Bengaluru Stampede: Retired HC Judge John Michael D'Cunha Leading Probe Had Convicted Jayalalithaa
Last Updated:
From the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case to FIR against Yediyurappa, D'Cunha has been involved in several high-profile cases
The Karnataka government has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under retired High Court judge John Michael D'Cunha to inquire into the June 4 stampede at the Chinnaswamy stadium in Bengaluru that killed 11 people.
From the Jayalalithaa disproportionate assets case to FIR against Yediyurappa, D'Cunha has been involved in several high-profile cases.
He is currently heading inquiries into the pandemic medical procurement scam and oxygen-related deaths at Chamarajanagar hospital in Karnataka.
procedural lapses and submit its report in 30 days.
'…the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-rule (1) of rule 3 of the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952, has constituted a one-man inquiry commission under the chairmanship of John Michael Cunha, retired Judge of the Karnataka High Court, to conduct an inquiry into the incident," the official notification dated June 5 said.
'The inquiry commission shall have all the powers to conduct inquiries under the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 and Code of Civil Procedure, and the government expects the investigation to be completed and a report submitted within one month," it said.
The terms of reference in the notification include, to find — whether the necessary permissions, rules and procedures were followed while organising the RCB team's victory felicitation ceremony at Chinnaswamy Stadium; the causes/causers of the rush and stampede that took place; the causes/causers of the incident that led to the death of 11 people and injury to more than 50 people based on the chain of events and circumstances.
Also, to inquire into the measures taken as a precaution regarding the incident and the omissions/deficiencies that may have occurred in this regard and to identify those responsible for this incident; and to inquire regarding other relevant aspects related to this incident.
This inquiry commission is separate from the magisterial inquiry that has been ordered, and shall conduct a parallel and comprehensive inquiry, it clarified.
The Chairman of the inquiry commission, if necessary, may take steps to obtain the services of one retired IPS officer and one retired IAS officer for technical and legal assistance. The salary/allowance expenses of the concerned officers shall be borne by the government. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, shall provide the necessary staff, materials, vehicles and office and furniture/telephone etc required for the commission of inquiry.
WHO IS RETIRED HC JUDGE D'CUNHA?
D'Cunha, who studied at SDM Law College in Mangalore, started his law practice in 1985, and formed Manu Associates with fellow advocates Amruth Kini, M P Noronha and Ullal S K. The name 'Manu' was formed from the first letter of each partner's name: 'M' for Michael, 'A' from Amruth, 'N' from Noronha and 'U' from Ullal.
In 1999, he left Mangalore to join the Karnataka High Court. In 2002 D'Cunha joined the judiciary as a District Judge. He has served in the courts of Bangalore, Bellary, and Dharwad. He also served as secretary to the Chief Justice and Registrar (Vigilance) of the High Court.
D'Cunha was appointed a judge in the Karnataka High Court in 2016 and retired on April 6, 2021.
HIGH-PROFILE JUDGMENTS
On 31 March 2021, a bench of Justice D'Cunha refused to quash the FIR against BS Yediyurappa in a case nicknamed Operation Kamala case.
D'Cunha was appointed by the Supreme Court of India in October 2013 as the fifth judge to investigate the disproportionate assets case against Jayalalithaa, replacing judge MS Balakrishna. On September 27, 2014, D'Cunha convicted Jayalalithaa, the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. She was sentenced to a prison term of four years and fined Rs 100 crore.
Jayalalithaa was later acquitted by the High Court of Karnataka on May 11, 2015, claiming the trial court order by D'Cunha was not sustainable. However, the Supreme Court of India reconfirmed D'Cunha's order on February 14, 2017.
