Udupi CMC polls | People should not forget BJP’s corruption, Cong’s development works: Madhwaraj

Bengaluru, Feb 21: The Supreme Court in its interim order on Thursday allowed the plea of the Karnataka government for implementation of the final award by a tribunal for sharing of water between Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra from the Mahadayi river.

The interim order was passed by a bench comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta after hearing the counsel from the three states. The bench said the final hearing in the matter will take place in July.

It also said the interim order is subject to the final outcome of the petitions filed by the three states against the tribunal's award.

The Mahadayi Water Dispute tribunal had passed the order on August 14, 2018, allocating 13.42 TMC ( Thousand Million Cubic Feet.) water (including 3.9 TMC for diversion into the depleted Malaprabha river basin) from the Mahadayi river basin to Karnataka.

Maharashtra was allotted 1.33 TMC water while Goa was given 24 TMC in the final decision of the tribunal. The UPA-2 government had constituted Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal in 2010.

Karnataka government, which has locked horns with the neighbouring Goa on the larger issue of sharing Mahadayi River water between both the states, had petitioned the tribunal seeking the release of 7.56 tmcft of water for the Kalasa-Banduri Nala project.

The Kalasa-Banduri Nala (diversion) project, which will utilise 7.56 tmcft of water from the inter-state Mahadayi river, is being undertaken by Karnataka to improve drinking water supply to the twin cities of Hubballi-Dharwad and the districts of Belagavi and Gadag.

It involves building barrages across Kalasa and Banduri, the tributaries of the Mahadayi River, to divert 7.56 tmc water to the Malaprabha river which fulfils the drinking water needs of the twin cities.

Mumbai, Feb 26: Targetting Shiv Sena's silence over the recent controversial remark by AIMIM leader Waris Pathan, former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Tuesday said the Uddhav Thackeray-led party might be "wearing bangles" but the BJP was not and knew how to retaliate in the same manner.

"Shiv Sena might be wearing bangles but we are not. If someone says something then he will be given an answer in the same way. BJP has this much power," said Fadnavis while launching a scathing attack on ruling-Shiv Sena in Maharashtra for not taking strict action against Pathan.

Fadnavis was addressing protestors at Azad Maidan where BJP launched a protest against Maharashtra government over issues related to farmers and women.

On February 20, while addressing an anti-CAA rally, at Kalaburagi in Karnataka, Pathan had said, "time has now come for us to unite and achieve freedom. Remember we are 15 crore but can dominate over 100 crores."

"They tell us that we have kept our women in the front - only the lionesses have come out and you are already sweating. You can understand what would happen if all of us come together," he had said.

Facing flak over his remarks Pathan later took back his words and had said he had not targeted any community but had spoken against members of some organisations.

"If any of my words have hurt someone, I take them back as I am a true Indian," Pathan said at a press conference here.

The AIMIM leader said that he was being portrayed as being anti-Indian and anti-Hindu for the past couple of days.

"I want to say that my earlier statement was basically against people who are members of organisations like RSS, BJP, Bajrang Dal, etc. These 100 are those people who want to divide this beautiful nation," he added.

Bengaluru, June 10: A court in Bengaluru has ejected the bail plea of Amulya Leona Noronha, a college student who has been accused of sedition for saying “Pakistan Zindabad” at the beginning of a speech during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the city on February 20.

The court claimed that if granted bail, the 19-year-old student of journalism and English at a Bengaluru college “may involve (herself) in similar offence which affects peace at large”.

Rejecting her bail plea, 60th additional city civil and sessions judge Vidyadhar Shirahatti said in his order, “If the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond. Therefore, the bail petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.”

The police had booked Amulya under charges of sedition and promoting enmity between groups, although her friends claimed she was trying to convey a message of universal humanity by chanting zindabad in the name of all nations, including Pakistan and India.

Amulya, known for her oratory, and often invited at protests against the CAA, NRC and NPR, was arrested on the evening of February 20.

Video clips of the speech showed her chanting “Hindustan Zindabad” soon after saying “Pakistan Zindabad” and trying to tell the audience — her microphone had been taken away by then — that all nations are one in the end. She could not complete the speech; the protest was being held at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park.

Amulya’s bail plea was delayed on account of the lockdown, which came into force on March 25 — around the time hearings were due to begin in a lower court. Bengaluru police did not file a chargesheet against the student during the lockdown.

In the course of bail hearings, which began after lockdown restrictions were eased, the public prosecutor argued that Amulya was trying to incite people to create a law and order problem. The prosecutor also argued that she had earlier been accused of causing hatred and disaffection towards religion and the government established by law in India by holding a placard that stated “F##k Hindutva” during a student protest.

The prosecution argued that the student, if released, may commit similar offences since cases were already registered against her.

Defending Amulya, a friend who was part of the February 20 protest said, “Before she could complete what she wanted to say they surrounded her and grabbed the microphone. She was later placed under arrest on charges of sedition. What she was trying to say was, if we love one country it does not mean we should hate another.” Another friend said, “Please see her Facebook post of February 16, around 8 pm. Loving another country does not mean you are going against your own — this is exactly what she was trying to say (at the protest). She is promoting unity among nations…”