Karnataka Assembly passes Bill to rename Bengaluru City University after Manmohan Singh
The statement of objects and reasons attached to the Bill notes that the renaming seeks to 'esteem the reputation of Dr. Manmohan Singh, distinguished economist, academician, bureaucrat and statesman who spearheaded economic reforms in the nation and served as Prime Minister of India for two successive terms.'
Despite Opposition protests, the Congress Government pushed the Bill through, with Higher Education Minister Dr M C Sudhakar maintaining that renaming Bengaluru City University after Singh was an honour that reflected his immense contribution to the country's economic and political life.
While the ruling Congress hailed the move as a fitting tribute to Singh's contributions to the nation, the Opposition BJP questioned the government's approach.
Leader of Opposition R Ashoka argued that instead of renaming an existing institution, the government should establish a new university in Singh's name. 'Naming an existing university after Dr Manmohan Singh does not do justice to his stature. A new university would have been a more meaningful tribute,' Ashoka said.
BJP MLA Suresh Gowda also criticised the decision, saying the government had overlooked other leaders who deserved recognition. He suggested that Tumkur University could have been named after Shivakumar Swamiji, revered as 'Nadedaduva Devaru' (walking God) by his followers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
3 minutes ago
- Business Standard
'Should leaders run govt from jail?': Shah defends PM, CM removal bills
Shah said the bills were introduced "on account of the Modi government's commitment to restoring moral standards in politics and in view of the public resentment towards the menace" Rahul Goreja New Delhi Home Minister Amit Shah on Wednesday defended three bills tabled by the Centre seeking to bar arrested politicians from holding constitutional posts, saying the public must decide whether leaders should be allowed to run governments from jail. 'Now the people of the country need to decide: Is it right for a minister, chief minister, or prime minister to run a government from jail?' Shah asked in a series of posts on X. The bills include: The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 The Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025 The Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation (Amendment) Bill, 2025 In his posts, Shah said the bills were introduced 'on account of the Modi government's commitment to restoring moral standards in politics and in view of the public resentment towards the menace'. 'When the Constitution was framed, its makers could not have imagined that political leaders in future would refuse to resign on moral grounds even after being arrested. In recent years, the country has witnessed shocking instances where chief ministers or ministers continued to run governments from jail without resigning,' Shah said. He noted that the proposals would prevent anyone from functioning as Prime Minister (PM), Chief Minister (CM), or Union or State Minister while in jail. The bills stipulate that an arrested politician must secure bail within 30 days. If not, they would be removed from office on the 31st day. Leaders may be reinstated once granted bail through due legal process. Opposition criticism Shah criticised the Opposition for opposing the bills, saying, 'On one hand, PM Narendra Modi has introduced a Constitutional amendment to bring himself into the ambit of law. On the other hand, under the leadership of Congress, the entire Opposition has opposed it in order to remain above the law, run governments from jail, and cling to power.' 'The nation also remembers the time when, in this very House, then PM Indira Gandhi granted special privilege to the prime minister, ensuring that no legal action could be taken against her,' he added, arguing that Congress's policy has been to place the prime minister above the law through amendments. 'I resigned': Shah's rebuttal Earlier in the day, Congress leader KC Venugopal alleged that the bills sabotaged the federal system, questioning Shah: 'When he was the home minister of Gujarat, he was arrested. Did he uphold morality at that time?' Shah replied: 'Today in the House, a Congress leader made a personal remark against me, saying that when the Congress trapped me in a fabricated case and had me arrested, I did not resign. I want to remind Congress that I had resigned even before being arrested. I did not hold any constitutional position, even after being released on bail, until the court fully acquitted me.' He added that the court eventually dismissed the case against him, observing that it was politically motivated. What the bills propose The legislation states that if a PM, CM, or other minister is arrested on charges carrying a potential jail term of five years or more, and remains in custody for 30 days, they would automatically lose their position on the 31st day. The responsibility for formal removal would rest with the President in the case of the PM, the governor for CMs, the CM for state ministers, and the lieutenant governor in Union Territories. The Lok Sabha has referred all three bills to a parliamentary joint committee for scrutiny.
