. It was founded in 2018 by Vikram Chandra, one of India’s leading journalists, and has risen to prominence in the digital news space in a relatively short span of time. The platform is primarily designed for mobile devices, with applications available for Android and iOS.

ABOUT US:

about us editorji

Latest Video News: Editorji provides the latest news video headlines, latest videos clip from India and the World. Get all breaking news videos on Entertainment, Business, Coronavirus, Elections, Politics and more.

Latest Video News, Breaking News, Bollywood, Political, Sports, Business News | Editorji

+91 11 4035 6666 / info@editorji.com
3rd floor, Plot B, Khasara no 360, Sultanpur, New Delhi, Delhi 110030
<a title="mail to us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Send Feedback</a>
<a title="Contact Us" href="mailto:info@editorji.com">Contact Us</a>

REACH US

Contact for any questions, suggestions, comments, feedback or advertisement on Editorji.com, we are always looking forward to hearing from you.

Contact Us for Feedback, Suggestions and Advertising 

Editorji content is better experienced in our app.

The convict, who has been identified as Anand from Kolar, was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case by a trial court in 2019. However, in 2023, the high court reduced his sentence to 10 years.

Karnataka High Court grants 30-day parole to murder convict to help wife conceive child   

The convict, who has been identified as Anand from Kolar, was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case by a trial court in 2019. However, in 2023, the high court reduced his sentence to 10 years.

Karnataka High Court recently granted a 30-day parole to a 28-year-old murder convict so that he can help his wife conceive a child.
The court's order came after his wife filed a plea, expressing her desire to have a kid with him. Granting parole to the accused from June 4 to Jule 4, Justice SR Krishna Kumar asked the convict to appear before the jurisdictional police once weekly.
Judge Kumar also allowed the woman to seek an extension of his husband's parole, which would be considered based on the conduct of the convict while he is out on parole.
"(The convict's) wife seeks parole only on the ground that they got married on 11.04.2023 (during the previous parole period) and she is deprived of her right of progeny. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to grant the husband of the petitioner general parole for a period of 30 days", the court said, according to the Bar and Bench outlet.&nbsp;
The convict, who has been identified as Anand from Kolar, was sentenced to life imprisonment in a murder case by a trial court in 2019. However, in 2023, the high court reduced his sentence to 10 years.
He got married to his wife in April last year after the Court allowed his temporary release from prison for the marriage.

The court cited a 2018 US court case, People vs Sandez, where pepper spray was deemed dangerous and rejected the plea. 

Pepper spray is dangerous weapon: Karnataka High Court in recent ruling

Pepper spray us dangerous weapon: Karnataka High Court in recent ruling

The court cited a 2018 US court case, People vs Sandez, where pepper spray was deemed dangerous and rejected the plea.&nbsp;

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday ruled that pepper spray is a "dangerous weapon" and declined to halt investigations into a criminal case involving a director of C Krishnaiah Chetty &amp; Sons (CKC &amp; Sons), C Ganesh Narayan, and his wife, Vidya Nataraj, as reported by The Financial Express.&nbsp;
As per the report, the case stemmed from an incident on April 29, 2023, where a criminal complaint was filed against the director and his wife for allegedly using pepper spray on a man who purportedly tried to interfere with their property. The court was considering a petition seeking to quash the criminal proceedings.&nbsp;
However, during the hearing, it was argued by the counsel representing the director and his wife that the pepper spray was used in self-defence, citing a knee injury sustained for which they had filed a criminal complaint.
In response to the argument, a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition, stating that "The 2nd petitioner could not have used pepper spray as private defence, as prima facie there was no imminent threat or danger caused to her life. Therefore, the case at hand would require investigation in the least,", the outlet said citing Live Law.
The court cited a 2018 US court case, People vs Sandez, where pepper spray was deemed dangerous and rejected the plea.&nbsp;
Also watch: <a href="https://www.editorji.com/elections/lok-sabha/priyanka-gandhi-calls-out-pm-modi-s-strange-claims-on-congress-manifesto-1715162238915">Priyanka Gandhi calls out PM Modi's 'strange' claims on Congress' manifesto</a>

The man was rushed to a hospital where he is undergoing treatment. The reason behind his action was not immediately known.

Man slits his throat in front of Chief Justice in Karnataka High Court

The man was rushed to a hospital where he is undergoing treatment. The reason behind his action was not immediately known.

A man tried to end his life on the premises of Karnataka High Court on Wednesday by allegedly slitting his throat with a knife in front of Chief Justice Nilay Vipinchandra Anjaria in Court Hall One, police said.
According to the police, Srinivas, who reportedly hails from Mysuru, handed over a file to security staff at the entrance of Court Hall One, and before anyone could realise what was happening, he had slit his own throat in the presence of Chief Justice Anjaria.
The security personnel responded immediately and rushed Srinivas to Bowring Hospital, where he is now under treatment, a senior police officer said.
"We don't know why he took such an extreme step. He entered Court Hall One and slit his throat with a knife. Our security staff deployed inside saw it happen and immediately rescued him. He is hospitalised," he said.
No suicide note was found at the spot, he added.
Chief Justice Anjaria expressed concern about the security lapse on the high court premises and asked those in charge how the man managed to being a sharp object inside court. He also ordered police to conduct a panchnama (record of findings and evidence) of the spot and told them not to touch the knife.
The contents of the file that Srinivas gave to the security staff are unknown, and the court has said it would not check the documents as it was not presented to court by a designated advocate.
The high court also said that the authorities must not receive any documents without the court's order.
Police are still ascertaining the reason for the man's suicide attempt and are waiting to record his statement once he is declared fit by doctors.

The message in Hindi, Urdu and English allegedly threatened to kill Muralidhar and six judges of the High Court including Justice Mohammed Nawaz, Justice HT Narendra Prasad among others.

Report: death threat issued to 6 Karnataka HC judges, PRO; sender wants...

