Karnataka Governor seeks President's assent for Hindu Temple Bill
The bill was passed amid protests by the BJP. The bill seeks to utilise higher portions of revenue generated from rich Hindu temples across the state for a common pool of funds.
The Governor has stated in the order: "When the Legal Department of the state government has taken legal view, it is beyond my preview to examine such a point, whereas, the matter is before the Supreme Court for adjudication of the legal scrutiny under Article 14 and 26 of the Constitution of India, it is but natural to await the final judgement of the Supreme Court and until such time, it would be inappropriate for the Governor to give assent to the Bill.
'Hence, I am further constrained to reserve the matter to the kind consideration of Her Excellency President of India,' the Governor stated.
He further stated: 'In this situation, I am of the opinion that instead of giving assent to the proposed Bill, I would deem fit to reserve this Bill for the kind consideration of the President to avoid more constitutional complications, since it involves Constitutional restrictions as well as legal scrutiny.'
'In the light of the above, I hereby exercise the powers under Articles 200, 201, of the Constitution of India, reserve the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024 for the consideration and assent of the President of India,' the Governor stated.
Talking about the bill, the Governor said: "The said Bill has been passed by both the Houses of State Legislature in 3rd session of 16th Assembly and submitted for my assent on March 6, 2024. Some clarifications have been sought from the State Government regarding the proposed amendment.
'The state government submitted the proposed amendment Bill along with clarifications for my assent on May 16,' the Governor stated.
The Bill seeks to amend various sections of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill, 2024. The Governor has received this bill from the government of Karnataka for assent under Article 200 of the Constitution of India.
The Governor noted that he has gone through the proposed amendment and clarifications.
'I have my reservations about the clarifications and the proposed amendments,' he said.
The state government has submitted that the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowment Act, 1997 was challenged in writ petition and was dismissed, again, writ appeal was filed before Division Bench.
The Division Bench of High Court on September 8, 2006 held that the enactment is violative of Article 14, 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, the Governor underlined.
'As, I observed, the High Court has discussed in detail about the section 17 of the said Act, i.e. Creation of Common Pool Fund and opined that the "gross annual income for the purpose of the percentage appear to be an arbitrary one," the Governor stated.
The state government has also proposed for insertion of new section 69E to make provisions for creation of District Level and State Level High Power Committees, whereas, High Court has already opined negatively about the advisory committees in its judgement, he said.
'As Constitutional Head of the State, I am of the opinion that, even though the Supreme Court has stayed the Division Bench Order and the issue is pending for adjudication on merits before the Supreme Court, it is not proper and viable to approve the proposed amendments, since the entire act has already been stuck down by the High Court, and unless the same has been brought to a logical end by the Supreme Court on the aspect of legal scrutiny under Article 14 and 26 of the Constitution of India,' the Governor stated.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
12 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
INDIA bloc MPs to march from Parliament to Election Commission tomorrow over ‘vote chori' claims
MPs from the INDIA bloc, led by Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, will march from Parliament to the Election Commission on Monday to protest what they allege is 'vote chori' (vote theft) through the special intensive revision (SIR) of electoral rolls. Opposition INDIA bloc MPs protest in Parliament against the Election Commission's Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar during the Monsoon Session. (PTI File) Sources said the alliance's floor leaders are also expected to meet the Election Commissioners to formally register their objections. The march is expected to begin from Parliament at around 11.30 am. The Opposition's protest comes days after Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of colluding with the BJP, citing a Congress analysis of the Mahadevapura assembly seat in Karnataka, where he alleged that nearly one lakh votes were 'stolen'. Earlier, Rahul Gandhi reiterated his allegations of 'vote chori' (vote theft) in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, stressing that a 'clean' voter roll is essential for free and fair polls. Linking the issue to a broader fight to 'protect' democracy, the Congress MP said on X, 'Vote chori is an attack on the foundational idea of 'one man, one vote'. A clean voter roll is imperative for free and fair elections. Our demand from the EC is clear — be transparent and release digital voter rolls so that people and parties can audit them. This fight is to protect our democracy.' Congress general secretary (Organisation) KC Venugopal likened the fight against alleged voter list manipulation to a 'do-or-die' mission to save Indian democracy, and said the party will discuss its next steps in the nationwide campaign at an upcoming meeting. 'Just as Bapu gave us the 'Do or Die' call during the Quit India movement, we today must embark upon a similar do-or-die mission to save Indian democracy,' Venugopal wrote on X. He said that the party will hold a meeting of its general secretaries, in-charges, and frontal organisation heads on August 11, chaired by party president Mallikarjun Kharge, to plan the next phase of its nationwide campaign against alleged voter list manipulation and election fraud.
