Art 370 root cause of terrorism, says Amit Shah as RS clears resolution on J&K

Mysuru, Oct 1: The Karnataka Lokayukta team on Tuesday arrived at the disputed plot in Mysuru and began investigation into the MUDA case against CM Siddaramaiah and his wife, news agency ANI reported. Snehamayi Krishna, the complainant in the case was also present with the team.

Sources stated that ED sleuths might issue a notice to CM Siddaramaiah at any time and issue summons to him for questioning. The sleuths are also keenly watching the movements of CM Siddaramaiah’s close associates and relatives, including a cabinet minister in connection with the MUDA scam.

Sources further said that there is a possibility of the ED conducting raids across the state on offices and residences of close associates of CM Siddaramaiah. The ED has also gathered information on bank accounts and financial transactions of CM Siddaramaiah and his associates.

The Directorate of Enforcement (ED) on Monday registered an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), equivalent to an FIR by the police, against CM Siddaramaiah over the alleged irregularities in the allotment of 14 sites to his wife Parvathi B.M. by the Mysore Urban Development Authority. The ED registered the case taking cognisance of the FIR registered against the Chief Minister by the Lokayukta police on September 27.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Lokayukta probing the MUDA case has also expedited the probe. The sleuths led by Mysuru Lokayukta SP T.J. Udesh have visited the controversial land on the outskirts of Mysuru city. The petitioner, Snehamayi Krishna, also accompanied the team.

The move of Chief Minister Siddaramaiah’s wife to return 14 sites allotted by the MUDA to her has triggered a debate. BJP MLA from Mysuru T.S. Srivatsa stated on Tuesday that the move of CM’s wife is not acceptable. "The two commissioners who colluded in the MUDA scam are roaming freely even today," he said.

"CM Siddaramaiah first claimed that there was no scam at all. Later, he formed a commission and now there is an FIR against him. After committing the mistake, you offer to return the sale deed. The time is up. He will have to tender his resignation and I am sure he won’t be in the position until Dasara festivities," MLA T.S. Srivatsa stated.

T.J. Abraham, one of the petitioners in the MUDA case said, “I had demanded the MUDA commissioner to take back the allotted sites. He had written back saying the process would be initiated. They were waiting for the investigation report."

"CM Siddaramaiah has not approached the division bench or the Supreme Court to challenge the order against him because there is nothing to be challenged. Returning sites is not a big sacrifice. The Chief Minister has lost it," Abraham stated. 
 

In her debut electoral contest, Vinesh Phogat, a celebrated wrestler-turned-politician, has secured a decisive victory for the Indian National Congress in the Julana assembly constituency of Haryana. Phogat garnered approximately 65,080 votes, defeating Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) candidate Captain Yogesh Kumar by a margin of over 6,000 votes. This win marks a significant turnaround for Congress, which had faced defeat in Julana for the last three assembly elections and had only won the seat four times since 1967.

Phogat's victory also saw her outpace the incumbent MLA, Amarjeet Dhanda, a Jannayak Janta Party (JJP) leader. The results of the Haryana Assembly elections were officially announced on Tuesday, October 8.

Phogat, who transitioned into politics after her wrestling career, had been disqualified from competing in the 2024 Paris Olympics gold medal match due to weight category issues. Many speculated that she had been “deliberately defeated” in the competition, while Phogat herself alleged that the Union government had failed to provide her with adequate support.

In the aftermath of her disqualification, Phogat filed an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sports (CAS), seeking to share the silver medal with Cuban wrestler Yusneylys Guzmán Lopez, whom she had defeated in the semi-finals. Four pro bono lawyers in Paris submitted the protest appeal on her behalf. The Indian Olympic Association (IOA) also sought more time to appoint legal representation. However, despite days of deliberation, the CAS ultimately dismissed the appeal.

On September 6, shortly after her sporting career came to an end, Phogat, along with fellow wrestler Bajrang Punia, formally joined the Congress party. Reflecting on her decision, she remarked that she had not retired from wrestling during the Jantar Mantar protests in order to inspire young girls and women. “The whole country thought I would retire during the protests because the BJP IT cell tried to paint us as troublemakers, as though we were finished and only playing politics,” Phogat stated.

Vinesh and Punia were at the forefront of protests against Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, the Wrestling Federation of India (WFI) chief and BJP MP, who faces multiple allegations of sexual harassment. The protests, which took place at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi last year, were met with significant police aggression.

During the protests, Phogat had publicly accused Singh of subjecting her to severe mental harassment, to the point where she struggled with suicidal thoughts. Despite these personal battles, she persisted, even as the Indian Olympic Association president and former athlete PT Usha accused the wrestlers of “tarnishing India’s image” during the protests.

In a candid reflection on her retirement, Phogat shared, “Many urged me not to retire, but I had to ask myself – for what purpose should I continue wrestling? There is politics everywhere. Now, I want to do politics that can bring real change, to fight for the future of our children and stand by them when it matters.”

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today closed proceedings against Karnataka High Court Judge Justice Vedavyasachar Srishananda, following his public apology for controversial comments made during court sessions. Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, leading a five-judge bench, stated that the decision was made in the interest of justice and the dignity of the judiciary.

Justice Srishananda during a recent court hearing. Justice Srishananda, while addressing a landlord-tenant dispute, referred to a Muslim-majority area in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and made a misogynistic comment involving a woman lawyer. His comments, which went viral on social media, prompted the Supreme Court to seek a report from the Karnataka High Court, which was submitted shortly after the incident.

"No one can call any part of territory of India as 'Pakistan'," Chief Justice Chandrachud said. "It is fundamentally against the territorial integrity of the nation. The answer to sunlight is more sunlight and not to suppress what happens in court. The answer is not to close it down."

The Supreme Court had taken up the case on its own and had sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over the controversial remarks. A five-judge bench led by CJI Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, had on September 20 expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

"Casual observational may indicate personal biases especially when perceived to be directed at a certain gender or community. Thus one must be wary of making patriarchal or misogynistic comments. We express our serious concern about observations on a certain gender or a community and such observations are liable to be construed in a negative light. We hope and trust that the responsibilities entrusted to all stakeholders are discharged without bias and caution," CJI Chandrachud said today. 

The Supreme Court bench said that when social media plays an active role in monitoring and amplifying courtroom proceedings, there is an urgency to ensure judicial commentary aligns with the decorum expected from courts of law.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda were viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and in another video he was seen making objectionable comments against a woman lawyer. In the second incident, Justice Srishanananda can be heard telling the woman lawyer that she seemed to know a lot about the "opposition party", so much so that she might be able to reveal the colour of their undergarments.