Buddha Basava and Ambedkar transcend caste boundaries: Min Tangadagi
Bagalkot: Buddha, Basava, and
contributed uniquely to the world beyond any caste boundaries, said Kannada & culture minister Shivaraj Tangadagi.
Inaugurating a seminar on contemporary reflections of
Vachana literature
at the 'Anubhava Mantapa Basavadi Sharana Vaibhava' event, jointly organised by the Kannada & culture department, district administration, and
Kudalasangama
Development Authority at Basava Mantapa in Kudalasangama on Tuesday, Tangadagi stated that Basavanna taught administrative systems through his Vachanas.
Tired of too many ads? go ad free now
The Anubhava Mantapa he established functions as Parliament today, he remarked.
The purpose of celebrating anniversaries is to introduce the history of great personalities to the youth. "Efforts are being made to introduce Basavanna's Vachanas across the state to influence the youth. Through their practices, ideas, and Vachanas, the govt is creating history and delivering social justice. Everyone talks about Basavanna, but very few live by contemplating his practices and ideas daily," he noted.
Speaking after offering flowers to Basavanna's portrait, excise and district minister RB Timmapur mentioned the 12th-century efforts to eradicate untouchability and unite all communities.
Presiding over the programme, Hunagund MLA and State Veerashaiva Lingayat Development Corporation chairman Vijayanand Kashappanavar stated that the grandeur of Basavadi Sharanas is being celebrated in the historic Kudalasangama.
"The govt has announced in the budget to organise such programmes under the name of Sarvadharma Parliament. In this context, it is a matter of pride to conduct this grand event at Kudalasangama," he shared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
12 hours ago
- Indian Express
2034 earliest for simultaneous polls under existing Bills: One Nation, One Election panel chief
P P Chaudhary, BJP MP and chairman of the Joint Committee of Parliament on Bills relating to 'One Nation, One Election', has told The Indian Express that the earliest that simultaneous elections can be held under the existing Bills is 2034, and the committee may go beyond the draft law to suggest ways to keep polls aligned, including recommending a provision for a constructive or positive vote of no-confidence. In an interview with The Indian Express, Chaudhary, responding to a question on how long it would take the committee to finalise its recommendations, said members had unanimously decided to visit all states and Union Territories – a process that would take about two to two-and-a-half years. So far, the committee has visited two states: Uttarakhand and Maharashtra. The Bills were introduced in Lok Sabha in December last year and were almost immediately referred to the Chaudhary-led committee which has been holding consultations with stakeholders for feedback. Although the draft legislation provides for a one-time measure to bring Lok Sabha and Assembly elections in sync, Chaudhary felt that the committee could make additional recommendations to address how synchronisation should be maintained. One such suggestion could be a constructive vote of no-confidence which, as is the case in Germany, requires members of a legislature who bring a no-confidence motion against a government to have the numbers to form the government instead. Asked when the first simultaneous elections would be held, he said: 'The committee will deliberate; Parliament will decide. We can't say when, but the Bill says the first session of Parliament, if it happens with the appointed date, then it would be from 2034.' The Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 and the Union Territories Laws (Amendment Bill), 2024 provide for simultaneous elections to the Lok Sabha and Assemblies. If passed, the Bills provide for the President notifying the appointed date on the first sitting of a newly-elected Lok Sabha and every state or UT Assembly elected after that appointed date would have its term curtailed to align with the Lok Sabha. This would provide for simultaneous elections to be held when the five-year term of the Lok Sabha ends. The Bills also provide for elections to be held for the remainder term in case a government falls before the five-year term. Asked what would happen if a Lok Sabha or Assembly election returns a hung verdict or if a Union or state government falls, Chaudhary said: 'The Constitution does not mention no-confidence motion even now; it is governed by Rule 198 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha. We can bring in some provisions for stability. We can recommend new provisions in the Constitution.' He said the committee could deliberate on the issue and it was for Parliament to decide. 'If some impediments are there in the Constitution, those impediments may be redressed after discussion with all the members. Constructive no-confidence motion, like the German model, can be discussed. Once you bring a no-confidence motion, then at the same time, you should bring a confidence motion. In the rarest of rare situations, the Leader of the House can be elected on the floor of the House like the Speaker is. But, this situation will not arise. We have seen that the electorate does not support those who bring a no-confidence motion,' he said. 