SC/SC Act issue: Schools, bus services to remain shut in Punjab in view of bandh call

Bengaluru: An estimated overall 10.14 per cent voter turnout was recorded during the first two hours, since the voting began for bypolls to three Assembly segments in Karnataka on Wednesday, election officials said.

The voting began at 7 am and will go on till 6 pm.

More than seven lakh voters are eligible to cast their votes in about 770 polling stations in Shiggaon, Sandur and Channapatna, where a total of 45 candidates are in the fray.

While Channapatna recorded 10.34 per cent voter turnout till 9 am, it was 10.08 per cent in Shiggaon, and 9.99 per cent in Sandur, election officials said.

Voters, including women and elderly were seen queuing up in front of polling booths in these segments.

By-polls for Sandur, Shiggaon, and Channapatna are necessitated, as the seats fell vacant following the election of their respective representatives -- E Tukaram of Congress, former CM Basavaraj Bommai of BJP, and Union Minister H D Kumaraswamy of JD(S) -- to Lok Sabha in May elections.

As many as 31 candidates are in the fray from Channapatna, while Sandur and Shiggaon have six and eight contenders, respectively.

Elaborate security arrangements have been made in the three segments for the smooth conduct of the polls.

The by-polls will witness a straight fight between the ruling Congress and BJP in Sandur and Shiggaon segments, while in Channapatna, JD(S) which is part of the NDA alliance is in contest against the grand old party.

Among the three segments, Channapatna is considered to be a "high profile", where the contest is between C P Yogeeshwara, a five time MLA from the segment and former Minister, who joined the Congress quitting BJP ahead of nomination, and actor-turned -politician Nikhil Kumaraswamy, who is Kumaraswamy’s son and former PM H D Deve Gowda's grandson.

BJP's Bharath Bommai, son of Basavaraj Bommai, is fighting Congress Yasir Ahmed Khan Pathan, who had faced defeat against the former Chief Minister in the 2023 Assembly polls, in Shiggaon.

Bharath Bommai and his father cast their vote at a polling booth in Shiggaon segment.

In Sandur, Bellary MP Tukaram's wife E Annapurna of Congress is contesting from the seat vacated by her husband, against, BJP ST Morcha president Bangaru Hanumanthu, who is considered close to party leader and former mining barron G Janardhan Reddy.

Annapurna, Tukaram and other family members cast their votes at a booth in the segment.

With Nikhil Kumaraswamy and Bharath Bommai contesting, the third generation of Gowda and Bommai families are in the fray in this by-poll. Both their fathers and grandfathers have served as Karnataka's Chief Ministers in the past.

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.