DK Ravi: What govt could not state in Assembly, it stated in court

What the government could not say on the floor of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly was finally said in the High Court of Karnataka. The high court is hearing a petition filed by the husband of a lady IAS officer who had sought a direction to the Chief Minister not to make public the contents of the investigation into the D K Ravi case before the Assembly.

In a surprising order which was passed in the residence of the judge on Sunday evening, Justice Abdul Nazeer S had barred the Chief Minister from making any statement on the floor of the house regarding the death and investigations into the D K Ravi case.

The case will be continue to be heard today where the government has said that it is the privilage of the Chief Minister to make a statement on the floor of the house and the courts cannot issue such a directive.

In the statement of objections that have been filed, the government in a 14 paged reply conveyed everything to the open court what the Chief Minister was planning on telling the assembly. Right from D K Ravi shared more than a cordial relationship with the IAS officer to financial transactions, all were part of the submissions before the Karnataka High Court.

Can High Court interfere with legislature's privilege:

The question that the High Court would need to answer is whether it can interfer with the legislative privilage that a Chief Minister has. Advocate General Ravi Varma Kumar repeatedly told the court that the CM has the right to make a statement.

He also said that the government was not planning on tabling the interim report. There is no such thing as interim report under the Code of Criminal Procedure and the CM was only planning on making a statement in the wake of the various allegations made against the government by the opposition.

The CM has the right and the privilage to make clear the stand of the government and there was an urgent need to put forth some of the facts before the legislature as unwarranted allegations were being made by the opposition, the AG further had submitted.

He further accused the petitioner Sudhir Reddy the husband of the IAS officer of being a proxy in the case. He questioned the right under which the petition had been filed and requested the court to throw the petition out as the petitioner had no locus standi to seek such a directive against the government.

Relationship more than cordial:

The AG told an open court that the relationship between D K Ravi and the IAS officer was more than cordial. They shared more than a cordial relationship that generally exists among batchmates. The relationship included financial transactions between the two, the AG also told the court.

Ravi wanted the relationship to progress into more than friendship the AG also submitted.

Exchange of messages both by SMS and WhatsApp between her and Ravi were found in the phones. The messages clearly disclosed the state of mind of the deceased officer as well as the relationship that he shared with her the AG said while submitted the details of the same in a sealed cover.

Officer made a voluntary statement:

The AG also submitted before the court after the death of D K Ravi, the IAS officer had made a statement voluntarily to the CID which is investigating the case. The statement too was handed over to the court in a sealed cover.

The petitioner had however argued that the media was making it look as though it was an interrogation by the CID. The AG told the court no one has said that it was an interrogation and the government has always maintained that it was a voluntary statement.

The AG further assured the court that the name of the officer will not be made public and all efforts are and will be taken to ensure that the reputation of the IAS officer is not tarnished.