The message in Hindi, Urdu and English allegedly threatened to kill Muralidhar and six judges of the High Court including Justice Mohammed Nawaz and Justice HT Narendra Prasad among others.

Six Karnataka High Court judges and the public relation officer of the court have allegedly received death threats, as per the Indian Express.
The accused sent a message threatening to kill the judges and the officer on the latter&rsquo;s WhatsApp number on July 12 through a &lsquo;Dubai Gang&rsquo;.
Following this, an FIR in the matter was registered on July 14 by the Central CEN Crime Police against unknown persons.
In the threatening message, the accused demanded to deposit Rs 50 lakh in Pakistan-based ABL Allied Bank Limited. A bank account number was also shared to which the money had to be deposited.
A probe into the matter has been launched. More details awaited.&nbsp;

Bengaluru metro pillar mishap: K'taka High court takes  suo motu in the case

Bengaluru metro pillar mishap: K'taka High court takes  suo motu in the case

Bengaluru metro pillar mishap: K'taka High court takes suo motu in the case

Following the fatal incident, 3 Bengaluru metro officials were suspended in connection with the case.

The Karnataka High Court on Friday took cognizance in the Bengaluru metro pillar collapse case that killed a 28-year-old techie and her two-year-old son on January 10, 2023. The under-construction metro pillar fell on a bike that the woman and her child were riding on. The pillar, made of metal rods, was about 40 feet high.
Following the fatal incident, 3 Bengaluru metro officials were suspended in connection with the case.
Meanwhile, officials from Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) Hyderabad surveyed and inspected the raw materials to corroborate evidence on what caused the cage to fall.

In a landmark order, the Karnataka High Court allowed framing of rape charges against a husband. The order came even as the Delhi High Court is dealing with petitions challenging the exception provided to husbands in the Indian Penal Code regarding rape.
The Karnataka High Court reportedly said that "marriage does not confer... any special male privilege or license for unleashing of a brutal beast". The court reportedly said that "a brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, albeit by the husband" has to be termed rape.
The High Court also reportedly added that it was not talking about criminalisation of marital rape, and that this was an issue for the legislature to consider. The court reportedly asked lawmakers to ponder over legal provisions which make women and men unequal, and wives subordinate to their husbands.
In February this year, the Union government was reportedly asked by the Delhi High Court to "bite the bullet" on the issue of marital rape. The central government had reportedly submitted that it would take a stand on the issue after consultation with states, Union Territories, and other stakeholders. The Delhi High Court had said that it cannot adjourn the matter "endlessly".

Marital rape debate: Why rape charge order against a husband by Karnataka HC is significant

Why rape charge order against a husband by Karnataka HC is significant | Marital rape debate


&nbsp;
In a landmark order, the Karnataka High Court allowed framing of rape charges against a husband. The order came even as the Delhi High Court is dealing with petitions challenging the exception provided to husbands in the Indian Penal Code regarding rape. The Karnataka High Court reportedly said that "marriage does not confer... any special male privilege or license for unleashing of a brutal beast". The court reportedly said that "a brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, albeit by the husband" has to be termed rape. The High Court also reportedly added that it was not talking about criminalisation of marital rape, and that this was an issue for the legislature to consider. The court reportedly asked lawmakers to ponder over legal provisions which make women and men unequal, and wives subordinate to their husbands. In February this year, the Union government was reportedly asked by the Delhi High Court to "bite the bullet" on the issue of marital rape. The central government had reportedly submitted that it would take a stand on the issue after consultation with states, Union Territories, and other stakeholders. The Delhi High Court had said that it cannot adjourn the matter "endlessly".
============================================
CAPTIONS Karnataka High Court's landmark order Rape charges allowed against husband Marriage not license to unleash beast: HC Order amid marital rape debate in Del hi HC

<div>The court reportedly said that "a brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, albeit by the husband" has to be termed rape.</div>

In a landmark order, the Karnataka High Court allowed framing of rape charges against a husband.&nbsp;The order came even as the Delhi High Court is dealing with petitions challenging the exception provided to husbands in the Indian Penal Code regarding rape.
The Karnataka High Court reportedly said that "marriage does not confer... any special male privilege or license for unleashing of a brutal beast".&nbsp;The court reportedly said that "a brutal act of sexual assault on the wife, against her consent, albeit by the husband" has to be termed rape.
Also Watch|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/criminalisation-of-marital-rape-could-open-floodgates-of-false-cases-centre-1643471968014" target="_blank">Criminalisation of marital rape could open floodgates of false cases: Centre</a>
The High Court also reportedly added that it was not talking about criminalisation of marital rape, and that this was an issue for the legislature to consider.&nbsp;The court reportedly asked lawmakers to ponder over legal provisions which make women and men unequal, and wives subordinate to their husbands.
In February this year, the Union government was reportedly asked by the Delhi High Court to "bite the bullet" on the issue of marital rape.&nbsp;The central government had reportedly submitted that it would take a stand on the issue after consultation with states, Union Territories, and other stakeholders.&nbsp;The Delhi High Court had said that it cannot adjourn the matter "endlessly".

The three Karnataka High Court judges, including the Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, who delivered the hijab verdict will be provided Y category security by the state govt following death threats to them, Chief Minister Basavraj Bommai announced on Sunday
One person has been arrested in Tamil Nadu in connection with case. 
Stating that his government has taken the matter seriously, the CM has ordered the Director General of Police to look into the case and take the person arrested in Tamil Nadu into custody for investigation, and questioned the silence of 'pseudo seculars' on the matter.
A FIR was registered by Vidhana Soudha Police on Saturday against an unknown individual over a video clip circulating on social media platforms of a man speaking in Tamil and issuing death threats to the three judges.
A three-judge bench of the court consisting of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi had on March 15 dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim girl students, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.

