Governors, LGs across India behaving like BJP agents since 2014: AAP

Bengaluru: Amidst the ongoing Waqf controversy in the state, a Vokkaliga seer has sparked controversy by suggesting the disenfranchisement of Muslims, claiming it would end vote bank politics in India.

The provocative remarks were made by Kumara Chandrashekaranatha Swami during a protest organized by the Bharatiya Kisan Sangh, a farmers’ organization with links to the RSS. The protest focused on farmers' lands being marked as Waqf properties.

"Politicians are exploiting this issue for votes. Muslims should be deprived of voting rights. This step is necessary to eliminate vote bank politics and allow India to prosper," the seer stated. He is the head of the Vishwa Vokkaliga Mahasamsthana Mutt, which was founded with support from JD(S) leader and former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda.

The seer also made misleading claims about Pakistan, stating, “In Pakistan, minorities don’t have the right to vote. If we implement the same in India, Muslims would be isolated, and peace would prevail.” However, minorities in Pakistan have voting rights. 

Chandrashekaranatha Swami continued his criticism of the Waqf Board, accusing it of unlawfully seizing properties. “It is unjust to take someone’s property. We must ensure that the Waqf Board is abolished,” he said. He further emphasized the need for farmers' land to remain protected, even at the cost of political fallout.

Minister Condemns Remarks

Minister for Social Welfare, H.C. Mahadevappa, swiftly condemned the seer’s comments, stating, “After years of struggle, Baba Saheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar established the principle of ‘one vote, one value.’ It is crucial for Dalits, backward communities, and minorities to understand its significance.”

He continued, "Those who spread hatred for political gain under the guise of religion must end their harmful rhetoric."

Earlier, Kumara Chandrashekaranatha Swami had stirred controversy by suggesting that Chief Minister Siddaramaiah step down to allow Deputy Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar to assume the role of Chief Minister for the remainder of the term. The statement created a fresh political debate, raising questions about the power dynamics in Karnataka's ruling party.

The seer remarked, “Everyone has had the opportunity to hold the Chief Minister’s position, except D.K. Shivakumar. I request our experienced Chief Minister Siddaramaiah to vacate the post and bless Shivakumar with the opportunity.”

Mangaluru: The Ullal police have arrested Manohar, the owner of Vazco Beach Resort, and its manager Bharath in connection with the drowning of three college girls from Mysuru at the resort’s swimming pool on November 17.

City Commissioner of Police Anupam Agrawal confirmed the arrests, stating that a case has been registered under Section 106 of BNS. The bodies of the victims, all in their twenties, have been handed over to their parents. The women had arrived at the resort for a weekend getaway on November 16.

Following the tragic incident, the resort was sealed by officials led by Mangaluru Assistant Commissioner Harshavardhan. The trade license of the resort, issued on June 13, 2024, has been suspended, and the tourism department has temporarily revoked the resort's registration. These actions prohibit the resort from engaging in any tourism-related activities until further notice.

Someshwara TMC Chief Officer stated that the suspension was due to the resort's failure to implement adequate safety measures, which resulted in the loss of three lives. Further investigations are underway.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court took a firm stance on ‘bulldozer justice’ today, affirming that the Executive cannot bypass the Judiciary and that the legal process must not prejudge the guilt of an accused. In a significant judgment, the bench led by Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan set new guidelines for demolition practices, responding to petitions challenging the controversial bulldozer actions taken against individuals accused of crimes.

The rise of this practice, termed 'bulldozer justice,' has seen authorities in various states demolish what they claim to be illegal structures belonging to accused individuals. However, multiple petitions questioned the legality and fairness of this approach, bringing the matter before the court.

Justice Gavai highlighted that owning a home is a cherished goal for many families, and an essential question was whether the Executive should have the authority to strip individuals of their shelter. “In a democracy, the rule of law protects citizens from arbitrary actions by the state. The criminal justice system must not assume guilt,” stated the bench, underscoring that due process is a fundamental right under the Constitution.

On the principle of separation of powers, the bench reinforced that the Judiciary alone holds adjudicatory powers and that the Executive cannot overstep these boundaries. Justice Gavai remarked, “When the state demolishes a home purely because its resident is accused of a crime, it violates the doctrine of separation of powers.”

The court issued a strong warning about accountability, stating that public officials who misuse their power or act arbitrarily must face consequences. Justice Gavai observed that selectively demolishing one property while ignoring similar cases suggests that the aim might be to penalize rather than enforce legality. “For most citizens, a house is the product of years of labor and dreams. Taking it away must be an action of last resort, thoroughly justified,” he said.

In its directives under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court established new demolition guidelines. These include:

Mandatory Show-Cause Notice: No demolition should occur without first issuing a show-cause notice. The person served has a minimum of 15 days or the duration stated in local laws to respond.

Transparency of Notice Content: The notice must include specifics about the alleged unauthorized construction, the nature of the violation, and the rationale for demolition.

Hearing and Final Order: Authorities are required to hear the response of the affected individual before issuing a final order. The homeowner will have 15 days to address the issue, with demolition proceeding only if no stay order is obtained from an appellate authority.

Contempt Proceedings: Any breach of these guidelines would lead to contempt proceedings. Officials who disregard these norms will be personally accountable for restitution, with costs deducted from their salaries.

Additionally, the court mandated that all municipal bodies establish digital portals within three months, displaying show-cause notices and final orders on unauthorized structures to ensure public transparency and accountability.