Congress Legislators Seek Governor's Action Against BJP MLCs for Derogatory Remarks
Bengaluru: A delegation of Congress members from the Karnataka Legislative Council has submitted a formal complaint to Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot, urging legal and constitutional action against two BJP MLCs—Chalavadi Narayanaswamy and N. Ravikumar—for making inflammatory and derogatory remarks.
The Congress delegation, led by the Leader of the House in the Council, N.S. Boseraju, and Chief Whip Saleem Ahmed, accused the BJP legislators of breaching constitutional decorum and spreading communal hatred. The complaint follows two separate incidents: Ravikumar allegedly referred to Kalaburagi Deputy Commissioner Fouzia Tarannum as a 'Pakistani,' while Narayanaswamy compared Rural Development Minister Priyank Kharge to a dog.
Addressing reporters after the meeting with the governor, Boseraju said, 'Such statements go against the very spirit of the Constitution. In a democracy, elected representatives must uphold civility and inclusiveness. Instead, these BJP members are habitual offenders, making divisive and casteist statements.'
He added that Narayanaswamy's remarks against a Dalit minister were particularly reprehensible and called for his immediate removal from office. 'Likewise, legal and constitutional proceedings should be initiated against Ravikumar for his derogatory comments against a serving IAS officer,' Boseraju said.
Chief Whip Saleem Ahmed said two separate complaints were submitted during the meeting with the Governor. 'We have asked for the suspension of both members. The opposition leader in the Council, Narayanaswamy, has used unconstitutional language against a minister. Ravikumar's statement questioning whether an IAS officer is from Pakistan is not only irresponsible but also dangerous. Both are spreading a dangerous narrative in society,' he said.
The governor reportedly assured the delegation that he would examine the matter.
Among those in the delegation were Council members Vasanth Kumar, Anil Kumar, M.L. Jagadev Gutteedar, S. Ravi, D.T. Srinivas, Dinesh Gooligowda, Channaraj Hattiholi, Basavanagouda Badarli, Puttanna, Naseer Ahmed, Govindaraju, Nagaraj Yadav, and Manjunath Bhandari.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
19 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Census, followed by delimitation or freeze? The road ahead, likely legal challenges
The current freeze on delimitation — which for the past 50 years has based the allocation of seats to states in the Lok Sabha on the census figures of 1971 — will expire in 2026, unless Parliament passes another Constitutional Amendment Bill by then to extend it. The reason: the Constitution under Article 82 mandates delimitation after each census to readjust the seats as per changes in population. It says, 'Upon the completion of each census, the allocation of seats in the House of the People to the States and the division of each State into territorial constituencies shall be readjusted by such authority and in such manner as Parliament may by law determine.' Article 81 of the Constitution provides for the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle. Article 81 (2) (a) says, 'There shall be allotted to each State a number of seats in the House of the People in such manner that the ratio between that number and the population of the state is, so far as practicable, the same for all States.' Article 81 (2) (b) says, 'Each State shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and number of seats allotted to it is, so far as practicable, the same throughout the State.' With the collection of data for the next census ending by March 1, 2027, the release of census data could coincide with the expiry of the freeze on delimitation. This freeze was put in place first for 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 1976, and again by 25 years through a constitutional amendment in 2002. The reason for the freeze was the concern of the southern states that because their population had stabilised by then, and the population of some northern states had begun to grow at a brisk pace, their representation in the Lok Sabha would go down. To freeze or not to freeze With the Constitution ensuring equality of representation to citizens and not states of the Union, and mandating delimitation every 10 years to adjust the allocation of the seats to population, the only way in which the southern states will not lose representation would have to be another Constitutional amendment. However, with government sources saying that the idea is to have delimitation and then women's reservation in the Lok Sabha elections of 2029, the census is likely to be followed by delimitation. The website of the Election Commission of India says, 'Under Article 82 of the Constitution, the Parliament by law enacts a Delimitation Act after every census. After the commencement of the Act, the Central Government constitutes a Delimitation Commission. This Delimitation Commission demarcates the boundaries of the Parliamentary Constituencies as per provisions of the Delimitation Act. The present delimitation of constituencies has been done on the basis of 2001 census figures under the provisions of Delimitation Act, 2002. Notwithstanding the above, the Constitution of India was specifically amended in 2002 not to have delimitation of constituencies till the first census after 2026. Thus, the present Constituencies carved out on the basis of the 2001 census shall continue to be in operation till the first census after 2026.' In other words, the release of census data will be followed by the passage of the Delimitation Bill in Parliament, unless Parliament suspends the constitutionally mandated process by amending the Constitution to freeze delimitation