With PTI Inputs
tags :
bengaluru J Jayalalithaa news18 specials
Location :
Bengaluru, India, India
First Published:
June 09, 2025, 14:48 IST
News cities Bengaluru Stampede: Retired HC Judge John Michael D'Cunha Leading Probe Had Convicted Jayalalithaa
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
27 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Calcutta HC restraints Bengal from paying monthly stipend to sacked non-teaching staff
The Calcutta High Court on Friday directed the West Bengal government to stop paying monthly stipends to a group of non-teaching staff who had been sacked after the Supreme Court in April found irregularities in the 2016 recruitment process, Live Law reported. On June 9, Justice Amrita Sinha had reserved the judgement in the matter but had stayed the state government's plan to provide monthly stipends of Rs 20,000 to Rs 25,000 to the persons. In its Friday order, the court reinforced that restriction, prohibiting such payments till at least September 26. Sinha issued the direction on a writ petition challenging the provision of the allowance to the staff whose services had been terminated. The petition was filed by a candidate on the waitlist who was not recruited despite being on the merit list, allegedly due to irregularities in the hiring process. On April 3, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's April 2024 order terminating the appointment of about 25,000 teachers and non-teaching staff by West Bengal's School Service Commission. The bench passed the order after observing that the recruitment process was 'vitiated by manipulation and fraud'. The top court on April 17 permitted 'untainted' teachers to be retained until the end of the academic year or until fresh appointments are made, whichever was earlier. However, it did not grant relief to the non-teaching staff, or Group C and Group D employees, whose appointments were also cancelled. In response, the state government had announced in April that the sacked non-teaching staff would receive a monthly allowance until the Supreme Court delivered a verdict on its review petitions. On Friday, the High Court criticised the state for attempting to financially assist individuals whose employment had been declared fraudulent by the Supreme Court and directed 'tainted' candidates to 'refund any salary/payment received', Live Law reported. By introducing a stipend scheme, the state was undermining the Supreme Court's decision, the High Court observed. 'Once the highest court of the land has decided the issue of illegal appointment conclusively and opined that the appointments were result of fraud, no person who was the beneficiary of a fraudulent act of the statutory authority ought to be provided any support, that too, from the public exchequer,' the court said. The court also instructed the state government to submit its counter-affidavit addressing the petitioners' claims within four weeks, and allowed the petitioners two weeks after that to file their response, PTI reported. In April 2024, the High Court had passed its direction on the termination of the appointments based on the findings of a re-evaluation of the Optical Mark Recognition sheets from the 2016 recruitment examination in the case. The re-evaluation found that the selected teachers had been recruited against blank Optical Mark Recognition sheets.
India.com
2 hours ago
- India.com
Operation Sindhu Continues: Over 500 Indian Nationals Safely Evacuated from Iran Amid Tension In Middle East
The Central government has evacuated over 517 Indian nationals from Iran so far under Operation Sindhu. The government launched Operation Sindhu to evacuate Indian nationals from Iran, amid the ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. Giving details of the operation, Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) official spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said in a post on X, "Operation Sindhu continues. A special evacuation flight from Ashgabat, Turkmenistan, landed in New Delhi at 0300 hrs on 21st June, bringing Indians from Iran home. With this, so far 517 Indian nationals from Iran have returned home under Operation Sindhu." On Friday, a special flight carrying 290 Indian nationals evacuated from Iran reached New Delhi. Additionally, on Thursday, 110 Indian students evacuated from Iran landed in Delhi.
Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Wife's WhatsApp chats obtained via 'spy app' used as valid evidence about her extramarital affair in Divorce case, what Madhya Pradesh HC said
In a crucial ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has reportedly permitted a husband to present his wife's private WhatsApp chats as evidence in a divorce case, even though they were obtained without her consent. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The court's decision, based on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act , 1984, allows Family Courts to consider evidence that may not be admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to resolve disputes like divorce. The case arose when the husband, using a special app (spy app) installed on his wife's phone without her knowledge, accessed her private WhatsApp conversations. These chats allegedly revealed an extramarital affair, prompting the husband to seek divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. The wife's legal team objected, arguing that presenting the chats violated her under Article 21 of the Constitution and Sections 43, 66, and 72 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. They further contended that evidence obtained illegally should be inadmissible. Rejecting these arguments, the High Court emphasized that while the right to privacy is a fundamental right under Article 21, it is not absolute and is subject to limitations. Citing Supreme Court judgments, including the Sharda and Puttaswami cases, the court noted that statutory provisions like Section 14 of the Family Courts Act and Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act permit limited invasions of privacy in the interest of justice. The court framed the issue as a conflict between two fundamental rights under Article 21: the wife's right to privacy and the husband's right to a fair trial. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It ruled that the right to privacy must yield to the right to a fair trial, which has broader implications for public justice. 'A litigating party has a right to bring relevant evidence before the court,' the court stated, adding that denying this opportunity would undermine the Family Courts Act's intent. The High Court clarified that it was not ruling on the authenticity of the WhatsApp chats, leaving that determination to the Family Court. If the chats are deemed genuine, they could support the husband's case for divorce on grounds of cruelty and adultery. This ruling has sparked debate over the balance between privacy rights and the pursuit of justice in family disputes, with potential implications for how digital evidence is handled in Indian courts.