After death threats, 'Y category' security to HC judges who delivered hijab verdict

The three Karnataka High Court judges, including the Chief Justice, who delivered the hijab verdict will be provided Y category security by the state govt following death threats to them

The three Karnataka High Court judges, including the Chief Justice Ritu&nbsp;Raj Awasthi,&nbsp;who delivered the hijab verdict&nbsp;will be provided Y category security by the state govt following death threats to them, Chief Minister Basavraj&nbsp;Bommai&nbsp;announced on Sunday
One person has been arrested in Tamil Nadu&nbsp;in connection with case.&nbsp;
A FIR was registered by Vidhana Soudha Police on Saturday against an unknown individual over a video clip circulating on social media platforms of a man speaking in Tamil and issuing death threats to the three judges.
A three-judge bench of the court consisting of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi had on March 15 dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim girl students, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.

A FIR was registered by Vidhana Soudha Police on Saturday against an unknown individual over a video clip circulating on social media platforms of a man speaking in Tamil and issuing death threats to the three judges.

The three Karnataka High Court judges, including the Chief Justice Ritu&nbsp;Raj Awasthi,&nbsp;who delivered the hijab verdict&nbsp;will be provided Y category security by the state govt following death threats to them, Chief Minister Basavraj&nbsp;Bommai&nbsp;announced on Sunday
One person has been arrested in Tamil Nadu&nbsp;in connection with case.&nbsp;
Stating that his government has taken the matter seriously, the CM has ordered the Director General of Police to look into the case and take the person arrested in Tamil Nadu into custody for investigation, and questioned the silence of 'pseudo seculars'&nbsp;on the matter.
A FIR was registered by Vidhana Soudha Police on Saturday against an unknown individual over a video clip circulating on social media platforms of a man speaking in Tamil and issuing death threats to the three judges.
Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/on-camera-hijab-row-udupi-muslim-girls-to-fight-on-karnataka-hc-ruling-challenged-in-supreme-court-1647352222661">On camera | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim girls to fight on; Karnataka HC ruling challenged in Supreme Court</a>
A three-judge bench of the court consisting of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi had on March 15 dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim girl students, seeking permission to wear hijab inside the classroom.

The Udupi Muslim girls whose petitions seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classrooms were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court said on Tuesday they will not go to college without hijab and fight the case legally till they get "justice".
They also claimed the verdict was 'unconstitutional'.
"We had approached the High Court seeking permission to wear hijab in the classrooms. The order has come against us. We will not go to the college without hijab but we will fight for it. We will try all the legal ways. We will fight for justice and our rights," one of the girls said in a press conference in this coastal town.
"The verdict which came today is unconstitutional...the constitution itself provides us (our rights) to follow my religion and whatever I can wear," the girl stated and also referred to a government order on February 5 banning any cloth that disturbed peace, harmony and public order on the campus.
According to them, the circular came only after they approached the HC.
Accusing the government of 'creating an issue' by issuing a circular, the girls alleged it was done to create pressure.
"How much issue they made! Oh my God! They made an issue for all the colleges. They have denied education to all the girls. This was done to create pressure...," the girl charged.
She reiterated that Hijab was an essential part of her religion
ALSO WATCH: Hijab row verdict: Karnataka HC dismisses Muslim girls' plea, says hijab not essential to Islam

On camera  | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim girls say their fight will continue despite Karnataka HC verdict

Muslim girls' petitions seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classrooms were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court.

On camera | Hijab row: Udupi Muslim girls to fight on; Karnataka HC ruling challenged in Supreme Court

<div style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font-style: inherit; font-variant: inherit; font-weight: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-size: 12pt; line-height: inherit; font-family: Calibri, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline; color: #000000; background-color: #ffffff;">The Karnataka High Court verdict upholding a ban on hijab inside classrooms has reportedly been challenged in the Supreme Court.</div>

The Karnataka High Court's verdict upholding a ban on hijab inside classrooms has reportedly been challenged in the Supreme Court. The petitioner is reportedly not from among those who had filed the original petition in the Karnataka High Court.
The Udupi Muslim girls whose petitions seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classrooms were dismissed by the Karnataka High Court said on Tuesday they will not go to college without hijab and fight the case legally till they get "justice".
They also claimed the verdict was 'unconstitutional'.
"We had approached the High Court seeking permission to wear hijab in the classrooms. The order has come against us. We will not go to the college without hijab but we will fight for it. We will try all the legal ways. We will fight for justice and our rights," one of the girls said in a press conference in this coastal town.
"The verdict which came today is unconstitutional...the constitution itself provides us (our rights) to follow my religion and whatever I can wear," the girl stated and also referred to a government order on February 5 banning any cloth that disturbed peace, harmony and public order on the campus.
According to them, the circular came only after they approached the HC.
Accusing the government of 'creating an issue' by issuing a circular, the girls alleged it was done to create pressure.
"How much issue they made! Oh my God! They made an issue for all the colleges. They have denied education to all the girls. This was done to create pressure...," the girl charged.
She reiterated that Hijab was an essential part of her religion
ALSO WATCH:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-verdict-karnataka-hc-dismisses-muslim-girls-plea-says-hijab-not-essential-to-islam-1647321217280">Hijab row verdict: Karnataka HC dismisses Muslim girls' plea, says hijab not essential to Islam</a>

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom.
The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, a three-judge bench of the court further noted.
"We are of the considered opinion that wearing of Hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith," Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi who headed the full bench of the High Court said reading out portion of the order.
The other two judges in the panel were Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi.
The bench also maintained that the government has power to issue impugned government order dated February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidation. By the said order, the state government had banned wearing clothes which disturb equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges.
The court also rejected the plea to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the college, its principal and a teacher.
"In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all the pending applications fell into insignificance and are accordingly disposed off," the bench said in its order.
On January 1, six girl students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by Campus Front of India (CFI) in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into the classroom wearing Hijab.
This was four days after they requested the principal permission to wear Hijabs in classrooms which was not allowed. Till then, students used to wear Hijab to the campus and entered the classroom after removing the scarves, the college principal Rudre Gowda had said.