The Hindu
3 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bill to reduce buffer zones of smaller lakes passed amidst Opposition walkout
The Karnataka Legislative Council on Wednesday adopted the Karnataka Tank Conservation and Development Authority (Amendment) Bill, 2025, which seeks to reduce the size of buffer zones for the smaller water bodies, amidst a walkout staged by the Opposition members. Opposition members led by Chalavadi Narayanaswamy demanded that the Bill be referred to a Joint House Committee for a detailed study. Presenting the Bill, Minor Irrigation Minister N.S. Boseraju explained that so far, regardless of a lake's size, a uniform 30-metre buffer zone was mandated. This had caused difficulties for people in districts like Mangaluru and Udupi, where land could not be used for public purposes. Therefore, the amendment proposes buffer zones based on lake area, measured from the revenue boundary. With prior approval, certain public works such as parks, roads, bridges, power lines, water supply pipelines, sewage lines, jackwells or pump houses, STPs, stormwater drains, and small canals may be permitted in the buffer zone, provided they do not obstruct the inflow or outflow of water. However, no commercial, entertainment, or industrial activities will be allowed. The Bill also provides for forming committees, including local residents, to protect lakes, he said. However, the Opposition accused the government of rushing through the Bill under pressure from the real estate lobby. They argued that several reports on encroachment of lakes in Bengaluru by Lakshman Rao, A.T. Ramaswamy and K.B. Koliwada should be studied first. The BJP insisted that the Bill should be referred to a Joint House Committee, but the government did not agree, prompting the walkout. Mr. Narayanaswamy said it was wrong to destroy lakes in the name of conservation. Instead of reducing the size of buffer zones, they should be increased, lake desilting should be implemented, and encroachments on stormwater drains should be removed. He expressed concern that reducing the buffer zone size would benefit traders and real estate developers. BJP member C.T. Ravi called the Bill 'unscientific,' particularly in the context of Bengaluru. He questioned whether Lakshman Rao, A.T. Ramaswamy, or K.B. Koliwada reports had recommended reducing the size of buffer zones. He added, 'When our party was in power, even though people accused us of carrying suitcases [a reference to corruption], we never did such things. Now, seeing this Bill, one wonders if suitcases are doing the rounds again.' Other bills passed The Council also adopted several other Bills that were adopted in the Assembly. These include the Karnataka Platform Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare) Bill, 2025; Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulation of Transfer of Medical Officers and Other Staff) (Amendment) Bill, 2025; The Karnataka Compulsory Service by Candidates Completed Medical Courses (Amendment) Bill, 2026; The Karnataka Town and Country Planning and Certain Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2025; The Karnataka Municipal Corporations (Amendment) Bill, 2025; The Karnataka Decriminalisation (Amendment of Provisions) Bill, 2025; The Karnataka Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill, 2025; Karnataka Essential Services Maintenance (Amendment) Bill, 2025; Karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Bill and the Karnataka Groundwater (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) (Amendment) Bill.
The Hindu
3 minutes ago
- The Hindu
State government faces embarrassment as Council rejects Souharda Co-op Bill
The State government on Wednesday faced an embarrassing situation in the Legislative Council when the Opposition BJP and JD (S) voted down the Karnataka Souharda Sahakari (Amendment) Bill, 2025, that was passed in the Assembly. Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot had earlier this year returned this Bill, along with the Karnataka Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Bill, 2024, to the State government, requesting reconsideration and modifications. The Governor had deemed the government's previous clarifications on these Bills as 'not satisfactory'. Why the Bill Presenting the Bill, Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H.K. Patil said that it provides for maintaining 20% of the total deposits as State statutory liquid reserve (SLR) to manage increasing cases of misappropriation. 'Apart from provisions for maintaining a statutory liquid reserve, the Bill introduces a requirement for candidates, directors, and Chief Executive Officers to declare their assets and liabilities at the end of each year to promote transparency and accountability,' Mr. Patil said, pointing out that amendments were being made to define voting rights, election procedures, and management structures of cooperative societies. Annual declaration However, the Opposition members objected to the annual declaration of assets and liabilities and a few other clauses. 'Banks with RBI approval should be free to deposit funds where a higher interest is available. Reserving 20% of deposits under SLR is unnecessary. Already, in many cooperatives, members struggle to withdraw their own deposits, often forced to withdraw money in instalments,' the members said. Although Mr. Patil assured the House that the annual declaration could be changed to once every two years, the Opposition members demanded that the Bill be put to a vote. Chairman Basavaraj Horatti, who did a count of those in favour and against the Bill, announced that 23 legislators were in favour while 26 were against it. Hence, the Bill has been rejected, he said.
