Karnataka reports 5,815 fresh covid cases, lowest in 2 months; 161 deaths

Mangaluru: Starting April 22, 2025, the Mangaluru City Corporation (MCC) will strictly enforce separate disposal of sanitary waste, along with existing waste segregation norms. This decision was formally announced by MCC Commissioner Ravichandra Naik on Tuesday (April 15) during a training session at the Town Hall for civic workers.

What’s Changing?
All households and establishments must now segregate waste into the following four categories:
 
Categories of Waste (Effective April 22)
1.    Wet Waste
– Food scraps, vegetable peels, garden waste, etc.

2.    Dry Waste
– Paper, cardboard, plastic bottles, glass, metal, etc.

3.    Sanitary Waste (Now mandatory to separate)
– Sanitary pads, baby napkins, adult diapers, medical dressings, etc.

4.    Rejected Waste / Non-Recyclables
– Broken glass, ceramics, unusable plastics, thermocol, etc.

Rules and Penalties
•    Sanitary waste must be placed in a separate bin and must not be mixed with any other waste.
•    Violators will be fined ₹500 for the first offense, with higher fines for repeat violations.
•    Mixing plastic items like tubs and bottles with wet waste will also attract penalties.
“Improper segregation is a serious issue. MCC areas generate 5 to 10 tonnes of sanitary waste daily,” said Commissioner Naik.

MCC’s Awareness Campaign
To help the public understand the new system:
•    MCC will distribute pamphlets and notices this week.
•    These materials will explain the four waste categories and penalty clauses in detail.

QR Code Monitoring Returns
The MCC is also relaunching its QR code-based tracking system to monitor waste collection and staff attendance.

How it works:
•    QR codes are installed at buildings.
•    Civic workers will scan them using a new mobile app.
•    The app will send real-time updates to the Integrated Command and Control Centre (ICCC).

Current Status:
•    MCC manages 2.37 lakh properties.
•    90,000 properties in 60 wards already have QR codes installed.
“The new system will help us track both garbage pickup and civic worker attendance more accurately,” said Naik.

Srinagar: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led union government’s explanation for the lack of security at the site of Tuesday’s deadly terrorist attack in Pahalgam has triggered widespread skepticism, with local officials and tourism stakeholders offering accounts that sharply contradict the government’s claims.

At an all-party meeting in New Delhi on Thursday, the Central government reportedly informed lawmakers that Baisaran meadow — where 26 civilians were killed — was not officially open to tourists until June. The absence of police and paramilitary presence, they argued, was due to this status.

However, investigations on the ground reveal a very different reality.

Baisaran meadow — popularly known as "Mini Switzerland" — remains accessible to tourists for most of the year. According to local tour operators, pony ride associations, and tourism officials, the area typically stays open except during peak winter months when snowfall blocks access.

"Tourists have been visiting Baisaran daily this season. No police clearance or special permission has ever been required," said Sheikh Mohammad Sultan, senior tour operator and President of the Indian Association of Travel & Tourism Experts (Kashmir chapter). "Nearly 70 percent of visitors to Pahalgam make it a point to visit Baisaran."

Further evidence lies in the operational signboard installed by the Pahalgam Development Authority at the meadow's entrance, listing an entry fee of ₹35 per person. Officials confirmed that this fee collection is outsourced annually through auction — a clear indication that the site was officially functioning and welcoming tourists at the time of the attack.

"Infrastructure projects have been developed for Baisaran tourism, and more are in the pipeline. Visiting Baisaran has never required security clearance or police authorization," a tourism official said on condition of anonymity.

The lack of security now stands under intense scrutiny.

The dirt track connecting Pahalgam town to Baisaran was reportedly unguarded, with only four unarmed personnel from an auxiliary wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police stationed there. The nearest Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) camp was nearly five kilometers away — a critical gap that likely delayed the emergency response.

According to official sources, the first CRPF responder reached the attack site almost an hour later, with reinforcements arriving more than ninety minutes after the assault had ended.

Locals like Waheed Ahmad, president of the Pony Operators’ Association in Pahalgam, expressed concern over the lack of vigilance despite Baisaran’s heavy tourist footfall.

"We have been taking tourists to Baisaran for decades without ever needing police permission. But given today’s environment, one would expect much better security," Ahmad said.

Eyewitness videos and photographs from just days before the attack show tourists visiting Baisaran in significant numbers, enjoying pony rides and the vibrant spring bloom — further undermining the Centre’s assertion that the area was "closed" to visitors.

The glaring contradictions have fuelled growing suspicions that authorities failed to adequately assess the threat level, despite intelligence warnings about potential attacks targeting Kashmir’s fragile tourist season.

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.