Hijab row verdict: netas react to Karnataka High Court ruling

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom.

The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, a three-judge bench of the court further noted.

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed petitions filed by a section of Muslim students from the Government Pre-University Girls College in Udupi, seeking permission to wear Hijab inside the classroom.
The prescription of school uniform is only a reasonable restriction, constitutionally permissible which the students cannot object to, a three-judge bench of the court further noted.
"We are of the considered opinion that wearing of Hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith," Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi who headed the full bench of the High Court said reading out portion of the order.
The other two judges in the panel were Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi.
The bench also maintained that the government has power to issue impugned government order dated February 5, 2022 and no case is made out for its invalidation. By the said order, the state government had banned wearing clothes which disturb equality, integrity and public order in schools and colleges.
The court also rejected the plea to initiate a disciplinary inquiry against the college, its principal and a teacher.
"In the above circumstances, all these writ petitions being devoid of merits are liable to be and accordingly are dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all the pending applications fell into insignificance and are accordingly disposed off," the bench said in its order.
On January 1, six girl students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by Campus Front of India in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into the classroom wearing Hijab.
This was four days after they requested the principal permission to wear Hijabs in classrooms which was not allowed. Till then, students used to wear Hijab to the campus and entered the classroom after removing the scarves, the college principal Rudre Gowda had said. ALSO READ:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-verdict-karnataka-hc-dismisses-muslim-girls-plea-says-hijab-not-essential-to-islam-1647321217280">Hijab row verdict: Karnataka HC dismisses Muslim girls' plea, says hijab not essential to Islam</a>

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition by a group of Muslim girls against Hijab ban in colleges.
The High Court ruled that wearing Hijab is not an essential practice in Islam and the students cannot object to uniform in schools and colleges.
The petitioners had sought permission to attend classes wearing hijab in schools and pre-university colleges which had led to tension on the campuses of educational institutions in the state.
The hijab row exploded in Karnataka in December after Muslim students were not allowed inside a college in Udupi over wearing hijab.
As the issue of Hijab versus saffron scarves spread to several educational institutions in many parts of Karnataka, the state government restricted students from wearing any religious clothing.
The girls then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order on February 5 restraining students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony and public order.
The full bench of the High Court heard the case on a day-to-day basis since February 10. In its interim order, the bench asked the state government to reopen the educational institutions, which were hit by the agitation, and restrained students from wearing Hijab and saffron scarves in the class-room till the final order is delivered.
Ahead of the verdict, the Karnataka government banned large gatherings for a week in state capital Bengaluru "to maintain public peace and order". Mangalore too has banned large gatherings from March 15 to 19. The Udupi district administration has declared a holiday in schools and colleges on Tuesday.

Karnataka Hijab row verdict: HC dismisses Muslim girls plea, says hijab not essential to Islam

Hijab row verdict: Karnataka HC dismisses Muslim girls plea, says hijab not essential to Islam

Karnataka HC dismisses Muslims girls' petition on hijab
High Court: Wearing hijab not an essential religious practice
HC on hijab row: Students can't object to school, college uniform
HC upholds govt order or hijab, calls uniform reasonable restriction
Muslim girls moved HC seeking permission to wear hijab&nbsp;in colleges
Hijab&nbsp;row:&nbsp;Karnataka&nbsp;govt bans gatherings for a week

Karnataka Hijab Row: Muslim girls had sought permission to attend classes wearing hijab in schools and pre-university colleges

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition by a group of Muslim girls against Hijab ban in colleges. The High Court ruled that wearing Hijab is not an essential practice in Islam and the students cannot object to uniform in schools and colleges.
The petitioners had sought permission to attend classes wearing hijab in schools and pre-university colleges which had led to tension on the campuses of educational institutions in the state.
The hijab row exploded in Karnataka in December after Muslim students were not allowed inside a college in Udupi over wearing hijab.
As the issue of Hijab versus saffron scarves spread to several educational institutions in many parts of Karnataka, the state government restricted students from wearing any religious clothing.
The girls then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order on February 5 restraining students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony and public order.
The full bench of the High Court heard the case on a day-to-day basis since February 10. In its interim order, the bench asked the state government to reopen the educational institutions, which were hit by the agitation, and restrained students from wearing Hijab and saffron scarves in the class-room till the final order is delivered.
Ahead of the verdict, the Karnataka government banned large gatherings for a week in state capital Bengaluru "to maintain public peace and order". Mangalore too has banned large gatherings from March 15 to 19. The Udupi district administration has declared a holiday in schools and colleges on Tuesday.
Also Watch|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-karnataka-govt-says-hijab-not-essential-practice-no-discrimination-on-religion-1645536960099" target="_blank">Hijab Row: Karnataka govt says hijab not essential practice, no discrimination on religion</a>

The full bench of the Karnataka High Court, which concluded its hearing in the Hijab case, is likely to pronounce its verdict on Tuesday.
The case seeking permission to allow Muslim girls to attend classes in schools and pre-university colleges where there is a prescribed school uniform had led to tension on the campuses of educational institutions in the state.
According to the lawyers appearing for the petitioner girls from Udupi district, the matter pertaining to Hijab case has been listed for Tuesday as serial No. 1 and the court may spell out the operative part of the verdict from 10.30 am onwards.
The full bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi was constituted on February 9 on a petition filed by girls from Udupi who prayed that they should be allowed to wear Hijab even inside the classroom along with the school uniform as it was part of their faith.
On January 1, six girl students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by the Campus Front of India (CFI) in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into classrooms wearing headscarves.
This was four days after they requested the principal permission to wear hijab in classes which was not allowed. Till then, students used to wear the headscarf to the campus, but entered the classroom after removing it, college principal Rudre Gowda had said.
"The institution did not have any rule on hijab-wearing since no one used to wear it to the classroom in the last 35 years. The students who came with the demand had the backing of outside forces," Gowda had said.
As the issue of Hijab versus saffron scarves spread to several educational institutions in many parts of Karnataka, the state government announced holiday from February 9 to February 15 in all the pre-university colleges and from February 9 to February 16 in degree and diploma colleges.
The girls then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order on February 5 restraining students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony and public order.
The full bench of the High Court has been hearing the case on a day-to-day basis since February 10. In its interim order, the bench asked the state government to reopen the educational institutions, which were hit by the agitation, and restrained students from wearing Hijab and saffron scarves in the class-room till the final order is delivered.

