Bengaluru vlogger murder: Boyfriend embarks on North India tour after stabbing lover

Mangaluru: A routine midnight tea run turned into a horrifying tragedy when a motorcycle carrying three young men — in clear violation of traffic rules — slammed into an open divider on National Highway 66 at SKS Junction in the early hours of April 8. Two of them lost their lives, while the third is recovering from injuries.

The victims have been identified as Sankeerth, who was riding the motorcycle (KL-58-Q-6381), and Dhanurved C, the first pillion rider. Sibi Sam, the second pillion rider, was injured but survived the crash.

According to the FIR registered at the Traffic East Police Station (Crime No. 48/2025), the friends had set out from Lohith Nagar around 2:30 am, heading towards Pumpwell for tea. While Rohan Joby and Meghnath rode separately on a different bike (KL-13-AH-2388), Sankeerth was accompanied by two pillion riders — a clear case of triple riding, which is both illegal and dangerous.

As they sped along NH-66, Sankeerth reportedly lost control near SKS Junction and collided with the edge of an open road divider at approximately 2:50 am. The impact threw all three men onto the highway with violent force.

Sankeerth and Dhanurved suffered critical head and facial injuries and died while being rushed to the hospital. Sibi Sam is undergoing treatment for his injuries.

The FIR invokes Sections 281, 125(a), 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and 128(a) read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which include provisions related to rash driving and traffic violations.

The police have launched a full investigation. The accident has reignited public concern about reckless driving, triple riding, and the hazards posed by poorly maintained road dividers, especially during low-visibility hours.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.

The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the operation of certain parts of the contentious Waqf law, including the inclusion of non-Muslims in the Waqf boards and council, till the next date of hearing on May 5. The Chief Justice-led bench also said that the 'waqf by user' provision should not be denotified till then.

The Centre assured the Supreme Court that no appointments would be made to Waqf boards. The new law tweaks the composition of Waqf boards, making it compulsory to include non-Muslims as its members.

"SG (Tushar) Mehta assured that till the next date, no appointment shall take place to board and councils under the 2025 Act. He also assures that the status of waqfs, including waqf by user, already declared by notification or gazetted, shall not be changed," the court said in its order.

The Centre, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, sought 7-days' time to file a response. The court allowed the petitioners to file their rejoinder within five days after that.

Details awaited.