Actress Samyuktha Hegde pulls off her pullover in public to protest ‘moral policing’

A controversy has erupted in Karnataka after two Brahmin students were allegedly asked to remove their sacred thread (Janivara) and religious wristbands before entering the Common Entrance Test (CET) examination halls. The incident reportedly occurred on Thursday in Shivamogga and Bidar districts, drawing sharp criticism from community groups and prompting a swift response from state ministers.

Videos and complaints shared by parents and community organizations brought the matter to public attention on Friday. Several Hindu groups condemned the action as insensitive and discriminatory.

Investigation

Reacting to the incident, Karnataka’s Higher Education Minister Dr. M.C. Sudhakar called the alleged directive “unacceptable” and assured a thorough inquiry. “It is an excessive act. If this happened at any examination center, we will take it seriously. We must respect the traditions of all castes and religions. I do not support such actions,” the minister told PTI.
He added, “I will seek a report from the concerned officials and consider appropriate steps. This is not about politics or gaining political mileage. We have no intention of hurting the sentiments of any community.”

Education Minister Madhu Bangarappa, whose home district is Shivamogga, also addressed the issue. “There is no legal provision that permits such actions. Although this matter doesn’t fall directly under my ministry, I will coordinate with the concerned department. Since the incident happened in my home district, I will instruct officials to initiate appropriate action,” he said.

Hindutva Organizations Condemn

Community bodies such as the Akhila Karnataka Brahmana Maha Sabha and Vishwa Sanghatane strongly condemned the alleged directive, stating that enforcing such measures under the guise of examination protocols was a violation of religious rights.

Members of the Bhramina Sanghagala Okkuta submitted a formal complaint on Thursday to Shivamogga Deputy Commissioner Gurudatta Hegde, according to a report.

Broader Context

The controversy comes amid ongoing debates over religious expression in Karnataka’s educational institutions. Notably, the previous BJP-led state government had banned students from wearing hijabs in classrooms—a move upheld by the Karnataka High Court and currently under review by the Supreme Court.

Riyadh: Prime Minister Narendra Modi's recent visit to Saudi Arabia on April 22 marked a significant step in reaffirming the enduring friendship between India and the Kingdom. During his visit, PM Modi engaged with leading Indian-origin business figures, highlighting their pivotal role in Saudi Arabia's economic growth.

Among the distinguished attendees were Mr. Ashif Karnire, Chief Executive Officer of the prestigious Expertise Group, and Mr. Anshif Karnire, Chief Strategy Officer of the group, whose participation underlined the vibrant entrepreneurial spirit of the Indian community in Saudi Arabia.

Joining them were other prominent business leaders, including Mr. Yusuf Ali, Managing Director of LuLu Hypermarket, and Dr. Alisha Moopen, Group CEO of Aster Healthcare. Each of these leaders represents enterprises that have made outstanding contributions across diverse sectors of the Saudi economy.

The discussions centred around the influential role of Indian entrepreneurs in Saudi Arabia’s development journey, with PM Modi acknowledging their exceptional contributions.

The robust presence of Indian businesses continues to be a driving force in the Kingdom’s economic diversification efforts. The meeting not only reaffirmed the strong ties between India and Saudi Arabia but also opened new avenues for collaboration, promising mutual growth and prosperity in the years ahead.

In a controversial statement that has sparked alarm among legal experts and constitutional scholars, Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar criticized the judiciary for allegedly overstepping its bounds, particularly targeting the Supreme Court’s recent verdict that set deadlines for the President and Governors to act on Bills.

“We cannot have a situation where courts direct the President,” Mr. Dhankhar said, suggesting that the judiciary is interfering with the powers of the executive. He further described Article 142 of the Constitution — which empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders necessary to do "complete justice" — as a “nuclear missile against democratic forces, available to the judiciary 24x7.”

This incendiary metaphor has drawn backlash for implying that judicial independence — a cornerstone of democracy — is somehow hostile or dangerous. Critics argue that such rhetoric undermines public trust in the judiciary and risks damaging the careful separation of powers between branches of government.

While addressing the sixth batch of Rajya Sabha interns, the Vice President also referred to a serious incident involving a Delhi High Court judge, Yashwant Varma, from whose residence a large amount of cash was allegedly recovered in March. He questioned the delayed disclosure of the incident and criticized the absence of an FIR against the judge.

“An FIR in this country can be registered against anyone, any constitutional functionary, including the one before you... But if it is Judges, FIR cannot be straightaway registered. It has to be approved by the concerned in the Judiciary, but that is not given in the Constitution,” he argued.

He went on to question why judges, unlike the President and Governors, appear to enjoy immunity not explicitly provided in the Constitution.

“If the event had taken place at his house, the speed would have been an electronic rocket. Now it is not even a cattle cart,” he remarked, criticizing the pace of response and investigation.

Why These Remarks Are Dangerous

While scrutiny of public institutions is necessary in a democracy, the Vice President’s remarks are concerning for several reasons:

1.    Undermining Judicial Authority: By calling Article 142 a "nuclear missile," the Vice President risks portraying the judiciary as a threat rather than a guardian of constitutional rights.

2.    Challenging Separation of Powers: The suggestion that courts should not “direct” the President could erode judicial checks on executive inaction or overreach, especially when constitutional responsibilities are being delayed or ignored.

3.    Eroding Public Confidence: As the Vice President of India — also the Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha — such statements carry institutional weight. Attacks on judicial legitimacy can embolden other political actors to disregard court rulings, weakening the rule of law.

4.    Threatening Judicial Independence: Implying that judges should be more easily prosecuted, without proper due process and internal accountability, could be seen as an attempt to intimidate the judiciary.

5.    Fueling Distrust During Sensitive Times: At a moment when public trust in institutions is essential, these remarks may sow unnecessary suspicion and politicize judicial matters that require careful and independent handling.

The Vice President’s speech has ignited a vital conversation about accountability and judicial conduct. However, framing the judiciary as a rogue institution and questioning its constitutional powers without nuance is fraught with danger. Safeguarding democracy requires mutual respect and balance among all pillars of governance — executive, legislature, and judiciary. When this balance is disturbed through political rhetoric, it threatens not just institutions, but the very foundation of constitutional democracy.