Karnataka hijab row: High Court order on Udupi girls' plea today

Karnataka hijab row: High Court order on Udupi girls' plea today, large gatherings banned

Karnataka hijab row: High Court order on Udupi girls' plea on Tuesday 

The full bench of the Karnataka High Court, which concluded its hearing in the Hijab case, is likely to pronounce its verdict on Tuesday.
The case seeking permission to allow Muslim girls to attend classes in schools and pre-university colleges where there is a prescribed school uniform had led to tension on the campuses of educational institutions in the southern state.
The full bench of the High Court&nbsp;was constituted on February 9 on a petition filed by girls from Udupi who prayed that they should be allowed to wear Hijab even inside the classroom along with the school uniform as it was part of their faith.
On January 1, six girl students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by the Campus Front of India in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into classrooms wearing headscarves.
This was four days after they requested the principal of their college permission to wear hijab in classes which was not allowed. 
There were protest marches by right wing Hindu students who demanded that they be allowed to don saffron scraves.&nbsp;As the issue of Hijab versus saffron scarves spread to several educational institutions in many parts of Karnataka, the state government announced holiday.
The girls then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order on February 5 restraining students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony and public order.
The full bench of the High Court has been hearing the case on a day-to-day basis since February 10. In its interim order, the bench asked the state government to reopen the educational institutions, which were hit by the agitation, and restrained students from wearing Hijab and saffron scarves in the class-room till the final order is delivered.

The girls then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order on February 5 restraining students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony and public order.

The full bench of the Karnataka High Court, which concluded its hearing in the Hijab case, is likely to pronounce its verdict on Tuesday.
The case seeking permission to allow Muslim girls to attend classes in schools and pre-university colleges where there is a prescribed school uniform had led to tension on the campuses of educational institutions in the state.
According to the lawyers appearing for the petitioner girls from Udupi district, the matter pertaining to Hijab case has been listed for Tuesday as serial No. 1 and the court may spell out the operative part of the verdict from 10.30 am onwards.
The full bench of the High Court comprising Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi was constituted on February 9 on a petition filed by girls from Udupi who prayed that they should be allowed to wear Hijab even inside the classroom along with the school uniform as it was part of their faith.
On January 1, six girl students of a college in Udupi attended a press conference held by the Campus Front of India (CFI) in the coastal town protesting against the college authorities denying them entry into classrooms wearing headscarves.
Also Watch|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-karnataka-govt-says-hijab-not-essential-practice-no-discrimination-on-religion-1645536960099" target="_blank">Hijab Row: Karnataka govt says hijab not essential practice, no discrimination on religion&nbsp;</a>
This was four days after they requested the principal permission to wear hijab in classes which was not allowed. Till then, students used to wear the headscarf to the campus, but entered the classroom after removing it, college principal Rudre Gowda had said.
"The institution did not have any rule on hijab-wearing since no one used to wear it to the classroom in the last 35 years. The students who came with the demand had the backing of outside forces," Gowda had said.
As the issue of Hijab versus saffron scarves spread to several educational institutions in many parts of Karnataka, the state government announced holiday from February 9 to February 15 in all the pre-university colleges and from February 9 to February 16 in degree and diploma colleges.
The girls then approached the Karnataka High Court seeking relief and quashing the government order on February 5 restraining students from wearing any cloth that could disturb, peace, harmony and public order.
The full bench of the High Court has been hearing the case on a day-to-day basis since February 10. In its interim order, the bench asked the state government to reopen the educational institutions, which were hit by the agitation, and restrained students from wearing Hijab and saffron scarves in the class-room till the final order is delivered.
Also Watch|&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-why-only-hijab-what-about-ghooghat-turban-or-cross-lawyers-in-hc-1645031055081" target="_blank">Karnataka&nbsp;Hijab Row: 'Why only hijab, what about ghoonghat, turban or cross?' lawyers in HC</a>

The Karnataka government on Tuesday told the High Court that the practice of wearing hijab may be religious but is not an essential religious practice.
The government lawyer argued that hijab cannot come under Article 25 of Constitution, which gives freedom to practice religion.
The Karnataka High Court is hearing various petitions challenging the ban on hijab in educational institutes in the state.
The Advocate General argued that there is no restriction on wearing hijab on campus, adding that the restriction is only inside the classroom during class hours.
The AG cautioned that if hijab becomes religious sanction, women will be obligated to wear it and the element of choice will go away.
The state further argued that there is no discrimination based on religion. :As far as private unaided minority institutions are concerned, we are not interfering with the uniform code and have left it to the institutions to decide,” the government lawyer argued.

Hijab Row: Karnataka govt says hijab not essential practice, no discrimination on religion

Hijab Row: Karnataka govt says hijab not essential practice, no discrimination on religion. Updates from HC hearing

Karnataka&nbsp;govt: Hijab&nbsp;religious, but not essential practice
Karnataka&nbsp;HC is hearing petitions against hijab&nbsp;ban in colleges
Govt: No hijab&nbsp;ban on campuses, only inside classrooms
If hijab&nbsp;becomes essential, women will be forced to wear: AG
State govt: There is no discrimination based on religion
&nbsp;

The Karnataka government on Tuesday told the High Court that the practice of wearing hijab may be religious but is not an essential religious practice.