'All members will discuss and if there is a requirement to incorporate something or make additions to the Bill in the national interest, I believe the committee will recommend. If our end goal is to achieve 'One Nation, One Election', then definitely we will recommend amendments to enable that,' he said. The Bills had been introduced by Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal on December 17, 2024 and were based on the recommendations of the High-Level Committee chaired by former President Ram Nath Kovind. Responding to criticism from some in the Opposition that the move would be anti-democratic and against federalism, Chaudhary, who is BJP MP from Pali in Rajasthan, said simultaneous elections would further the cause of democracy. 'In our experience, the states where elections are held simultaneously, the voter turnout is 10-20% more. Is that in the interest of or against democracy? If there is only 40% polling and the PM or CM is elected with 21% of the votes, is that democracy? I believe polling will cross 80% if we have simultaneous elections. The expression of the will of the people will be more robust and it will strengthen democracy. Not holding simultaneous elections is anti-democratic,' he said. He maintained that the Bills only 'fixed the time schedule' of elections and did not affect the basic structure of the Constitution, federalism and free and fair elections. He said Article 327 of the Constitution gives Parliament the power to make provision with respect to elections to legislatures. When it comes to federalism, he said the Supreme Court, in the SR Bommai case in 1994, had reinforced that federalism is a basic feature and that the Bills before the committee do not infringe upon this as the powers of the Union and states remain the same. 'The first three elections were held simultaneously until 1967. Were those elections against federalism? Some Assembly elections are still held with Lok Sabha, is that against federalism? Has any regional party in those states demanded separate elections? Look at the example of TDP in Andhra Pradesh or BJD in Odisha. This argument is untenable. We welcome anyone who wants to come before the committee with such an argument, with foundations. We will deal with it. If there is no basis, we cannot deal with such an argument properly,' he said. The Bills, he said, did not alter the accountability of the government to Parliament and that holding frequent elections did not mean that the government would be more accountable. 'We have a parliamentary form of democracy. The executive is accountable 24×7 to Parliament,' he said. Asked about the concerns of regional parties that holding simultaneous elections would lead to regional issues being sidelined, he said voters were capable of electing different parties at the Centre and state. 'The voters today are very intelligent and politically educated. We can't underestimate the Indian voters. Underestimating them will tantamount to undermining them. The voters, particularly in rural areas like where I come from, know who to vote for in national elections based on national issues, and in local elections, based on local issues,' he said. Chaudhary said the cost of frequent elections was borne by the education system, particularly government schools where teachers are sent on election duty for months, and the economy. On how much it would cost to hold simultaneous elections, he said it would be 'maximum Rs15,000 crore'. But this, he said, would be a small amount when compared to the benefit to the economy in terms of fewer disruptions to governance, policy-making and investments. On the other hand, he said the practice of announcing freebies and caste-based politics around elections would also be reduced if all elections were held once in five years. As a part of the committee's hearings, he said all states and UTs had been asked to prepare reports on the impact of frequent elections to their economy and society. Stakeholders like the Indian Bank Association were also asked to study the impact of simultaneous elections. The Committee has so far met former Chief Justice of India U U Lalit and several former Supreme Court and High Court judges as a part of its consultations. He said the committee plans on meeting more legal luminaries, apart from political leaders and other stakeholders in states. Asked how the BJP would be able to have the Constitutional amendment passed as it required two-thirds majority, which the NDA does not have, he said he believed the parties who think of the national interest would support the Bills. 'It is not in the party's interest, it is in the national interest. It will not take time to be passed if they think in national interest. I have full faith that the parties that think of national interest will support. If Congress or any other party thinks of national interest first, then not just 2/3, but we will get 3/4 majority,' he said. The committee, comprising 39 members and two co-opted members, had been given an extension until the Monsoon session during the last session.
