Congress launches 'flower on ear' campaign against ruling BJP in Karnataka

Bengaluru: The leaked contents of Karnataka’s long-awaited caste census suggest a significant policy shift—extending the creamy layer rule to Category 1 castes under the backward classes reservation list. This category includes some of the most disadvantaged nomadic and microscopic communities.

The commission, headed by Jayaprakash Hegde, has reportedly recommended that the creamy layer policy—already applied to categories 2A, 2B, 3A, and 3B—be extended to Category 1. The report notes that some groups within Category 1 have achieved considerable progress socially, economically, educationally, and politically, thus justifying the introduction of a filtering mechanism.

The panel emphasized the growing inequality within Category 1 itself, stating that children from impoverished farming and labourer families are unable to compete with the children of wealthier households in the same category.

“The competition is stiff here and there is a threat that this category may become one populated by the rich in due course if the creamy layer policy is not implemented,” the report reportedly states.

It further underlines that to fulfil the constitutional goal of equitable opportunities, the policy must be introduced across all categories of backward classes, including Category 1.

In a powerful courtroom exchange, the Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sharply questioned the Centre over controversial changes in the Waqf Amendment Act, especially the provision that allows non-Muslims to be part of the Central Waqf Council.

The hearing was conducted by a bench led by Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, and included Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The court is currently hearing 73 petitions filed against the amended law, which has stirred protests in several parts of the country.

Key Questions Raised by the Court

1. Should the Petitions Be Shifted to High Courts?

Chief Justice Khanna opened the hearing by asking:

•    Should these petitions be heard by a High Court?

•    What specific constitutional questions are the petitioners raising?

Petitioners Argue Violation of Religious Freedom

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that:

•    The new law violates Article 26 of the Constitution, which protects the right to manage religious affairs.

•    Giving the Collector judicial authority under the law is unconstitutional, since the Collector represents the government.

What Is 'Waqf by User' — And Why It's Controversial

•    Sibal explained that ‘Waqf by user’ refers to properties that have long been used for religious or charitable purposes and are thus treated as Waqf, even if no written deed exists.

•    The new law removes this recognition if the property is government land or under dispute — which he said undermines centuries of Islamic tradition.

•    “If a waqf was created 3,000 years ago, they’ll ask for the deed,” Sibal remarked.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Singhvi added that nearly half of India’s 8 lakh Waqf properties (approx. 4 lakh) are based on this concept.

The Chief Justice acknowledged the complexity, noting:

“We are told the Delhi High Court is built on Waqf land. There is misuse, yes—but there are genuine Waqfs too.”

Major Flashpoint: Inclusion of Non-Muslims in Waqf Council

“Will Muslims Be on Hindu Boards? Say It Openly” — Chief Justice Asks Centre

One of the strongest moments in the hearing came when the court questioned the Centre’s move to allow non-Muslims on the Central Waqf Council.

The Chief Justice asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta:

“Are you saying you will allow Muslims to be part of Hindu endowment boards? Say it openly.”

This pointed question was aimed at highlighting perceived inconsistencies in how religious communities are treated in administrative roles concerning religious institutions.

 Centre Defends the Law

•    Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said the law was thoroughly debated and passed in both Houses of Parliament after review by a Joint Parliamentary Committee.

•    However, the bench asked:

“If a ‘Waqf by user’ was validated earlier by a court, does the new law now void that?”

The court observed that ancient religious structures often have no documentation:

“You cannot undo something that has stood for centuries.”

Petitioners Request Partial Stay

•    The petitioners clarified they are not seeking to block the entire Act, only some controversial provisions.

Concern Over Rising Tensions

The Chief Justice also expressed alarm over violence and tensions triggered by the law.
“It is very disturbing,” he said.

When Mehta said “they think they can pressurize the system,” Sibal responded, “We don’t know who is pressuring whom.”

What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing tomorrow. The court has emphasized that while there are cases of misuse, many Waqfs are genuine, and religious freedoms must be protected under the Constitution.

New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain petitions filed by the NIA against the bail granted to 17 Popular Front of India members in the 2022 murder case of RSS leader Srinivasan in Kerala's Palakkad district.

A bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and N Kotiswar Singh noted that the Kerala High Court order granting bail to the accused is one-year-old and the HC has the power to cancel bail if the conditions are violated.

"Our attention is invited to observation made in the last part of the impugned order by which high court has reserved liberty to the petitioners to apply to special court for cancellation of bail.

"Therefore, the petitioners can always apply to the special court for cancellation of bail on the grounds which are set out in the affidavits filed in these petitions. In fact the special court will be the more appropriate court," the bench said.

The top court said the agency can satisfy the special court about the breach of terms and conditions of grant of bail by producing materials against the accused.

"Therefore, at this stage we decline to entertain the special leave petitions with liberty to the petitioners to move the special court/high court for cancellation of bail. Needless to say that if the prayer made by petitioner does not succeed before the special court/high court remedies of the petitioners remain open.

"We make it clear that as and when application is made for cancellation of bail the special court or high court should not be influenced by the fact that this court has declined to entertain the present special leave petitions," the bench said.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare, appearing for the NIA, sought cancellation of the bail and submitted that the accused have violated the bail conditions and have contacted the witnesses.

The Kerala High Court on June 25, 2024 granted bail to the 17 accused PFI members, who are also facing trial for allegedly instigating communal violence in the state and other parts of the country.

Granting bail to 17 of the 26 accused, the high court imposed stringent conditions, which include sharing their cellphone numbers and real-time GPS locations with the investigating officer.

Aside from that, the accused were ordered not to leave Kerala, surrender their passports and keep their cellphones charged and active round-the-clock.

It had directed the 17 to "present themselves before the special court which shall enlarge them on bail on such conditions as the special court may deem necessary".

Initially, 51 persons were arraigned as accused in connection with the murder of Srinivasan on April 16, 2022. One among those held died while seven others are absconding.

Chargesheets against the remaining persons were filed in two phases in July and December, 2022.

While police was investigating the murder, the Centre received information that the office bearers and cadres of the Popular Front of India and its affiliates in Kerala had conspired to instigate communal violence and radicalise its cadres to commit terrorist acts in Kerala and other parts of the country, the high court noted in its order.

Therefore, the Centre in September, 2022 directed the National Investigation Agency to take up and probe the case against the accused.

On December 19, 2022, the Centre, referring to Srinivasan's death, opined there was a larger conspiracy hatched by the leaders of the PFI "which has grave national and international ramifications" that needed to be "thoroughly investigated to unearth the wider conspiracy and to identify the other accused".

The Centre directed the NIA to take up the probe in the murder case as well, and the agency filed its consolidated chargesheet in 2023 with two supplementary chargesheets later.

Immediately after the respective NIA chargesheets were filed before the special court, the accused moved for bail.