The Karnataka government on Tuesday told the High Court that the practice of wearing hijab may be religious but is not an essential religious practice.
The government lawyer argued that hijab cannot come under Article 25 of Constitution, which gives freedom to practice religion.
The Karnataka High Court is hearing various petitions challenging the ban on hijab in educational institutes in the state.
The Advocate General argued that there is <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-verdict-karnataka-hc-dismisses-muslim-girls-plea-says-hijab-not-essential-to-islam-1647321217280" target="_blank">no restriction on wearing hijab on campus</a>, adding that the restriction is only inside the classroom during class hours.
The AG cautioned that if hijab becomes religious sanction, women will be obligated to wear it and the element of choice will go away.
The state further argued that there is no discrimination based on religion. "As far as private unaided minority institutions are concerned, we are not interfering with the uniform code and have left it to the institutions to decide,&rdquo; the government lawyer argued.

The petitioners challenging restriction on hijab in Karnataka schools and colleges in Karnataka High Court on Wednesday said that the government and colleges were selective picking on hijab. Why is hijab being single out and Muslim students are being asked to choose between faith and education, the lawyer for Muslim girls argued in the court.
The petitioners pointed out that “Hindu girls wearing bangles and Christian girls wearing cross are not sent out". What about ghoonghat, turban or cross? the petitioners asked the court.
The court deferred the hearing for Thursday.
Alleging discrimination against Muslim girls purely based on religion, the students' lawyer also underlined that “no other religious symbol is considered in the government Order."
Controversy over hijab has been simmering in Karnataka for over a month. A number of schools and colleges have been denying entry to Muslims girls coming in hijab.
Chaos prevailed on Wednesday in several pre-university colleges in Karnataka, which were opened on Wednesday after remaining shut for a week owing to the Hijab row, as the Burqa-clad Muslim students were not let in.
The High Court, in its interim order pending consideration of all petitions related to the hijab row, last week restrained the students from wearing saffron shawls, scarves, hijab and any religious flag within the classroom.

Karnataka Hijab Row: 'Why only hijab, what about ghoonghat, turban or cross?' lawyers in HC

Hijab Row: 'Why only hijab, what about ghoonghat, turban or cross?' lawyers in HC. See details

Hijab Row: 'Why only hijab, what about ghoonghat, turban or cross?' lawyers in HC

Why is hijab&nbsp;being singled out for ban: Petitioners in HC
Lawyers ask what about bindi,&nbsp;ghoonghat, turban or cross?
"Discrimination against Muslim girls purely based on religion"
Karnataka&nbsp;HC has temporarily retrained girls from wearing hijab
Chaos is Karnataka&nbsp;as colleges stop Muslim students at gates

Karnataka&nbsp;Hijab&nbsp;Row:&nbsp;Why is hijab being single out and Muslim students are being asked to choose between faith and education, the lawyer for Muslim girls argued in the court

The petitioners challenging restriction on <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/chaos-at-several-pre-university-colleges-in-karnataka-hijab-clad-students-stopped-1644998792595">hijab in Karnataka schools</a> and colleges in <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-where-is-the-law-against-headscraves-students-ask-karnataka-hc-1644847157997">Karnataka High Court</a> on Wednesday said that the government and colleges&nbsp;were selective picking on hijab. Why is hijab being single out and Muslim students are being asked to choose between faith and education, the lawyer for Muslim girls argued in the court.
The petitioners pointed out that &ldquo;Hindu girls wearing bangles and Christian girls wearing cross are not sent out". What about ghoonghat, turban or cross? the petitioners asked the court. The court deferred&nbsp;the hearing for Thursday.
Also Read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/amid-hijab-row-karnataka-govt-likely-to-issue-guidelines-for-headscarves-in-schools-1644891226478">Amid hijab row, Karnataka govt likely to issue guidelines for headscarves in schools</a>
Alleging discrimination against Muslim girls purely based on religion, the students' lawyer also underlined that &ldquo;no other religious symbol is considered in the government Order."
Controversy over hijab has been simmering in Karnataka for over a month. A number of schools and colleges have been denying entry to Muslims girls coming in <a href="https://www.editorji.com/india-news/hijab-row-no-mass-gatherings-around-schools-in-karnataka-s-udupi-1644751731623">hijab</a>.
Chaos prevailed on Wednesday in several pre-university colleges in Karnataka, which were opened on Wednesday after remaining shut for a week owing to the Hijab row, as the Burqa-clad Muslim students were not let in.
Editorji Exclusive |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/editorji-specials/editorji-exclusive-bhupesh-baghel-interview-on-up-polls-rahul-gandhi-and-yogi-adityanath-1644935310168">Bhupesh Baghel interview on UP polls, Rahul Gandhi and Yogi Adityanath</a>
The High Court, in its interim order pending consideration of all petitions related to the hijab row, last week restrained the students from wearing saffron shawls, scarves, hijab and any religious flag within the classroom.

Karnataka High Court has quashed&nbsp;UP Police's notice to Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;asking him personally appear before them&nbsp;in connection with a video of an&nbsp;assault on an elderly Muslim man in Ghaziabad.&nbsp;
The court said that neither has&nbsp;Maheshwari&nbsp;been shown as an accused nor has police managed to show prima&nbsp;facie&nbsp;his involvement in the circulation of the video. They called the notice malafide. Uttar&nbsp;Pradesh&nbsp;police has however been granted permission to question the Twitter MD virtually.&nbsp;
The controversy pertains to an assault on an elderly Muslim man&nbsp;in Ghaziabad&nbsp;on June 5. The 72-year-old was allegedly forced to chant &ldquo;Jai Siya Ram&rdquo; by the six accused, who also forcibly chopped the man&rsquo;s beard. However, the police later said that there was no religious angle to the incident, adding that the victim was, in fact, beaten up over a personal dispute.

