Farmer leaders ready to resume talks with govt, want repeal of farm laws in agenda

Former minister and ex-MLC C M Ibrahim claimed that he still heads the original JD(S) and asked former prime minister and party supremo H D Deve Gowda to cut ties with the BJP, so that the party can be strengthened again. He also said options are being explored to either strengthen the JD(S) or to float a new regional party.

He was speaking to media persons, in Mysuru, on Monday, after meeting JD(S) MLA and former minister G T Deve Gowda, who has expressed his displeasure that he has been sidelined in the party and the party leaders have indicated his retirement from politics.

He stated, “If Deve Gowda had joined the Congress, during the last Assembly election, he would have been a minister now. We retained him in the JD(S), to strengthen the party. Now, efforts are being made to strangulate Deve Gowda’s political career. I have discussed all matters with Deve Gowda. In two days, I will start a Karnataka state tour and meet some leaders. After that, I will meet Deve Gowda again, and then decide on the further course of action.”

Ibrahim said, “The original JD(S) is ours. I am still its state president. All documents and accounts are in our name. Even now, if Deve Gowda leaves BJP’s company and returns, we will build the JD(S) again”.

“Union Minister H D Kumaraswamy should mend his ways and stop making JD(S) into a family-owned company. The JD(S)’s situation has become hopeless. Its love for the BJP is over. He should understand this,” he said.

“When I was with Kumaraswamy, he spent just Rs 4 crore in Channapatna and won by 20,000 votes. Now, without me, he spent Rs 150 crore and still lost by 25,000 votes. Without Muslims’ support, the JD(S) cannot win a single seat. Now, it is proved that 19 MLAs of the JD(S) won in 2023, because of Muslims,” he added.

Speaking on other options available, Ibrahim said, “We have not yet decided to go with the Congress. We are only considering to establish a third front. Whether it is founding a new regional party, forming a third front, or strengthening the JD(S), will be decided shortly.”

Earlier during the day, before meeting Deve Gowda, Ibrahim had said, that 12 to 13 JD(S) MLAs were dissatisfied with the party, but like Deve Gowda, were enduring pain.

“Now, I have started the task of uniting them. I as the JD(S) state president, it is my responsibility to address our MLAs’ grievances. At present, the JD(S) is on fire and all JD(S) MLAs want to protect their respective constituency. Hence, they have started speaking one by one,” he said.

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.

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.