Hindustan Times
14 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
SC dropped probe on Allahabad HC judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav after Rajya Sabha alert
The Supreme Court was preparing to initiate an in-house inquiry into Allahabad high court judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav's controversial speech at a VHP event last year, but dropped the plan after receiving a categorical letter from the Rajya Sabha secretariat that asserted exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, people aware of the matter said. The people cited above confirmed that then Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna had set the process in motion to assess whether the judge's conduct warranted scrutiny in the wake of an adverse report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice. However, the move was halted after the Rajya Sabha secretariat's letter in March underlined that the constitutional mandate for any such proceeding lies solely with the chairman of the Rajya Sabha, and ultimately with Parliament and the President. This letter effectively stalled the judiciary's plan to initiate an in-house inquiry – an internal mechanism laid down through judicial precedents to examine complaints of misconduct against sitting judges of the superior judiciary, against Justice Yadav, whose comments at the VHP's December 8, 2024, event in Prayagraj drew widespread condemnation for violating the principles of secularism and judicial impartiality. HT reached out to the Rajya secretariat for a response on the next course of action but did not get one immediately. In February, Rajya Sabha chairman and vice president Jagdeep Dhankhar said that only Parliament and President have the jurisdiction over the matter 'The jurisdiction for the stated subject matter constitutionally lies in exclusivity with the chairman Rajya Sabha and in an eventuality with the Parliament and honourable President. Taking note of public domain information and inputs available, it is expedient that the Secretary General, Rajya Sabha shares this information with the Secretary General, Supreme Court of India,' he said in Parliament on February 13. Justice Yadav, addressing a gathering organised by the legal cell of the VHP within the Allahabad High Court Bar Association premises, made a series of incendiary statements that targeted the Muslim community and invoked majoritarian themes. In his speech, he reportedly asserted that 'India should function according to the wishes of the majority,' claimed 'only a Hindu can make this country a 'Vishwa Guru',' and linked practices such as triple talaq and halala to societal backwardness, calling for their abolition under the proposed Uniform Civil Code (UCC). Video clips of the speech, which went viral on social media, show him allegedly using derogatory communal remarks framed the UCC as a Hindu-Muslim binary, stating that while Hindu customs had evolved to address historical wrongs, Muslims had resisted reform. The speech triggered outrage among political leaders, jurists and civil society, with senior advocate Kapil Sibal leading a group of 55 opposition MPs in filing a notice in the Rajya Sabha seeking Justice Yadav's impeachment for 'grave violation of judicial ethics.' The Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) also demanded an in-house inquiry and his immediate suspension, citing a clear breach of the Restatement of Values of Judicial Life adopted by the Supreme Court in 1997. Amid mounting criticism, the Supreme Court swiftly sought a report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice on December 10, 2024. A week later, on December 17, the apex court collegium, comprising CJI Khanna and Justices Bhushan R Gavai, Surya Kant, Hrishikesh Roy and Abhay S Oka, summoned Justice Yadav for a 30-minute closed-door meeting to ascertain whether his public comments violated the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct or judicial ethics outlined in internal codes. While Justice Yadav reportedly assured the collegium judges he would apologise publicly, he failed to do so in the weeks that followed. Instead, in a January 2025 letter to the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court, the judge doubled down on his remarks, claiming they had been misrepresented by vested interests and asserting that his speech reflected societal concerns 'consistent with constitutional values.' Appointed in 2019, Justice Yadav is set to retire on April 15, 2026. People cited above said that CJI Khanna subsequently sought a fresh report from the Allahabad High Court chief justice, referring to additional complaints against Justice Yadav from a law student and a retired IPS officer. But by then, an unexpected development complicated matters. In March 2025, the Supreme Court administration received a formal communication from the Rajya Sabha secretariat, informing it that the matter of Justice Yadav's conduct, arising out of the December 13 impeachment motion signed by 55 MPs, was already under active consideration. 