Hindustan a country of Hindus but it doesn't exclude others: RSS chief

Kochi, Feb 29: The Kerala Non-Resident Indians' Commission on Friday passed a resolution to request the Centre and Election Commission (EC) to make appropriate amendments in the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951, to ensure voting rights to the non-resident Indians working abroad. According to People’s Representation Act, 1951, None-Resident Indians (NRIs) can vote by proxy.

The Commission is a statutory body constituted for the welfare of Non-Resident Keralites working outside India.

The Centre had introduced a bill for this purpose which was passed by the Lok Sabha in 2018, but the same has since lapsed.

Therefore, the Kerala NRI Commission decided to request the Centre to consider introducing the bill in the next session of Parliament considering the interest of the NRI community at large.

The resolution was moved by commission member and NRI entrepreneur Shamsheer Vayalil, who is also a petitioner in the writ petition, filed regarding this in the Supreme Court.

"The central government may consider introducing the bill in the next session of the Parliament session considering the interest of the NRI community at large," read the resolution which will now be sent to the Ministry of Law and the Election Commission (EC).

Commission chairman Justice PD Rajan said the right to vote for NRIs is a genuine demand.

"This is the time that we step up pressure on the agencies concerned to implement this. Voting from the workplace would be a different experience for them. It would be a decisive step," he said.

This fresh development comes at a time when a petition filed in the Supreme Court on the same topic last week came before a bench headed by Justice Deepak Gupta, which considered the case and said it will be heard in April.

"We are expecting a favourable decision from the Supreme Court. We would also approach the NRI commission in other states and request them to raise the same demand," said Vayalil.

If implemented, millions of NRIs around the world would be able to exercise their franchise in the electoral processes of the nation. According to the estimate of the Ministry of External Affairs, there are about 3.10 crore NRIs.

Bengaluru, Jan 18: The government slammed Kerala’s tourism department for putting out a tweet on Sankranti Day, promoting ‘beef ularthiyathu’, a specialty in that state, but the move backfired spectacularly with Karnataka’s tourism minister being heavily trolled.

After Kerala put out its advertisement, state tourism minister CT Ravi, seizing the opportunity, took a dig at the Left government in Kerala, saying, “Welcome to Karnataka”. He followed that up with another tweet listing delicious “vegetarian” dishes of coastal Karnataka — a coastline which runs to Kerala.

“Welcome to Karnataka to bring out the Vegetarian in you. Enjoy the flavors of Tulu Nadu – Pathrode, Kotte Kadubu, Halasina Hannina Gatti, Avalakki Upkari, Badanekayi Mosaru Gojju and a whole lot of authentic food to hit Your tastebuds,” Ravi’s tweet read.

Ravi’s tweet sparked a debate between those for and against eating beef, including legislators like Sowmya Reddy (Congress) and Shobha Karandlaje (BJP). Some pointed out that Karnataka is 80% non-vegetarian and an appropriate response to beef curry would have been “pandi curry” (wild pig curry) — a Kodagu specialty.

Realising his tweets were getting more negative than positive traction, Ravi quickly amended his stand and on Friday tweeted: “Nati Koli Saaru Mudde. Aw! Delightful Delicacy of Old Mysuru region. Farm bred Chicken traditionally cooked to perfection and served with the soft Ragi Mudde. You will ask for more !!!”

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.