by, say, another 25 years. Potential legal issues Once the Delimitation Commission is constituted by the Centre, it will use the latest census data to redraw Lok Sabha constituencies. However, it will be bound by Article 81 of the Constitution to redraw these on the basis of the latest population data, unless Article 81 is itself amended. Article 81 may anyway require amendments. For instance, since it limits the strength of the Lok Sabha to 550 under clauses (a) and (b), the strength will have to revised through a constitutional amendment so as to ensure that one MP does not represent too large a population, and to pave way for the reservation of women without cutting down the seats available to men. Article 81 as of now makes one exception to the 'one person, one vote, one value' principle, by giving small states and Union Territories at least one seat even if their population is very low. Since the Constitution is clear about the centrality of this principle in all other cases, the only way the south does not lose relative strength in the Lok Sabha will be by amending Article 81 (2) (a). However, any move to amend Article 81 (2) (a) would be liable to challenge in the Supreme Court as violative of the right to equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 15. The fear in south India is that if delimitation is based purely on population, northern states will get much more seats and thus a very large voice in Parliament. But if the law is amended and they get more seats than they would through the population criterion, then voters in the north and the south are not being treated equally. Even if the principle of reasonable classification — likes be treated alike — is evoked, it will be based on the argument that better social and economic indicators require special protection for southern states. This logic is exactly opposite to the one that permits reservation on the grounds that the state can make special provisions for the backward classes. The delimitation question, thus, has no easy answers, and is likely to lead to much litigation. Vikas Pathak is deputy associate editor with The Indian Express and writes on national politics. He has over 17 years of experience, and has worked earlier with The Hindustan Times and The Hindu, among other publications. He has covered the national BJP, some key central ministries and Parliament for years, and has covered the 2009 and 2019 Lok Sabha polls and many state assembly polls. He has interviewed many Union ministers and Chief Ministers. Vikas has taught as a full-time faculty member at Asian College of Journalism, Chennai; Symbiosis International University, Pune; Jio Institute, Navi Mumbai; and as a guest professor at Indian Institute of Mass Communication, New Delhi. Vikas has authored a book, Contesting Nationalisms: Hinduism, Secularism and Untouchability in Colonial Punjab (Primus, 2018), which has been widely reviewed by top academic journals and leading newspapers. He did his PhD, M Phil and MA from JNU, New Delhi, was Student of the Year (2005-06) at ACJ and gold medalist from University Rajasthan College in Jaipur in graduation. He has been invited to top academic institutions like JNU, St Stephen's College, Delhi, and IIT Delhi as a guest speaker/panellist. ... Read More
NDTV
35 minutes ago
- NDTV
Is This How India Will 'Dehyphenate' Itself From Pakistan?
"The enemy is anybody who's going to get you killed, no matter which side he's on," said Yossarian, the 'hero' of Joseph Heller's 1961 cult classic Catch-22. This absurdly dark and hilarious novel, set during the Second World War, contains some of the most astute observations on war and peace, a theme for our times. Or all times. Apart from one's own commanders, like Colonel Cathcart of Catch-22, the enemy could also be suboptimal actions driven by fallacious estimations of self. While our armed forces, as commanded, demonstrated their professionalism and precision, the same has been seen as lacking from other quarters in the aftermath of Operation Sindoor. Despite India's consistent attempts at keeping the Kashmir issue out of the arena of international interference, Pakistan has doubled down on its efforts to the contrary and achieved at least some degree of success. India, regrettably, has also got 're-hyphenated' with Pakistan despite our government's forceful iterations that the victims and perpetrators of terrorism cannot be treated at par by the international community. Pak Is No Match The irony of the current situation is that India may have played some part in bringing this rehyphenation upon itself. Rather than setting the paradigm, India is seen as playing catch-up in its diplomatic oeuvre. Immediately after the high offices of the Pakistani government, including Prime Minister Shahbaz Sharif, embarked on their international mission to convince the world about India's alleged aggression, seven all-party committees were dispatched by India to different parts of the world. We are yet to see what such delegations have achieved for the long run, apart from generating newsy moments. As the world's fourth-largest economy, India has a stature that Pakistan can only aspire to achieve. Sharif's statement about India being more wary of the cost of war than Pakistan because the latter is still in a struggling phase is darkly humorous and unintentionally ingenious. It doesn't behove a superpower like India to be following Pakistan's diplomatic footsteps. The soon-to-retire chief of the Florida-based United States Central Command, General Michael E. Kurilla, has recently called Pakistan a "phenomenal partner" whose value "will only increase as the Taliban continues to face security challenges within its borders". President Donald Trump, too, has been underscoring how the US values its "beautiful" relationship