Ghaziabad assault video: Karnataka HC quashes UP police notice to Twitter India head 

Karnataka High Court has quashed&nbsp;UP Police's notice to Twitter India MD Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;asking him personally appear before them&nbsp;in connection with a video of an&nbsp;assault on an elderly Muslim man in Ghaziabad.&nbsp;

Uttar&nbsp;Pradesh&nbsp;police has however been granted permission to question the Twitter MD virtually.&nbsp;

The Karnataka High Court has quashed&nbsp;Uttar Pradesh Police's notice to Twitter India Managing Director&nbsp;Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;which asked him to&nbsp;personally appear before them&nbsp;in connection with a video of an&nbsp;assault on an elderly Muslim man in Ghaziabad.&nbsp;
The high&nbsp;court said that neither has&nbsp;Maheshwari&nbsp;been shown as an accused nor has police managed to show prima&nbsp;facie&nbsp;his involvement in the circulation of the video. While the high court called called the notice to Maheshwari&nbsp;as&nbsp;malafide, it allowed&nbsp;Uttar&nbsp;Pradesh&nbsp;police to question the Twitter MD virtually.&nbsp;
Also watch:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/complaint-against-swara-bhaskar-twitter-india-head-over-ghaziabad-assault-video-1623931945171">Complaint against Swara Bhaskar, Twitter India head over Ghaziabad assault video</a>
The controversy pertains to an assault on an elderly Muslim man&nbsp;in Ghaziabad&nbsp;on June 5. The 72-year-old was allegedly forced to chant 'Jai Siya Ram' by the six accused, who also forcibly chopped the septuagenarian's&nbsp;beard. However, the UP police later said that there was no religious angle to the incident, adding that the victim was, in fact, beaten up over a personal dispute and among those who assaulted&nbsp;him were some Muslims.

A committee constituted by the Karnataka High Court has found that 36 patients died in Chamarajanagar district hospital due to a lack of oxygen during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Report of State Level Monitoring Committee revealed that out of 62 deaths declared by the district hospital between May 4 and May 10, 36 people died due to non-availability of oxygen on the intervening night of May 2 and May 3.
However, Deputy Chief Minister CN Ashwathnarayan denied the findings of the report and said oxygen shortage did not lead to the deaths, adding logistical issues and negligence of that institution cannot be reflected as oxygen shortage.
He further said inquiry is going on to find whether it was because of shortage of oxygen or negligence.

HC reports says oxygen shortage killed 36 in Karnataka hospital, Dy CM denies

A committee constituted by the Karnataka HC found that 36 patients died in Chamarajanagar district hospital due to a lack of oxygen during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.

Report of Karantaka State Level Monitoring Committee revealed&nbsp; 36 people died due to non-availability of oxygen in Chamarajanagar district hospital in May

A committee constituted by the Karnataka High Court has found that 36 patients died in Chamarajanagar district hospital due to a lack of oxygen during the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic.
Report of State Level Monitoring Committee revealed that out of 62 deaths declared by the district hospital between May 4 and May 10, 36 people died due to non-availability of oxygen on the intervening night of May 2 and May 3.
Also Read <a href="https://www.editorji.com/story/health-minister-mansukh-mandaviya-india-will-be-first-to-make-dna-based-jab-1626853929219" target="_blank">Health Minister Mansukh Mandaviya: India will be first to make DNA-based jab</a>
However, Deputy Chief Minister CN Ashwathnarayan denied the findings of the report and said oxygen shortage did not lead to the deaths, adding logistical issues and negligence of that institution cannot be reflected as oxygen shortage.
He further said inquiry is going on to find whether it was because of shortage of oxygen or negligence.

Twitter India chief Manish Maheshwari sets condition before Karnataka HC to appear before UP police in Ghaziabad assault video case

Twitter India head tells court 'ready to appear before UP police if no arrest is guaranteed' 

Twitter India chief Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;sets condition before Karnataka&nbsp;HC to appear before UP police in Ghaziabad&nbsp;assault video case

Ghaziabad&nbsp;assault case: Twitter India chief sets condition to appear before UP police
Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;tells HC will appear before UP police if no arrest guaranteed
Maheshwari had moved K'taka&nbsp;HC&nbsp;seeking transit anticipatory bail
HC asked&nbsp;Ghaziabad Police not to take coercive steps against him
UP Police told HC don't want to arrest Twitter India head Manish&nbsp;Maheshwari&nbsp;
UP Police told court seeking&nbsp;Maheshwari's cooperation in investigation
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

Twitter India chief Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;sets condition before Karnataka&nbsp;HC to appear before UP police in Ghaziabad&nbsp;assault video case

Twitter India chief Manish Maheshwari has told the Karnataka High Court he is ready to appear before police in Uttar Pradesh's Ghaziabad within 24 hours only if they provide an undertaking stating he will not be arrested
Maheshwari had moved the Karnataka High Court seeking transit anticipatory bail, days after a legal notice was sent to him for not removing posts linked to the alleged assault of a Muslim man in Ghaziabad.
The high court had granted him interim relief and&nbsp;directed&nbsp;Ghaziabad Police not to take any coercive steps against him
The UP Police on Tuesday told the High Court that they don't want to arrest Manish Maheshwari but only seek his cooperation in the investigation of the case

UP Police have moved SC against the Karnataka HC's order, granting protection to Twitter India head Manish Maheshwari in the Ghaziabad assault video case.

