Priyank Kharge: Delegation will be taken to Centre urging to include Koli-Kabbaliga community in STs list
Speaking at the inauguration of Nijasharana Ambigara Chowdaiya Raitha Bhavana in Honnakiranagi village, built at a cost of ₹50 lakh, and the foundation-laying of development works worth ₹2.4 crore, Mr. Priyank said he had already written to the Union government in this regard.
'Although our party is not in power at the Centre, we will discuss the matter with Backward Classes Welfare Minister Shivaraj Tangadagi and take a delegation to rectify the lapses pointed out by the Centre in this regard,' he said.
Reiterating Congress party's commitment to ensuring economic and social justice as enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution, Mr. Priyank said that his party, whenever came to power, made sincere efforts to uplift the most marginalised sections of society.
Reaffirming his commitment to the development of the Choudadampur region, he said a statue of Ambigara Chowdaiya would be installed in a prominent location in Bengaluru.
He also announced that a ₹4 crore district-level Ambigara Chowdaiya Bhavana had been completed and would be inaugurated soon in the presence of the Chief Minister and AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge.
Terming Ambigara Chowdaiya as a true Sharana (reformer) who reflected social reality and human values through his Vachana compositions, the Minister urged the youth to understand the Sharana philosophy.
'BJP leaders are using poor youths for religious fanaticism while sending their own children abroad for education. Communities like Koli, Kabbaliga, Edigas, and Mogaveeras must remain cautious about such divisive agendas,' he added.
'BJP designs won't work'
Earlier in the day, the Minister inaugurated the newly constructed Praja Soudha in Chittapur town, built at a cost of ₹18.41 crore. Speaking at the event after distributing benefits to 517 beneficiaries under various government schemes, he said that government offices must be people-friendly to ensure good governance.
'The old term 'Mini Vidhana Soudha' is being replaced with Praja Soudha to reflect the idea that administration should be closer to the people. The government belongs to the people, and their work should continue uninterrupted,' he said.
Accusing the BJP of political opportunism and stoking communal divisions, Mr. Priyank said that the saffron party's experiments in Mangaluru and coastal Karnataka cannot be replicated in this region.
'This land represents harmony and inclusivity. BJP's attempts at communal politics will not work here. The BJP had politicised even the death of a youth in Bidar to create communal divide. But it didn't work,' he said,
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
12 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Won't governments be at whims of governor if bills can be withheld indefinitely, asks SC
The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned whether elected governments could be placed at the 'whims and fancies' of a governor who can simply withhold assent to bills without returning them to legislatures, Live Law reported. A bench of Chief Justice BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar has been hearing arguments on a reference made to the court by President Droupadi Murmu about its April 8 ruling that set timelines for governors and the president to grant assent to bills passed by legislatures. The court had issued a notice on July 22 to the Centre and all state governments on the reference. During the hearing on Wednesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, told the bench that the governor had four options when it came to granting assent to bills as per Article 200 of the Constitution, Live Law reported. This included granting assent, withholding assent, reserving the bill for the president's consideration or returning the bill to the Assembly. If the governor says that he is withholding the assent, then it means that the bill 'dies', Mehta said. He added that the governor does not have to return the bill to the Assembly for reconsideration if assent is withheld. 'According to you, withholding means the bill falls through?' Live Law quoted Gavai as saying. 'But then, if he does not exercise the option of resending for reconsideration, he will withhold it for time immemorial.' In response, the solicitor general said that the Constitution itself had given that discretion to the governor. 'Are we then not giving total powers to the governor to sit in appeals?' Live Law quoted the chief justice as replying. 'The government elected by majority will be at the whims and fancies of the governor.' The bench also said that the governor would have to 'declare' or communicate his decision on a bill in any case and not withhold assent without providing a reason, Bar and Bench reported. It further said that the central point of the debate would be about the meaning of 'withholding' and to see whether it meant temporary or permanent. On the question about when a governor could withhold assent, the solicitor general said that this would be when a bill has provisions that violate fundamental rights or are not desirable. The power to withhold is to be used rarely and only in the first instance as it leads to the death of the bill, he added. 'Governor is not just a postman,' Bar and Bench quoted Mehta as saying. 'He represents Union of India, appointed by the president. The president is elected by entire nation by way of entire election and that is also a way of democratic expression.' The court, however, noted that even when the governor withholds the assent, the 'political process' could knock on his door and he can send the bill back for reconsideration. 'But to say that when first time he says 'I withhold, the matter comes to an end'. It can't be like that,' Bar and Bench quoted Narasimha as saying. The hearing will continue on Thursday. The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling came on a petition filed by the Tamil Nadu government after Governor RN Ravi did not act on several bills for more than three years before rejecting them and sending some to the president. The court held that governors must decide on bills within a reasonable time and cannot delay indefinitely under Article 200. Similarly, the president must act within three months under Article 201, and any delay beyond that must be explained and communicated to the state government. Both provisions outline the process of assent to bills by governors and the president. The judgment had also introduced the concept of 'deemed assent' in cases of prolonged inaction, allowing pending bills to be considered approved. In May, Murmu made the reference to the court under Article 143(1) of the Constitution with regard to its April 8 ruling.
