<p>The High Court of Karnataka has directed the state government to file a compliance report as per the law informing the Union government on invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against some suspects in DJ Halli and KG Halli violence. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Sreeniwas Oka was hearing two PIL petitions, including the one that has sought a court-monitored probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the riots. </p>.<p>The advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sridhar Prabhu, argued that because the state police forces were victims of the violence, the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. He cited the order of the Supreme Court in 2018 and argued that an informant police official cannot be asked to investigate if he is carrying a reverse burden of proof. </p>.<p>"This is a unique situation, and blame game should not happen from both the ends. The burden has to be discharged by way of entrusting the investigation to a third party at the national level. This would also ensure that innocent persons are not booked and harassed," Prabhu said. </p>.<p>Meanwhile, the court ordered the state government to file a statement of compliance on the requirement to inform the union government on invoking the provisions of the UAPA.</p>.<p>The bench said the requirement is as per sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008. The court also directed the state to file a statement of objections dealing with the prayer for the transfer of investigation. </p>
<p>The High Court of Karnataka has directed the state government to file a compliance report as per the law informing the Union government on invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against some suspects in DJ Halli and KG Halli violence. </p>.<p>A division bench headed by Chief Justice Abhay Sreeniwas Oka was hearing two PIL petitions, including the one that has sought a court-monitored probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the riots. </p>.<p>The advocate appearing for the petitioner, Sridhar Prabhu, argued that because the state police forces were victims of the violence, the informant and the investigator must not be the same person. He cited the order of the Supreme Court in 2018 and argued that an informant police official cannot be asked to investigate if he is carrying a reverse burden of proof. </p>.<p>"This is a unique situation, and blame game should not happen from both the ends. The burden has to be discharged by way of entrusting the investigation to a third party at the national level. This would also ensure that innocent persons are not booked and harassed," Prabhu said. </p>.<p>Meanwhile, the court ordered the state government to file a statement of compliance on the requirement to inform the union government on invoking the provisions of the UAPA.</p>.<p>The bench said the requirement is as per sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008. The court also directed the state to file a statement of objections dealing with the prayer for the transfer of investigation. </p>