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
How BCCI has continued to resist attempts to bring it under RTI scanner
The Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) will not be subject to provisions of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, according to the latest version of the National Sports Governance Bill, 2025. According to the proposed law, only sports bodies that receive financial assistance from the State constitute a 'public authority' under the RTI Act. This effectively excludes the cash-rich BCCI, which does not avail direct financial aid from the government. Over the years, the world's richest cricket board has pushed back on being labelled a public authority despite recommendations from the Supreme Court, the Law Commission of India and the Central Information Commission (CIC) to bring it under the transparency law. The new law & an exception for BCCI The National Sports Governance Bill seeks to provide for the recognition of national sports bodies, and regulate their functioning. The Bill essentially aims to align Indian sports governance with the Olympic and Paralympic Charters, and international sporting best practices. This would bring in transparency and accountability in national sports federations, and open up a number of hosting, collaboration and funding opportunities. Given that cricket will soon be included as an Olympic sport, it is necessary for the government to also bring BCCI under the proposed law. At the same time, the government is clearly open to making some exceptions. The initial version of the Bill tabled in Parliament on July 23 would have brought every recognised sports body under the RTI Act. Clause 15(2) of that draft stated that a 'recognised sports organisation shall be considered a public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with respect to the exercise of its functions, duties and powers.' This broad definition would have included the BCCI, making its entire functioning, from team selection to awarding contracts, open to public scrutiny. In a later version of the Bill, which is likely to be debated in Parliament next week, this clause has been tweaked. The new provision states that a recognised sports organisation 'receiving grants or any other financial assistance' from the government shall be considered a public authority only 'with respect to utilisation of such grants or any other financial assistance'. This change makes direct government funding the sole criterion for a sports body to be considered a public authority, effectively keeping the BCCI away from RTI scrutiny. The BCCI has consistently argued that it is a private, autonomous body and not a 'public authority'. Indeed, it is not a sports federation under the Union Sports Ministry: legally, it is an autonomous charitable society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975. It does not take direct financial aid from the government. This stance has been its cornerstone in resisting attempts to bring it under the RTI Act — it maintains that being financially and organisationally independent of the State places it outside the government's regulatory framework for public bodies. This position has been strongly contested by several judicial and quasi-judicial bodies. The Law Commission of India, for instance, its 275th Report in 2018, recommended that the BCCI be classified as a public authority. It argued that the board's claims of financial independence do not hold up when indirect benefits are considered. It also pointed out that the BCCI has received significant indirect financial assistance from the government over the years. Between 1997 and 2007, it noted, the board availed tax exemptions to the tune of over Rs 2,100 crores due to its legal status as a charitable institution. The Law Commission argued that this foregoing of revenue, which would have otherwise gone to the national exchequer, is a form of substantial indirect funding. The report also cited examples of state governments providing land to state cricket associations at highly subsidised rates — such as in Himachal Pradesh, where land for a stadium was reportedly leased for a nominal Re 1 per month. Beyond finances, both the Law Commission and the Supreme Court, in multiple judgements, have emphasised that the BCCI performs 'public functions' that are akin to those of a state body. It selects the national teams that represent India, uses national colours and symbols and exercises a monopoly over the sport with the 'tacit concurrence' of the government, according to a Supreme Court judgement from 2015. Previous recommendations not implemented A Justice RM Lodha-led committee, appointed by the Supreme Court in 2015 to recommend reforms to the BCCI, described the cricket body's functioning as a 'closed door and back-room affair.' It found that critical information, including its constitution and financial details, was not easily accessible, and requests for information were often ignored, underscoring the need for greater public scrutiny. The committee recommended that the 'legislature must seriously consider bringing BCCI within the purview of the RTI Act,' stating that the public has a right to know about its activities. Following this, the Supreme Court in 2016, while hearing the case on the Lodha reforms, referred the issue to the Law Commission of India, observing that since the BCCI performs public functions, there is a clear need for transparency. The Law Commission, in its 2018 report, concluded that the BCCI should be classified as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act based on both its public functions and the indirect government funding it receives. This was followed by a landmark order from the Central Information Commission (CIC) in the same year, which declared the BCCI a 'public authority' and directed it to set up mechanisms to handle RTI queries. However, the BCCI challenged this order in the Madras High Court, which put a stay on its implementation — leaving the matter in a legal limbo. Bringing the BCCI under the RTI Act would mean that any citizen of India could file a query and seek information on its functioning. This would go far beyond just financial matters and would cover the entire gamut of its operations. The public would be able to demand information on the criteria for team selection, details of contracts awarded for broadcasting and infrastructure, the appointment process for officials and coaches and the minutes of its meetings. This would enforce a level of transparency and public accountability that is currently absent, forcing the board to justify its decisions to the public at large, rather than just to its own constituent members. The Supreme Court, in 2015, has already held that even though the BCCI is not a state institution, it is amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution because it performs public functions. This means that the High Courts can intervene in the BCCI's affairs if its actions are found to be arbitrary or against the public interest.
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Karnataka Law Department will probe into Rahul Gandhi's allegations of ‘vote theft': CM Siddaramaiah
After Leader of Opposition in Lok Saha Rahul Gandhi urged the Karnataka government to investigate the alleged 'vote theft' that took place at the Mahadevapura Assembly segment of Bangalore Central constituency during the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah said Saturday that the Law Department will investigate the issue. 'We have asked the Law Department to look into it. Based on their recommendations, we will initiate legal action,' Siddaramaiah told reporters. Responding to media queries, he said the government has asked the legal adviser to the CM and the advocate general to investigate it and submit a report. The development came days after Gandhi raised a storm and said that it had '100 per cent' evidence of tampering during the Lok Sabha elections. In a briefing held in Delhi last week, he alleged that around one lakh votes were 'stolen' at the Mahadevapura segment, thereby denying a victory to the Congress candidate. Subsequently, at the 'Vote Adhikar Rally' held in Bengaluru on Friday, he urged the state government to initiate a probe into the irregularities. Rahul Gandhi accused the Election Commission of stifling public scrutiny, claiming that its website went offline after he released data that he believes raises serious questions about the integrity of the electoral process. 'When the public started asking the Election Commission difficult questions based on the data I shared, they shut down their website,' he alleged. The chief minister said the Congress was expecting to win 16 of the 28 seats in Karnataka, but won only nine after the results were announced. He said that all relevant documents regarding the Lok Sabha polls were with the Election Commission of India and the Karnataka State Election Commission. Noting that Gandhi's expose had shown that 80 voters were registered from the same address, he asked whether it was possible for that many people to share a small room.
