Activist Challenges Police Inaction Over Minister's Betting Statement
A social activist from Madhugiri has taken legal action against four police officers for refusing to register his complaint against Karnataka Home Minister G Parameshwara, who publicly admitted to participating in betting activities. Handralu Nagabhushan filed a private complaint before the Madhugiri court in Tumakuru district, naming the officers who declined to act on his FIR request.
The Police Officers Named in the Complaint
The activist specifically targeted PSI Srinivas Prasad and Inspector Hanumantaraya from Kodigenahalli police station, along with their Deputy SP Manjunath and SP KV Ashok. The court has acknowledged the complaint and scheduled the next hearing for December 12, giving the accused officers time to respond to the allegations.
Minister's Controversial Betting Admission
The controversy stems from an incident on October 19 when Home Minister Parameshwara made a startling revelation during a media interaction. While attending the state-level kabaddi tournament where teams from Vijayanagara and Dakshina Kannada were competing, the minister engaged in a wager with Tumakuru deputy commissioner Shubha Kalyan.
"I lost Rs 500 to Kalyan by betting," Parameshwara publicly declared, explaining that he had bet on the Vijayanagara team to win, while the Dakshina Kannada team ultimately emerged victorious in the tournament.
Legal Battle Over Gambling Laws
Nagabhushan, taking strong objection to the home minister's statement, approached the jurisdictional Kodigenahalli police station in the last week of October seeking registration of an FIR against Parameshwara for gambling, which is illegal under Indian law. However, police officials declined to take action, citing lack of sufficient materials and evidence to proceed with the case.
The activist's legal move highlights the tension between public figures' statements and legal accountability, particularly when the official involved oversees the state's law enforcement apparatus as Home Minister. The case raises important questions about whether the same legal standards apply to public officials and ordinary citizens regarding gambling admissions.