'The court's secretary general brought the letter to the notice of the then CJI, who was clear that an in-house inquiry, being a non-statutory and internal mechanism, should not run parallel to a statutory process under the Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968,' a person familiar with the matter told HT. 'The Rajya Sabha's categorical assertion that it was seized of the matter prompted the judiciary to defer to the parliamentary process,' this person added. The Judges (Inquiry) Act mandates that a motion seeking removal of a High Court or Supreme Court judge for 'proved misbehaviour or incapacity' must be admitted by the presiding officer of the House concerned. To be sure, the Vice President and Rajya Sabha chairman, Jagdeep Dhankhar, has yet to decide on the admissibility of the motion and whether to constitute a formal inquiry committee. 'The idea was not to create constitutional friction or undermine parliamentary privilege…That's the sole reason why no in-house probe was set up despite the initial steps,' the person cited above added. Another person aware of the deliberations within the collegium said that all members were informed of the decision to halt the in-house inquiry after the receipt of the Rajya Sabha's letter. 'There was a kind of consensus that the matter, being under legislative scrutiny, should not be clouded by a simultaneous judicial process,' the person said. Opposition lawmakers, meanwhile, continue to push for clarity on the status of the impeachment motion. Speaking to HT on condition of anonymity, a senior MP said last month that his party planned to raise the matter during the monsoon session. 'During the budget session, the chairman had said that he was assessing the veracity of the signatures on the notice. We would like to know the status of that notice notices have been given in both the Houses and it is imperative it should be taken up,' the lawmaker said. In his formal reply to the complaints, Justice Yadav reportedly maintained in January that he has done no wrong. He described his speech as an articulation of issues affecting society and claimed that his references were misconstrued. On the criticism of his previous judicial orders related to cow protection, he is said to have responded that these reflected India's cultural ethos and legal recognition of cow protection, not any form of judicial bias. Notably, Justice Yadav did not tender an apology in his correspondence, reinforcing his stance that his speech was neither communal nor violative of judicial conduct. He rather asserted that judges, who often face unfair attacks, deserve protection and support from senior members of the judiciary.
Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
Justice Kant: Indian judiciary shaped democracy's moral spine
NEW DELHI: Indian judiciary has been instrumental in shaping the democracy's moral spine by interpreting the Constitution's textual commands in a way that gave vibrancy and dynamism to the country's governance structure, said Justice Surya Kant, who will become the 53rd Chief Justice of India in Nov. Speaking to legal scholars and students in Seattle (US), he said in Kesavananda Bharti case, SC established the 'basic structure doctrine', which elucidated that while Parliament could amend the Constitution, it could not alter its fundamental identity. Justice Kant said, "When courts act to empower the powerless, grounded in constitutional text and moral clarity, they do not usurp democracy - they deepen it." While judiciary's proactive stance has often filled legislative or executive voids in advancing rights and justice, it has also, at times, drawn criticism for encroaching upon policy domains traditionally reserved for elected branches of govt, he said. "This tension invites a deeper inquiry into the legitimacy and limits of judicial intervention in a constitutional democracy," he added. He said principles such as the Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Judicial Review were deemed unamendable. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo This doctrine, unprecedented at the time, was rooted not in textual literalism, but in an ethical reading of democratic continuity, he said. He juxtaposed the Bharti judgment with the infamous ADM Jabalpur case, in which during emergency SC had acquiesced to the govt's draconian diktat "no right available to citizens", and said it was only following the Maneka Gandhi case, immediately after the end of Emergency, that the true expansion of rights happened through SC's interpretative exercises. "In this period, SC has reaffirmed the supremacy of the Constitution and underscored that its foundational values, especially those relating to life and liberty, are inviolable and beyond compromise," Justice Kant said. Explaining judicial independence, he said it encompasses the ability to have intellectual and moral independence, that stretches beyond mere institutional autonomy. "The underlying purpose of the independence of the judiciary is that judges must be able to decide a dispute before them according to law, uninfluenced by any other factor," he said, addingit is ingrained in the system ," he said.
