The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to respond to a petition that said B.Y. Vijayendra, son of Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa, and some of his family members were allowed entry into the Sri Nanjundeshwara temple at Nanjangud in Mysuru district in violation of COVID-19 lockdown norms.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the direction on a petition, filed on behalf of H.M. Venkatesh of the Nyja Horatagarara Vedike, pointing out the discrimination in enforcing lockdown norms as VIPs were allowed to enter temples when entry was prohibited to the public.
Pointing out that the Chief Minister’s son was even allowed to perform certain rituals in the temple, the vedike in its representation to the district administration, a copy of which was submitted to the court, had asked how Mr. Vijayendra and his family members were allowed to cross districts when the lockdown prevented citizens from travelling from one district to another, except in cases of specified emergencies.
Meanwhile, the Bench rejected a petition seeking the recovery of the amount spent on treating COVID-19 patients from political and religious leaders who organised events during which COVID-19 norms, including wearing masks and maintaining social distancing, were violated.
The Bench passed the order while hearing a PIL petition filed by the Letzkit Foundation on instances of violations of COVID-19 norms of wearing masks and social distancing by political parties and eminent persons.
Why no FIR?
In another PIL petition, the Bench observed that Commissioner of Police, Belagavi, appears to be unaware of the provisions of the Karnataka Epidemic Diseases Act, 2020, and regulations that enable authorities to register First Information Reports for violations as no FIR was registered for violations committed during a political congregation attended by Home Minister Amit Shah and Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa in Belagavi in January.
Pointing out that the Police Commissioner has not stated whether conditions imposed in the permission granted for the congregation were adhered to or not, the Bench asked the Commissioner to file a fresh affidavit explaining why no FIR was registered, while observing that the State government appears to have not communicated the court’s order to the district authorities on requirement of registering FIR for such violations.
