"Karnataka should become a drug-free state": CM Siddaramaiah
Bengaluru (Karnataka) [India], May 31 (ANI): Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Saturday stressed that drugs must be curbed in Bengaluru and Mangaluru and said that the number of cases has gone down from 6,723 in 2024 to 4188 in 2025.
The Chief Minister further informed that the number of drug-related cases in the state saw a decline this year, adding that legal amendments are being considered to strengthen action against drug offences.
Speaking to reporters, CM Siddaramaiah said, 'Drugs must be curbed in Bengaluru and Mangaluru. Instructions have been given to officials to prevent it. In 2024, there were 6,723 cases. In 2025, the number of cases decreased to 4,188. Karnataka should become a drug-free state. We are also considering legal amendments. I have also spoken about online betting. Regarding preventing online betting, we'll see whether a new law is required and how to implement it. Instructions have been given regarding action at the level of drug peddlers.'
Highlighting the government's administrative initiatives, CM Siddaramaiah stated that the state government has allocated necessary funds for the construction of Praja Soudhas and it would be constructed within two years.
'We have held a two-day meeting with DCs, SPs, and CEOs. I have also held a meeting with the district in-charge ministers. The CM Dashboard has been inaugurated. Out of 240 taluks, 63 are new taluks. These were formed during my previous term as Chief Minister. The BJP had approved 14 Mini Vidhana Soudhas. Now, we are calling them Praja Soudha (People's Soudha). It has been two years since we came to power. Approval has been given for buildings in 49 new taluks. We have granted permission for the construction of Praja Soudhas. We have also allocated the necessary funds for them. The Soudhas will be constructed within two years,' he said.
Speaking on the prevailing situation of COVID, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said, 'This time, COVID is not as dangerous. Still, I have instructed that precautionary measures and alertness must be maintained. There are no middlemen involved in our government's five Guarantee schemes. That's why I have instructed their effective implementation.' (ANI)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Congress names four nominees for legislative council; eyes Lakhan Jarkiholi's crucial vote
BENGALURU: The Congress has announced the party's four nominees for the State Legislative Council. They are: Dinesh Amin Mattu, media advisor to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah; Arathi Krishna, deputy chairperson, Karnataka NRI Forum; Ramesh Babu, chairman, the party media cell; and Sagar, Dalit leader. The names were cleared by the party high command. They would be sworn-in after getting the assent of governor. With their swearing-in, Congress will have 37 members in the 75-member House, the same as the BJP-JDS combine. All eyes are now on the independent, Lakhan Jarkiholi, brother of minister Satish Jarkiholi. Lakhan's vote could shatter or solidify the balance of power in the House. If the Congress wins him over, the party will seize both the chairman and deputy chairman posts, currently held by the BJP. It was Lakhan's brother, Ramesh Jarkiholi, who toppled the Congress coalition by defecting to the BJP. Ramesh might yet convince Lakhan to back the BJP-JDS alliance, ensuring status quo. There has been a precedent of having a person from another party as chairman of the Upper House. When Ramakrishna Hegde was the CM, Congress member Rehman Khan was chairman for about two years. If the Congress does get Lakhan's vote, the question is who will become chairman and deputy chairman. Veteran BK Hariprasad was once seen as a frontrunner. Now he has been elevated as the party general secretary for Haryana. There is no clarity on what his next role could be. Minister Bose Raju, Chief Whip Saleem Ahmed and former minister Nasir Ahmed could emerge as choices, as sources say the party would assign roles according to its priorities.
New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
AAP's Jain appears before ACB in classroom scam case
NEW DELHI: Former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain on Friday appeared before the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) for questioning in connection with an alleged corruption case concerning the construction of classrooms in government schools. Jain had been summoned by the ACB to appear for questioning. Before heading to the ACB office, he maintained that the previous AAP government had prioritised education in the city, unlike the present BJP-led administration. 'The previous AAP government in the national capital worked towards improving the city's education, while the current BJP government is only doing politics,' Jain said. The ACB had earlier summoned AAP leaders, former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia and former PWD minister Satyendar Jain in connection with the case. Jain was asked to appear on June 6, and Sisodia has been summoned for June 9, according to officials. In April, the ACB registered a case against AAP leaders, alleging corruption in the construction of classrooms at inflated costs. The agency claimed that a scam worth Rs 2,000 crore had been uncovered in the construction of 12,748 classrooms and buildings during the tenure of the AAP government. The complaints were filed by Delhi BJP spokesperson Harish Khurana, BJP MLA Kapil Mishra, and Neelkanth Bakshi of the BJP's media relations department. They alleged corruption in the construction of approximately 12,748 school classrooms at an expenditure of Rs 2,892 crore. According to the ACB, the awarded tender cost for building a classroom was around Rs 24.86 lakh, while such a room could have been constructed for Rs 5 lakh. It was further alleged that the project was awarded to 34 contractors, many of whom are reportedly linked to the AAP. Joint Commissioner of Police (ACB) Madhur Verma said, 'It was decided in meetings of the expenditure finance committee for 2015-16 that the project would be completed by June 2016 at the sanctioned cost without any scope for future cost escalations. But not even a single work was completed within the prescribed time and significant cost escalations were observed.'
