IAS officer DK Ravi's death: How does Chief Minister know the truth so soon?
Bengaluru, March 27: It is over a week since IAS officer D K Ravi passed away, but the controversy over his death continues and the battle emerging in the Karntaka High Court is turning out to be a bitter one.
While the state government in its objections has spared no effort to speak out about the personal relationship of the officer which they claim was the reason for his death, those opposing the state have termed it nothing but a smear campaign. [IAS Officer DK Ravi case mystery deepens: Did CID delete CCTV footage?]
A petition was filed in the Karnataka High Court seeking a restraining order on the state government from making any statement relating to the investigation into the officer's death on the floor of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly.
Last Sunday the High Court in an interim order had barred the state government from issuing any statement.
The state was, however, quick to file objections to the petition which was filed by the husband of Ravi's batchmate in which various aspects of the probe which indicated that it was a case of suicide due to personal reasons were made. [IAS officer death: Messages show he had not taken an impulsive decision]
The petitioner has now filed objections to what the state has been contending in a strongly worded response has stated that the Chief Minister cannot claim to know the truth pending investigations.
Is the Chief Minister aware of the truth?
The petitioner asks how the Chief Minister is aware of the truth when the matter is pending investigation.
The CID, which is probing the case, has not completed its job and despite this there are claims of the truth being known.
In the statement of objections, the petitioner says that the CM cannot claim to know of the truth when the probe is incomplete.
Moreover, statements regarding the investigation cannot be made at this juncture since the state itself has handed over the probe to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) which is yet to take over the case.
Chief Minister of Karnataka Siddaramaiah had claimed to know the truth and wanted to make a statement before the assembly.
However, due to a restraining order from the High Court he was unable to make this statement. He has now said that he could not tell the truth because of the court order.
The petitioner once again questions how is the CM concluding that he knows the truth when the matter is pending investigation.
Not a stooge of the opposition:
During the course of the hearing before the High Court there were allegations that the petition was being stage managed by the opposition.
The state even questioned the locus standi of the petitioner in approaching the court.
It is the claim that the petitioner's wife is the aggrieved person in this case and the husband approaching the court is only an indication he is a proxy with no locus stand the government had alleged. [DK Ravi: What govt could not state in Assembly, it stated in court]
The petitioner, however, in his statement of objections has stated that he is not achieving an objective of the opposition.
This petition is aimed at protecting the right and dignity of both him and his wife.
The petitioner says that he has every right to approach the court considering that the case was affecting the dignity and privacy of both him and his wife.
The petitioner also questions the urgency of the state government to make public details of the investigation.
When the investigations are underway any statement to this effect if issued would be jumping to a preliminary conclusion the petitioner also alleges.
During the entire course of hearing and also the investigation the primary focus has been on the personal life of the deceased officer.
The state had very clearly mentioned before the High Court that the relationship that Ravi shared with his batchmate was more than cordial. [Timeline: IAS officer DK Ravi mysterious death case]
The petitioner questions the justification and authenticity of this claim by the state government.
It is uncalled for and completely vexatious, the petitioner states. This statement which has been made pending investigation is illogical and again a case of jumping to conclusions too soon, the petitioner also states.