Ghaziabad assault video case : UP govt moves SC against HC relief to Twitter India head

UP Police have moved the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court's order, granting protection to Twitter India head Manish Maheshwari in the Ghaziabad assault video case

Ghaziabad assault video case : UP cops  move SC against HC relief to Twitter India head

UP govt moves Supreme Court in&nbsp;Ghaziabad assault video case
UP govt moves SC&nbsp;against HC's order protecting Twitter India head&nbsp;
Maheshwari&nbsp;filed a caveat asking for his side to be heard before passing orders
Loni Police in UP's&nbsp;Ghaziabad&nbsp;lodged FIR in assault video case
UP police asked Twitter India head to appear in Loni&nbsp;police station for probe
K'taka&nbsp;HC granted&nbsp;Manish Maheshwari&nbsp;protection from arrest on June 24
No coercive action, virtual probe can continue: Karnataka&nbsp;HC said
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
&nbsp;

UP Police have&nbsp;moved the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court's order, granting protection to Twitter India head Manish Maheshwari in the Ghaziabad assault video case

The Uttar Pradesh Police on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court against the Karnataka High Court's order, granting protection to Twitter India head Manish Maheshwari in the Ghaziabad assault video case.
On June 24, the Karnataka High Court had granted Maheshwari protection from arrest in an FIR lodged by Loni Police in Ghaziabad. UP police had issued a notice to the Twitter MD, asking him to appear at Loni police station for questioning.
Maheshwari has also approached the top court and filed a caveat asking the court to hear his side before passing any orders on UP Police's appeal.
The HC had directed that no coercive action be taken against him till June 29, but said police could continue the probe virtually.

The Supreme Court on Friday said there is nothing wrong in the Karnataka High Court order asking the Centre to reconsider its daily liquid medical oxygen allocation to the state. The Centre had moved the top court against the Karnataka High Court&rsquo;s order to increase daily oxygen allocation for the state from 965 MT to 1200 MT. &lsquo;Don&rsquo;t want to leave the citizens of Karnataka in the lurch, the bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said. The top court also noted that that High Court&rsquo;s order is a careful, calibrated exercise and it sees no reason to entertain the Centre's appeal. Karnataka on of the worst hit by the deadly second wave of Covid recorded 49,058 fresh infections and 328 deaths.

SC stays K'taka HC order on Oxygen supply; Centre loses case

<ul>
<li>SC stays K'taka HC order on Oxygen supply</li>
<li>HC asked Centre to raise supply to 1200 MT</li>
<li>SC: Don&rsquo;t want to leave the K'taka&nbsp;citizens in lurch</li>
<li>SC: nothing wrong, order careful, calibrated</li>
<li>K'taka&nbsp;recorded&nbsp;49,058 Covid cases in 24 hrs</li>
</ul>

The Supreme Court on Friday said there is nothing wrong with the Karnataka High Court order asking the Centre to reconsider its daily liquid medical oxygen allocation to the state.
The Centre had moved the top court against the Karnataka High Court&rsquo;s order to increase daily oxygen allocation for the state from 965 MT to 1200 MT.
&lsquo;Don&rsquo;t want to leave the citizens of Karnataka in the lurch,' the bench headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud said. The top court also noted that the High Court&rsquo;s order is a careful, calibrated exercise and it sees no reason to entertain the Centre's appeal.
Karnataka one of the worst hit by the deadly second wave of Covid recorded 49,058 fresh infections and 328 deaths.

'Secret' extradition proceedings going on to bring Mallya: Govt

The Centre has told the Supreme Court that a 'secret'&nbsp;extradition process was going on to bring Vijay Mallya to the country but...

The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that a 'secret'&nbsp;extradition process was going on to bring fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to the country but it was not aware about its status. The Centre also told the top court that it was not a party to the proceedings. The SC asked Mallya's lawyer to inform the court what kind of 'secret' proceedings are going on to extradite him. Advocate Ankur Saigal, appearing for Mallya, told the apex court that he was not aware what kind of proceedings are going on. The lawyer said he has&nbsp;knowledge that his request against extradition has been rejected.

The Centre on Monday told the Supreme Court that "secret" extradition process was going on to bring fugitive businessman Vijay Mallya to the country but it was not aware about its status.
The Centre also told the top court that it was not a party to the proceedings.
A bench of Justices U U Lalit and Ashok Bhushan asked Mallya's lawyer to inform the court what kind of "secret" proceedings are going on to extradite him.
Advocate Ankur Saigal, appearing for Mallya, told the apex court that he was not aware what kind of proceedings are going on.
He said, "I have knowledge that my request against extradition has been rejected".
The bench also directed Mallya's lawyers to apprise it by November 2 when can the fugitive businessman appear before the court and when the "secret" proceedings are going to end.
Advocate Rajat Nair, appearing for the Centre, told the court that extradition request has been made as per the direction of the court.
"Some secret extradition proceedings are going on to which we are not a party.
"Extradition proceedings have been upheld by the highest court of UK but it has not been happening as of now," he said.
The apex court had earlier directed Mallya to appear before it on October 5 while dismissing his plea seeking review of the 2017 verdict which held him guilty of contempt for transferring USD 40 million to his children in violations of court orders.
Mallya, an accused in bank loan default case of over Rs 9,000 crore involving his defunct Kingfisher Airlines, is in the United Kingdom.
The apex court had in June directed its registry to explain as to why Mallya's review petition had not been listed before the concerned court for the last three years.
It had directed the registry to furnish all the details including names of officials who had dealt with the file concerning the review petition in the last three years.
The apex court's 2017 order had come on a plea by consortium of banks led by the State Bank of India (SBI), which had said that Mallya had allegedly transferred USD 40 million received from British firm Diageo, to his children in "flagrant violation" of various judicial orders.
It was dealing with pleas of lending banks seeking contempt action and a direction to Mallya to deposit USD 40 million received from offshore firm Diageo respectively.
The banks had then alleged that Mallya concealed the facts and diverted the money to his son Siddharth Mallya and daughters Leanna Mallya and Tanya Mallya in "flagrant violation" of the orders passed by the Karnataka High Court.
Mallya had in May lost his application seeking leave to appeal his extradition to India in the UK Supreme Court, setting a 28-day clock on his removal from the UK.
The UK top court's decision marks a big legal setback to the 64-year-old flamboyant businessman, who had earlier lost his high court appeal against an extradition order to India on charges of alleged fraud and money laundering related to unrecovered loans to his now-defunct Kingfisher Airlines.
Mallya has been based in the UK since March 2016 and remains on bail on an extradition warrant executed three years ago by Scotland Yard on April 18, 2017.&nbsp;

karnataka high court

Categories