Top
Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

Willing To Issue A Public Notice That 'Cauvery Calling' Is Not A State Project? Karnataka High Court Asks State Govt

Mustafa Plumber
7 Dec 2020 9:42 AM GMT
Willing To Issue A Public Notice That Cauvery Calling Is Not A State Project? Karnataka High Court Asks State Govt
x

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the state government to clarify whether it was willing to issue a public notice that the 'Cauvery Calling' project is the project of 'Sadhguru' Jaggi Vausdev's Isha Foundation and Isha Outreach and that the government has nothing to do with it.A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said :"Entire grievance is...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
To read the article, get a premium account.
    Your Subscription Supports Independent Journalism
Subscription starts from
599+GST
(For 6 Months)
Premium account gives you:
  • Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.
  • Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.
Already a subscriber?

The Karnataka High Court on Monday directed the state government to clarify whether it was willing to issue a public notice that the 'Cauvery Calling' project is the project of 'Sadhguru' Jaggi Vausdev's Isha Foundation and Isha Outreach and that the government has nothing to do with it.

A division bench of Chief Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said :
"Entire grievance is that respondents are projecting that they are implementing a government project. You must clarify and put an end to it by issuing a public notice and the matter will come to an end."
The bench also directed that if at all the state government has taken any sponsorship from Isha foundation or allowed it to participate in any of the government projects, the written order giving such permission should be placed on record. It said "Show an order of the government which permits participation of respondent 2 and 3 in any of the government projects as mentioned in the statement of objection. Show us a single order which states that responsibility of respondent 2 (Isha Foundation) is to mobilize farmers and enrol the farmers. If you can't show that, then say that they are doing their own project."
The bench has directed the state government to clarify its stand on Wednesday. The direction was given while hearing a petition filed by Advocate A V Amarnathan raising objections over 'Sadhguru' Jaggi Vasudev's Isha foundation, collecting funds from the public for the Cauvery Calling Project.
The bench said "There has to be clarity on the stand of the state government. We cannot issue a writ against a private party but the state must come clean when someone is projecting that they are implementing a state government project."
Earlier, the Government had told the Court that that 'Cauvery Calling' was not the project of the State.
As per the petition, the Foundation is planning to plant 253 crores tree saplings across the 639 kilometer stretch of Cauvery river bank from its birth place Talacauvery to Thiruvarur. The Foundation is said to be collecting Rs. 42 per tree planting from the public. That means it is collecting a whooping sum of Rs 253 X 42 in total of Rs, 10,626 crores , which according to the petitioner is a major scam.
On January 7, the Court had asked the foundation to disclose the amount it had collected for the Cauvery Calling Project.
The bench had then said "Do not be under the impression that you are not bound by law because you are a spiritual organization." Later, Isha Foundation told the Court that the project was being dealt with by Isha Outreach.
In a subsequent development, the Court removed Advocate A V Amarnathan as the petitioner after he sent a legal notice to the Discovery Channel asking it to refrain from telecasting a program about the project.
The Court did not appreciate the petitioner sending such a notice when there was no interim order against the project. Following that, the Court removed the petitioner and converted the case as a suo moto PIL.


Next Story
Share it