Concern over sudden increase in theft cases

Mangaluru, Sep 20: The bye-election for the MLC seat, vacated by Kota Srinivas Poojary after his election as an MP, will take place on October 21. The election covers 6,037 voters from 392 local bodies across Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts. Dakshina Kannada Deputy Commissioner and election officer Mullai Muhilan provided details at a press conference held at the DC office on Thursday.

Key Election Dates:

Nomination Period: September 26 to October 3
Verification of Nominations: October 4
Last Date for Withdrawal of Nominations: October 7
Election Day: October 21 (Polling from 8 AM to 4 PM)
Vote Counting: October 24

Code of Conduct:

The model code of conduct came into effect on September 19 and will remain in place until October 28 in both Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts. During this period, government development projects cannot be announced, and foundation stone-laying ceremonies are prohibited. Political banners and hoardings are also banned. Government officials are restricted from participating in public programs or meetings. The Election Commission will oversee all political events, and the regulations that apply to MP and MLA elections will also govern this MLC bye-election.

Election Management:

Additional DCs of Dakshina Kannada and Udupi will assist as election officers. While no election-related check posts will be set up, flying squads and video surveillance teams will monitor compliance. Political party buntings and hoardings will be removed immediately.

Voter and Polling Information:

Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts fall under the Dakshina Kannada local body authority. In this bye-election, eligible voters include members of gram panchayats, city corporations, city municipalities, town municipalities, town panchayats, as well as MLAs, MLCs, and MPs.

Dakshina Kannada: 3,551 voters, 234 polling booths
Udupi: 2,486 voters, 158 polling booths

Officials Present:

The press conference was attended by ZP CEO Dr. Anand, Additional DC Dr. Santhosh Kumar, Police Commissioner Anupam Agarwal, SP Yatheesh, MCC Commissioner Anand C L, and Assistant Commissioner Girish Nandan.

This election marks a significant political event for both districts, with voters from various local bodies participating in the process.

Starting in the 2025-26 academic year, private universities in Karnataka offering professional courses will no longer conduct separate entrance exams. This decision follows a directive from the state’s Higher Education Department, prompting private universities to form an association and agree to this significant change.

In a recent meeting with Higher Education Minister Dr. M. C. Sudhakar, representatives from 17 private universities confirmed their decision to discontinue individual entrance tests. Of the 27 private universities in the state, 17 offer professional courses, and they have collectively agreed to accept scores from existing national or state-level entrance exams.

“Some universities will consider JEE scores, others will rely on KCET, and a few are inclined towards COMEDK,” Dr. Sudhakar stated, leaving the choice of examination to the universities themselves. However, the department has also suggested that the universities consider a unified entrance test for admissions.

Looking ahead, Dr. Sudhakar hinted that the government may introduce a common entrance test for general degree courses at private universities as well. "As government colleges and universities currently don’t require entrance exams for general degree courses, we haven’t made any decisions on this yet," he explained.

The meeting also addressed concerns over the high fees charged by private universities. To regulate this, the universities were instructed to establish fee fixation committees, headed by retired judges, as required by law. These committees will be responsible for determining tuition fees. Additionally, the government will continue to regulate fees for 40% of seats in professional courses that are filled through KCET.

In an effort to bring greater uniformity among private institutions, the government is considering enacting a common law for all private universities, which would replace the individual acts currently governing each university. This would place all private universities under a single regulatory framework.

This move is expected to streamline the admissions process and create a more standardized system for both professional and general degree programs across Karnataka's private universities.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court today sought a report from the Karnataka High Court over controversial remarks made by Justice Vedavyasachar 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. 

A five-judge bench led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices S Khanna, B R Gavai, S Kant, and H Roy, expressed the need for establishing clear guidelines for constitutional court judges regarding their remarks in court. 

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.

"Our attention has been drawn to some comments made by Karnataka High Court judge Justice V Srishananda during the conduct of judicial proceedings. We have asked the AG and SG to assist us. We ask the registrar general of the High Court to submit a report to this court after seeking administrative directions from the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court. This exercise may be carried out in 2 weeks," the top court directed.

Videos of Justice Srishanananda have gone viral on social media.

In one video, he refers to a Muslim-dominated locality in Bengaluru as "Pakistan" and on 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.