More Muslim women should join politics like Ishrat Jahan: Subramanian Swamy

Feb 26: The Tamil Nadu government on Tuesday claimed that it prevented Karnataka from discussing the contentious Mekedatu reservoir issue at the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) meeting held in New Delhi.

Besides the representatives of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka at the fifth meeting of CWMA, presided over by Central Water Commission Chairman R K Jain, officials of Kerala and Puducherry also participated.

CWMA member and TN PWD Secretary K Manivasan told reporters after the meeting that the state government prevented Karnataka from discussing the dam issue by pointing out the pending petitions in the Supreme Court against the project filed by the E Palaniswami government.

"We have told participants of the meeting that Mekedatu reservoir will be against the interests of Tamil Nadu and its farmers. Our consistent stand is that it should not be built at any cost. Finally the issue was not discussed in the meeting," Manivasan said.

The Mekedatu reservoir is proposed to be constructed by Karnataka across Cauvery river near Mekedatu, about 110 km from Bengaluru, in Kanakapura taluk.

It was first proposed along with Shivanasamudra hydro power project at Shimsa in 2003 with an intention to use the water for a hydro power station and supply drinking water to Bengaluru city. It was designed to store 67 tmc feet of water.

While Tamil Nadu is claiming that the construction of a balancing reservoir will disturb Cauvery water flow to the state affecting irrigation, Karnataka says the project is basically designed to take care of the drinking water needs of Bengaluru after releasing water to Tamil Nadu as per the quantum specified by the Cauvery water disputes tribunal.

Lucknow, Feb 4: Even as anti-NRC protests continue to rage across the country, the Lucknow University has queered the pitch by demanding citizenship proof from RTI applicants.

The Lucknow University (LU) refused to provide the information sought by the people who filed the Right to Information (RTI) unless they furnished the proof that they were Indian citizens.

Alok Chantia, one of the RTI applicants who was refused information by the varsity, said that he had lodged a complaint with the vice-chancellor of the varsity but even then he could not get the desired information.

"It is shocking how the university has twisted the RTI law as per its whims and fancy. It does not have any authority to do so," said the RTI applicant.

Chantia, also a faculty member at a degree college here, had sought details of appointment of teachers for self-financed courses and their pay scale.

"It is possible that some applicants who may not be familiar with the provisions of the RTI, may have furnished proof of their citizenship to the varsity to get the information but that cannot become a rule," he pointed out.

When contacted, university officials admitted that such a practice had been going on in the varsity for the past few years.

"This practice started during the tenure of the former vice-chancellor S.P. Singh and still continues," said a senior varsity official.

Bengaluru, May 19: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa-led Karnataka government has recommended the withdrawal of 46 cases against leaders belonging to Sangh Parivar who had apparently involved in violence during the birth anniversary celebration of Tipu Sultan in the state. 

These cases – ranging from very serious forms of assaults on Muslims to unlawful assembly – were registered across Karnataka between 2014 and 2018.

Among the cases recommended to be withdrawn include those registered against senior state BJP leader Sanjay Patil, VHP leader Swaroop Kalkundri, and several district level Bajrang Dal activists. 

The government recommended withdrawal of these cases under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on March 5. 

The recommendations, however, have been opposed by three crucial law enforcement departments – Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IGP), Director-Department of prosecution and Government litigation and Law department. 

While the DG & IGP has opined that these cases “cannot be withdrawn”, both the department of prosecution and law have observed that these are “not a fit case to withdraw”.