Ravi’s death: State can’t claim to know ‘truth’ now, says petitioner’s counsel

Plea against disclosure of probe details to be heard on April 6

March 27, 2015 12:00 am | Updated 05:43 am IST - Bengaluru:

BANGALORE, 11/12/2007: A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore.
Photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy 11-12-2007

BANGALORE, 11/12/2007: A view of Karnataka High Court in Bangalore. Photo: V. Sreenivasa Murthy 11-12-2007

The State government and the Chief Minister cannot claim to know the “truth” with regard to the death of IAS officer D.K. Ravi when the probe is not yet complete, and they cannot make statements any more on the matter when the probe has been transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

A statement in this regard was filed on behalf of Sudhir Reddy, husband of the woman IAS officer who is Ravi’s batchmate, before the High Court of Karnataka on Thursday.

Justice S. Abdul Nazeer, before whom Mr. Reddy’s petition against the disclosure of investigation details came up for hearing, adjourned further hearing till April 6. The court has asked the government to file its rejoinder to the statement, which was filed opposing the State’s plea for vacating the interim order in which the court, on March 22, restrained the State from making any statement on the probe.

“The Chief Minister’s statement that he wants to come out with the truth bears no legal logic … when the investigation itself is incomplete, let alone a final determination by the courts, the State or the Chief Minister can hardly claim to be aware of the truth …,” it has been claimed in the statement. This was in response to the Chief Minister’s claim in the legislature that he could not tell the “truth” due to the interim order of the court.

“There can be no question of publishing anything that has been collected thus far during the course of investigation conducted by the CID … There is certainly no way of arriving at any preliminary conclusion however plausible it may be at a stage when all aspects of investigation are yet to be complete,” it has been contended.

Denying the government’s allegation that the petition was a device to achieve the alleged objective of the Opposition parties, it was stated that the petitioner was only fighting for the right to privacy and dignity of himself and his wife.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.