1. Home
  2. Karnataka to see by-elections for 3 LS seats as Yeddy, Sreeramulu, Puttaraju return to Assembly

Karnataka to see by-elections for 3 LS seats as Yeddy, Sreeramulu, Puttaraju return to Assembly

News Network
May 23, 2018

Bengaluru, May 23: Three Parliamentary Committees will have new nomination as an after effect of Karnataka Assembly polls in which three Lok Sabha members who sucessfully contested the elections have resigned as MPs.

On the other hand, Karnataka will see by-elections to three Lok Sabha seats- Shivamogga, Ballari and Mandya, vacated by B S Yeddyurappa, B Sreeramulu and JD(S) leader C S Puttaraju respectively.

Yeddyurappa won from Shikaripura Assembly segment, while Sreeramulu won from Molkalmuru seat in recently concluded Karnataka assembly polls. Interestingly, both Yeddyurappa and Sreeramulu had quit their MLA seats of Shikaripura and Bellary rural segments respectively - which they had won in 2013 - to contest the 2014 Lok Sabha polls.

Yeddyurappa was a member of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture headed by BJP MP Hukumdev Narayan Yadav while Sreeramulu was part of the Standing Committee on Home chaired by senior Congress leader P Chidambaram. Both the committees are seized with crucial subjects and hence the BJP won't prefer to keep vacancies there.

While the Committee on Agriculture is examining among other things also the issue of farmer distress, the Committee on Home has been deliberating on the issue of security concerns related to Aadhar platform.

Puttarjau, who also resigned following his election from Melukote Assembly constituency, is a member in the Joint Committee on Salaries and Allowances of Members of Parliament, to  which he was re-nominated in October last year.  It remains to be seen whether Deve Gowda offers himself for nomination in the committee or leaves it to the Lok Sabha Speaker to nominate some leader from any other party.

Comments

WellWisher
 - 
Wednesday, 23 May 2018

what ever it may  be,   further election all to be conducted by Ballot system. No EVM no advnced system then only all we can experience progress. Else all looters will  sell out country to out siders.

 

Jai Hind !

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
June 16,2020

Mangaluru, Jun 16: Dakshina Kannada today reported 79 fresh covid-19 cases, taking the total infections in the coastal district to 370.

Out of the 79 positive cases, 75 persons had returned from Saudi Arabia. All of them have been shifted to the designated COVID hospital in Mangaluru for treatment.

As many as 11 persons today discharged from the hospital taking the total number of discharges to 145. There are 217 active cases in the district. 

Udupi district today reported 7 new covid cases taking the total to 1035. Among them 817 have discharged from the hospitals including today’s 81. The number of active cases is 217.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
coastaldigest.com news network
February 14,2020

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.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
July 29,2020

Bengaluru, Jul 29: The Karnataka High Court’s division bench of Chief Justice Abhay Oka and Justice H P Sandesh today rejected an application that wanted Amulya Leona’s case to be transferred from Karnataka Police to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The bench, while observing that extraordinary jurisdiction can’t be exercised for transferring the case to the NIA, asked “What is so special that investigation should be transferred to NIA?”

The court, in its previous hearing, had questioned the maintainability of the petition seeking transfer of the sedition case against Leona to the NIA.

According to the petitioner, advocate Pavana Chandra Shetty, the case is a serious matter against national integration and unity and has not been investigated properly by the police. The state police also failed to file the chargesheet within 90 days, he said, and also asked for cancellation of her bail.

The bench asked the petitioner as to how a bail, already granted to a person, can be cancelled. “Is it not the indefeasible right of the accused to be released on bail if chargesheet is not filed within stipulated time? How can you make a prayer for cancellation of bail?”  the Court asked.

The counsel for the petitioner also stated that in cases of a cognizable offence, when the chargesheet is purposely not filed within the stipulated time, the matter will have to transferred to the appropriate authority.

The court responded to his contention by asking him how could the court override law and cancel the bail. “Where is the question of cancellation of bail? Can we override the law and say that bail should be cancelled?” said the bench.

Advocate Vishal Raghu had filed the petition for transfer of Leona’s case, who was accused of raising pro-Pakistan slogans at an anti-CAA rally on February 20 at Freedom Park. The advocate had blamed the probe team for not filing a chargesheet on time and has asked the state government to approach the higher court against bail granted to Leona.

Bengaluru student Amulya Leona was charged with sedition for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi. She was arrested by the Bengaluru police for allegedly shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ slogans at an anti- CAA Protest in Bengaluru in February this year. On June 11, she was granted conditional bail by the Bengaluru civil court.

Her bail plea was earlier rejected by a Bengaluru court, after she had spent a three-month period in jail, stating that she may abscond if she is released. The sessions judge Vidhyadhar Shirahatti had also stated that if the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond and may involve in similar offence which affects peace at large and hence her petition is liable to be rejected. The court had also noted that Amulya Leona is an influential person who may threaten and influence the witness and hamper the case in case of the prosecution and will abscond if released on bail.

Comments

Add new comment

About text formats
  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.