The Wire
an hour ago
- The Wire
Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma
Menu हिंदी తెలుగు اردو Home Politics Economy World Security Law Science Society Culture Editor's Pick Opinion Support independent journalism. Donate Now Law Justice, Speech and Selective Outrage: The Supreme Court's Contempt Dilemma Rekha Sharma 4 minutes ago The Supreme Court's swift move to initiate contempt proceedings against journalist Ajay Shukla for a critical YouTube video contrasts sharply with the way BJP MP Nishikant Dubey was handled. Nishikant Dubey (left) and Ajay Shukla in the background. In the foreground is the Supreme Court. Real journalism holds power accountable Since 2015, The Wire has done just that. But we can continue only with your support. Contribute now On May 30, a Supreme Court bench headed by the Chief Justice of India initiated suo motu criminal contempt proceedings against Ajay Shukla, a Chandigarh-based journalist, for posting a video on YouTube allegedly containing scathing and scandalous remarks against some senior judges of the Supreme Court. The bench observed that though the Constitution guarantees to every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression, this is subject to reasonable restrictions and that such a right does not permit someone to defame a judge or bring into disrepute the institution of the judiciary. Having said so, the court directed that the offending video be taken down forthwith. It also asked the Attorney General and the Solicitor General to assist the court on the next date of hearing. Though the video is no longer available, it is widely believed that contain some allegedly objectionable remarks against Justice Surya Kant, who is next in line for the Chief Justiceship, and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, who retired mid-May. It may be stated, at the very outset, that the dignity, majesty and honour of the Supreme Court, or for that matter any court of justice must be protected at all cost by every person including by the Supreme Court itself. That said, fair criticism of a judicial decision and the conduct of a judge – provided it is done in good faith and on accurate facts – also needs to be equally protected. In this background, while no one can question the right and the prerogative of the Supreme Court to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Shukla, the action taken has given rise to certain questions. Not very long ago, highly objectionable and vicious remarks were made by Nishikant Dubey, a Lok Sabha member of the ruling party, against the then CJI, Justice Sanjiv Khanna. Dubey held him singularly responsible for all the alleged 'civil wars' in the country. He also alleged that the Supreme Court was taking the country towards anarchy. These remarks were not only highly toxic and outrageous, they had the potential to rock the very foundation of our judicial system and erode the people's faith in the judiciary and almost bordered on 'blasphemy'. And yet, even though the fountain head of the judiciary was personally targeted, it neither caused any stir nor a ripple. There was a sphinx like silence. No judge deemed it fit to issue any suo motu criminal contempt notice against the errant MP. It was the Supreme Court Bar Association which raised its voice, and urged the Attorney General to grant consent for initiating contempt proceedings against Dubey. The AG neither on his own nor on the request of the Bar Association has till date given or declined to give his consent. This, despite the fact that he as the first law officer of the country, has a duty to uphold the dignity and majesty of the court of which he is an integral part. It ultimately fell on the lot of Justice Khanna himself to give a befitting response to the likes of Dubey. Though the bench headed by him dismissed a petition which sought contempt action against the MP, he gave a very measured and dignified response to him. Holding that the comments were highly irresponsible and reflected a penchant to attract attention by casting aspersions on the Supreme Court and its judges, he wrote that the courts are not so fragile as flowers to wither and wilt under such ludicrous statements. He further observed, 'We do not believe that the confidence and the credibility of the courts in the eyes of the public can be shaken by such statements'. Kudos to Justice Sanjiv Khanna for such a befitting response. Going by media reports, Justice Bela Trivedi has not been given a farewell by the Supreme Court Bar Association. The CJI is reported to have expressed his disapproval over the decision of the Bar Association, and so has Justice A.G. Masih, who said that tradition must be followed. It is for the first time in the history of the Supreme Court that such a tradition has been broken. The bar, it is said, is the judge of the judges. It is not for nothing that Justice Bela Trivedi has been denied the honour of a farewell by the bar. The question is why did things come to such a pass? It should set both bench and bar thinking. Undoubtedly, a long standing tradition has been broken but, then, judgeship is not a blank cheque. It comes with responsibility. The bar not only helps judges make the justice delivery system work, it also acts as a watchdog. The bar has, by its action, sent a loud and clear message. It is time for judges to remember that they too are under watch. They may, in a given case, fail to grasp some suspected hidden meaning of a column written in English by an Oxford educated professor and leave the job of deciphering it to some police officer, and that too not from a particular state. But if they fail to take action against a minister who made a highly objectionable statement in simple and understandable Hindi, it does raise eyebrows. It is in such matters that the bar has to play its role. And, if it does play its role, there should be no protest. Rekha Sharma is a former judge of the Delhi high court. This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here. The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments. Make a contribution to Independent Journalism Related News Central Hall | Governors Increasingly Acting like Political Agents as Constitutional Morality Erodes 'Same Sex Marriage Not Legalised But Couples Can Very Well Form A Family': Madras HC Indian Astronaut Shubhanshu Shukla-led Mission to International Space Station Pushed to June 10 'Highly Irresponsible': BJP MP Nishikant Dubey Faces Supreme Court Wrath Why the Process of 44 MLAs 'Forming the Government' in Manipur Is Not Straightforward US Supreme Court Rules $1.29 Bn Lawsuit Against ISRO-Owned Antrix to Proceed Modi-Shah Face Dilemma As Their Stormtroopers Cross All Limits of Propriety The Arrest and Trial of Professor Azaan M Free Speech on Eggshells: What the Ali Khan Mahmudabad Case Signals for All of Us About Us Contact Us Support Us © Copyright. All Rights Reserved.
