Today, Justice MG Kamal gave the State authorities and the RSS another chance to try to determine whether the matter might be settled out of court.
In the issue between the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the State government led by the Congress, the Karnataka High Court stated on Thursday that it was taking a careful approach to determining when the RSS could be allowed to stage a route march in Kalburgi.
"We hope to set the right precedent for all such future disputes," stated a bench of Justice MG Kamal.
"This will be remembered as paving the way for similar problems in the future. Allow it to chart a course. The court is being careful because of this. Please keep this in mind. The judge said, "For this reason, counsel is also being asked to set a path."
The Court made these observations while giving the State authorities and the RSS another chance to try to determine whether the matter might be settled out of court.
Today, both parties decided to meet on November 5 in order to achieve this goal. At 5 PM on that day, Ashok Patil, the convenor of the RSS Kalburgi, will meet with State officials at the Advocate General's office.
The conference has also been urged to be attended by Patil's attorneys, Senior Advocate Aruna Shyam and Advocate Kadloor Satyanarayanacharya, as well as Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty.
The temporary order was issued after the RSS Convenor told the court today that a family bereavement prevented him from attending an earlier peace meeting earlier this week.
Senior Advocate Shyam, Patil's attorney, stated that he had sent three competent people to the meeting instead.
According to Shyam, the RSS convenor would personally attend any future meetings that the State might arrange.
In response, Advocate General Shetty said that the same may be set up.
In order to direct the conference, the Court then recommended that the attorneys from both sides participate as well.
The lawyers were encouraged by Justice Kamal to make sure that this matter "sets a path" for future issues of this nature.
"Definitely, we will try out best," the AG’s response was.
He promised that the State is also interested in finding a solution to the conflict.
The original intention was for the RSS to celebrate its 100th anniversary with a march on October 19 in Chittapur, Kalburgi.
After the State failed to make a decision on a request for authorization to hold the march, it went to court.
The RSS suggested that the march be held on November 2 in lieu of October 19, when the Court heard the case urgently.
However, the State proposed that the march be further postponed due to law and order concerns during the subsequent hearing on October 24.
In response, the RSS charged that the State was allowing competing groups to block its march by considering requests to host other gatherings on the same day.
According to Senior Advocate Shyam, these rival groups even boasted to the media that they had applied for permission to stage demonstrations in order to stop the RSS from marching on November 2.
The State subsequently informed the Court that in order to resolve these conflicts, local authorities intended to meet in peace with all of these organizations.
The Court then scheduled the meeting for October 28 and requested that both parties report the results.
Nonetheless, the State stated today that the RSS convenor did not attend the meeting and thus no firm decision could be made.
Regardless of whether the State intended to allow other gatherings on the same day, the RSS still wanted to hold the route march on November 2, according to the convenor's counsel, who stated that three delegates were sent in its place.
The Advocate General promised that before evaluating the permit for any other rally, the State will first decide on the RSS's application.
Notably, the central government has been added as a party to the case by the RSS convenor's application. Today, the Advocate General protested, calling the action politically motivated.
The counsel for the RSS convenor, however, did not take the impleadment application seriously today.
Whether the disagreement could be settled at the November 5 meeting was still the key concern.
On November 7, the matter will be heard again.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