with both India and Pakistan, which have "great" leaders. Rather than dismissing this 'both-siding' as classic Trump balderdash, India should devise a robust plan to offset Pakistan's geopolitical arm-twisting of the West. Pak's Sneaky Ways The Afghanistan-Pakistan hyphenation is what has been driving the West's response to Islamabad's backing of the terror outfits in Kashmir and other parts of India. Pakistan has managed to convince the West, especially the US, of its indispensable status in eliminating actors that pose a direct threat to people and property in the Global North. India's renewed engagement with the Taliban, short of recognising them, has only limited potential to counter Pakistan's perceived value as a partner of the West to counter terrorist threats originating from Central and South Asia. The spectre of ISIS-K looms large on any Western attempt at holding Pakistan responsible for terror activities in India. Pakistan has utilised multilateral platforms, such as the UN, to its utmost benefit. Currently, as a non-permanent member of the UNSC, Pakistan serves as the Chair of the 1988 Taliban Sanctions Committee, Vice Chair of the 1373 Counter-Terrorism Committee, and Co-Chair of two informal working groups. It is also set to become the rotational president of the UNSC in July. While these positions do not hold any substantive powers, Pakistan can be expected to initiate meetings and debates to internationalise the Kashmir issue. The Kashmir Question India may have brushed these concerns away in the past, upholding its policy of keeping Kashmir as an internal matter, but it will appear a little hypocritical now. Once you reach out to the world with an aim to share your side of the story, you cannot accuse the other party of doing the same. There has been a spirit of tentativeness with which multilateral platforms have treated India-Pakistan tensions. A large number of nations are not even aware of Kashmir and the eight-decade-long dispute over it. All they have perhaps seen is a half-hearted inscription on UN maps showing the border between the two countries. More importantly, India can no longer claim that it does not care for the "opinion" of the international community, particularly the US, when it was a foreign commander in chief of the armed forces who "announced" - however unwarrantedly - the ceasefire or the "pause" during Operation Sindoor. Classical Greek playwright and master of comedies Aristophanes said, "Men of sense often learn from their enemies. It is from their foes, not their friends, that cities learn the lesson of building high walls and ships of war; and this lesson saves their children, their homes, and their properties". While it may be important to learn from Pakistan the art of conning everyone all the time, India must continue to act like the regional power and global arbiter that it posits itself as.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
36 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Cash row: Congress seeks SC report on allegations against Justice Varma
The Congress has asked the government to share with it the report of a Supreme Court-appointed committee that probed graft allegations against Justice Yashwant Varma so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of his impeachment before the Monsoon session of Parliament, party sources said on Thursday. The government, however, is yet to respond, the sources said. Several burnt sacks containing cash were allegedly discovered at Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire broke out there in March, when he was a Delhi High Court judge. Though the judge, who was later transferred to the Allahabad High Court, has claimed ignorance about the cash, the Supreme Court-appointed committee indicted him after speaking to a number of witnesses and recording his statement. Union Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju has initiated discussions with all political parties to bring an impeachment motion against Justice Varma in Parliament's Monsoon session, starting from July 21. The Congress sources said the party has asked Rijiju to share the report of the committee so that it can firm up its stand on the issue of impeachment. The minister is yet to get back to the Congress, they said. Last week, Rijiju underlined the government's resolve to take all political parties on board in moving the impeachment motion against Justice Varma, saying corruption in the judiciary cannot be approached through a "political prism". He said the government wants the exercise to be a "collaborative effort". According to the Judges (Inquiry) Act of 1968, once a motion to remove a judge is admitted in any of the Houses, the speaker or the chairman, as the case may be, will constitute a three-member committee to investigate the grounds on which the removal (or, in popular term, impeachment) has been sought. The committee consists of the chief justice of India (CJI) or a Supreme Court judge, the chief justice of one of the 25 high courts and a " distinguished jurist". Rijiju, however, has said the present case is "slightly different" as an in-house committee formed by former CJI Sanjiv Khanna has already submitted its report. "So what is to be done in this matter, we will take a call," he said earlier. The minister had said the process has to be followed, but how to "integrate the inquiry already conducted" needs to be decided. Following the Supreme Court's in-house inquiry, former CJI Sanjeev Khanna is believed to have prodded Varma to resign but he dug in his heels. The apex court has since transferred him to his parent cadre, the Allahabad High Court, where he has not been assigned any judicial work. Former CJI Khanna had written to the president and the prime minister, recommending Justice Varma's impeachment.
