<p>Bengaluru: The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who had passed the interim injunction order with a direction to delete stories about the crime registered in Dharmasthala police station alleging mass burials, has recused from the matter. The decision has come in the wake of a defendant in the suit raising the issue of conflict of interest.</p><p>On July 18, an Additional City Civil and Sessions court had passed the order against 332 defendants for removal and de-indexing of over 8,842 web links about the crime alleging mass burials.</p><p>Defendant 25 in the suit (Naveen Soorinje), a journalist with a TV channel, had filed a memo through his advocate. On August 2, during the hearing on the suit, filed by Harshendra Kumar D, secretary of the institutions run by Shri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Dharmasthala, the advocate for defendant 25 filed a memo along with a letter given to him by the defendant.</p>.Dharmasthala mass burials: Teenage girl murdered 15 years ago & buried without post-mortem, claims villager.<p>The letter stated that the presiding officer, Vijay Kumar Rai B, was the student of SDM Law College (Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College), Mangaluru managed by the family of the plaintiff. The letter also requested the counsel to take steps to transfer the case to some other court.</p><p>The advocate for the plaintiff sought time to file objections to the memo and also submitted that the matter cannot be transferred on the basis of a letter. However, the judge said, without stating anything on the merits of the memo and the letter enclosed to it, that it is a matter of fact that around 25 years back he was the student of SDM Law College managed by family members of the plaintiff.</p><p>“But the presiding officer of this court had neither seen the plaintiff nor spoken to him either directly or indirectly at any point of time. Admittedly as the presiding officer was a student of SDM Law college managed by the family of the plaintiff and one of the defendants has filed a memo as aforesaid, in order to maintain faith in the judicial system, justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," the court said. </p><p>"Having regard to these aspects, though I am neither a party in this suit nor having any personal interest, the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to request the Prl. City Civil Sessions Judge to place OS No. 5185/2025 pending on the file of this court, before any other court as per section 13(2)(b) of Bangalore City Civil Court Act 1979,” the court said. The matter has been posted to August 5 for further consideration.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, who had passed the interim injunction order with a direction to delete stories about the crime registered in Dharmasthala police station alleging mass burials, has recused from the matter. The decision has come in the wake of a defendant in the suit raising the issue of conflict of interest.</p><p>On July 18, an Additional City Civil and Sessions court had passed the order against 332 defendants for removal and de-indexing of over 8,842 web links about the crime alleging mass burials.</p><p>Defendant 25 in the suit (Naveen Soorinje), a journalist with a TV channel, had filed a memo through his advocate. On August 2, during the hearing on the suit, filed by Harshendra Kumar D, secretary of the institutions run by Shri Manjunathaswamy Temple, Dharmasthala, the advocate for defendant 25 filed a memo along with a letter given to him by the defendant.</p>.Dharmasthala mass burials: Teenage girl murdered 15 years ago & buried without post-mortem, claims villager.<p>The letter stated that the presiding officer, Vijay Kumar Rai B, was the student of SDM Law College (Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara Law College), Mangaluru managed by the family of the plaintiff. The letter also requested the counsel to take steps to transfer the case to some other court.</p><p>The advocate for the plaintiff sought time to file objections to the memo and also submitted that the matter cannot be transferred on the basis of a letter. However, the judge said, without stating anything on the merits of the memo and the letter enclosed to it, that it is a matter of fact that around 25 years back he was the student of SDM Law College managed by family members of the plaintiff.</p><p>“But the presiding officer of this court had neither seen the plaintiff nor spoken to him either directly or indirectly at any point of time. Admittedly as the presiding officer was a student of SDM Law college managed by the family of the plaintiff and one of the defendants has filed a memo as aforesaid, in order to maintain faith in the judicial system, justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done," the court said. </p><p>"Having regard to these aspects, though I am neither a party in this suit nor having any personal interest, the court is of the opinion that it is appropriate to request the Prl. City Civil Sessions Judge to place OS No. 5185/2025 pending on the file of this court, before any other court as per section 13(2)(b) of Bangalore City Civil Court Act 1979,” the court said. The matter has been posted to August 5 for further consideration.</p>