Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's plea alleging threats is denied by the Supreme Court, which says the High Court has the final say. 

A plea alleging that Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah coordinated threats to forcibly seize a property was rejected by the Supreme Court on Friday, stating that the matter should be brought before the relevant High Court. In the end, the bench declined to step in and the plea was withdrawn. 

Two people filed a petition with a bench made up of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, claiming that the petitioner had been forced to remain in Delhi due to ongoing threats in Karnataka. 

The petitioner's attorney said during the hearing that the claimed threats had persisted despite filing many police complaints and obtaining court judgments in his favor. He added that safety concerns prevented the petitioner from entering Karnataka. 

The bench questioned the type and scope of the purported threats in response to the submissions. The judge questioned, "Is the chief minister of Karnataka pursuing you in Delhi?" The attorney said that the threats were specific to Karnataka. 

The attorney also mentioned an event that occurred in January, claiming that some people vandalized and threw stones at the home in question. The petitioner claims that these acts were a part of an effort to seize the property. 

But the panel kept questioning why the petitioner hadn't filed a case with the Karnataka High Court, which had jurisdiction. The attorney reaffirmed that it was challenging to seek remedies locally because the petitioner was unable to enter the state because of threats. 

The court also noted that there seemed to be aspects of a "political battle" being brought before the courts at one point. Nonetheless, the attorney insisted that the petitioner had no political ties. 

The attorney requested permission to withdraw the petition when the bench indicated that it was not inclined to consider it. The Supreme Court allowed the petitioners to seek redress at the relevant High Court by dismissing the plea as withdrawn.

Related News

If the accused is served with a consolidated notice of demand, a single complaint for the dishonor of more than three checks may be maintained: The J&K&L High Court

Orissa High Court Shares Concerns About Data Breach & Privacy Violations While Upholding Mandatory PAN-Aadhaar Linking For Demat Accounts

The Supreme Court dismisses the case against a public servant, stating that S. 197 CrPC does not envision the concept of "deemed sanction."