Hans India
12 minutes ago
- Hans India
What happened in Parliament would bring shame to any civilised society: BJP on Trinamool MPs tearing, throwing Bills at HM
New Delhi: A major uproar broke out in the Lok Sabha on Wednesday after Opposition MPs, including members of the Trinamool Congress, tore and hurled copies of three key bills towards Union Home Minister Amit Shah while he was introducing them. The BJP has strongly condemned the incident, calling it a 'shameful act that would bring disgrace to any civilised society.' BJP MP and actor-turned-politician Kangana Ranaut said the Opposition's conduct had crossed all limits of parliamentary propriety. 'What we witnessed in Parliament today is something that would bring shame to any civilised society. When our Home Minister Amit Shah was proposing a bill, Opposition leaders tried to snatch away his microphone. Worse still, they tore the bill and threw it at his face. Some even came with stones and hurled them. But our party showed patience,' she added. BJP MP Aparajita Sarangi termed the behaviour 'truly unfortunate.' 'Opposition members created a ruckus from their seats and then crossed every line of decorum. Several women MPs and TMC members attempted to attack the Home Minister. They tore copies of the bill and hurled them in his direction. This was not dissent—it was an attack,' she said. BJP MP Bansuri Swaraj also described the scenes as 'nothing less than the murder of democracy.' 'Trinamool Congress MPs, particularly one of their women MPs, tried to snatch the microphone, tore pages, and threw them in the House. This act has embarrassed the voters, the public, and the very spirit of democracy. The BJP strongly condemns such behaviour," she told IANS. BJP leader Annpurna Devi also denounced the incident. 'The entire country is watching. The conduct displayed today, especially by Trinamool Congress members, was extremely inappropriate. Even senior and respected MPs behaved in this unruly manner when the Home Minister was presenting the Bill. The Opposition claims ruling party MPs also attacked them, but that is false. We were only standing, not attacking. What they did was against every norm of parliamentary decorum,' she said. The chaos unfolded as Union Home Minister Amit Shah tabled the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, the Government of Union Territories (Amendment) Bill, 2025, and amendments to the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019. The first bill seeks automatic removal of Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Union Ministers facing corruption or serious criminal charges if held for 30 consecutive days. Opposition MPs strongly opposed the move, tearing copies of the bills and shouting slogans. Amid the ruckus, Amit Shah proposed that the bills be referred to a Joint Committee of Parliament for further examination.
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Lives at stake': Karnataka High Court grants govt one month to decide on bike taxi policy
The Karnataka High Court Wednesday gave the government a month to decide whether to frame a bike taxi policy, citing that there are 'lives at stake in this matter'. A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C M Joshi was hearing appeals filed by ride-hailing platforms Rapido, Uber and Ola, challenging a single-judge order that prohibited the operation of bike taxis in the state unless the government issued specific rules and guidelines under the Motor Vehicles Act. The bench noted, 'After some argument, the Attorney General submits that the government will give serious consideration to the issues raised in the present matter. In view of this, we propose to defer the hearing to September 22.' While the court declined to pass an interim order permitting operations, it also cautioned the state, 'In no case, when a decision is being taken, should the state put everything into freeze. The police may continue to take action for other offences, but keep in mind this petition is pending.' The division bench questioned the government over its decision to impose what the court termed a 'de facto prohibition' on the bike taxi business, observing that a legitimate trade cannot be banned outright under the Constitution. During the hearing, the bench noted that while the state is free to regulate the sector, regulation cannot translate into an outright ban. 'Every trade is permissible unless specifically prohibited. You may regulate, but regulation cannot mean complete prohibition,' the court said, pointing out that 13 other states have already framed rules to regulate bike taxis. The court further remarked that if cars and auto rickshaws are permitted as taxis, excluding only motorcycles may raise constitutional concerns under Articles 14 (equality before law) and 19(1)(g) (right to carry on trade). Govt cites Delhi example Appearing for the state, Advocate General Shashi Kiran Shetty argued that motorcycles cannot be classified as 'transport vehicles' under the Motor Vehicles Act, which distinguishes vehicles through different number plates for commercial and non-commercial purposes. 'Unless rules are framed, operators have no right in law to run bike taxis,' he submitted. He cited the example of Delhi, where the Supreme Court in the Malhotra case had set aside interim relief allowing bike taxis, holding that such services could not operate unless the government framed a policy. Delhi later introduced a limited policy for electric bike taxis. Shetty claimed that nearly six lakh bike taxis were operating across Karnataka, potentially adding to urban congestion. He further noted that the government had earlier withdrawn permission for electric bike taxis as well. The court, however, was not satisfied. 'You say congestion is the reason, but is there material to show that bike taxis cause more congestion than autos? Are you suggesting that autos congest less?' the bench asked. It also pointed out the contradiction between the government's policy emphasis on last-mile connectivity and its prohibition of a service that directly provides it. The judges stressed that the absence of a regulatory framework cannot automatically result in prohibition.'If a trade is legitimate and not expressly prohibited, the absence of regulation means it is allowed, not banned. Where is the reasonable restriction under Article 19(6)?' the court asked. It added that the state cannot indefinitely refuse to frame a policy while effectively banning the sector. 'Here, you have not consciously prohibited taxis altogether, but have barred one type of taxi. That requires justification. A non-policy that results in prohibition can be arbitrary.' At one stage, the bench also suggested that if the state was genuinely reconsidering the matter at a policy level, the proceedings could be deferred to give the government time to decide. 'We will not dictate how you regulate. Courts intervene in policy only if it is arbitrary or capricious. But today there is no policy, only prohibition,' the bench observed. Summarising the challenge by the ride-hailing platforms, the court noted, 'A blanket prohibition is unconstitutional since bike taxis are a legitimate business. In the absence of regulations, the business cannot be treated as illegal and should be allowed. The ban is therefore arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g).'
