Flyover in Bengaluru named after Veer Savarkar, despite opposition

News Network

September 9, 2020

Bengaluru, Sept 9: Karnataka chief minister BS Yediyurappa on Tuesday inaugurated a flyover in the city after freedom fighter and Hindutva ideologue Veer Savarkar, despite opposition from the Congress and JD(S) to naming it after him. The 400 metre long flyover, constructed at a cost of Rs 34 core by city civic body Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), is on the Major Sandeep Unnikrishnan Road at Yelahanka.

Speaking after inaugurating the flyover, Yediyurappa said Savarkar sacrificed his entire life for the freedom of India.

It was apt to name the flyover after Savarkar, a "great patriot", the chief minister said, as he noted that his government was giving priority for the all round development of all cities in the state, including Bengaluru.

The flyover was earlier scheduled to be inaugurated on May 28 on Savarkar's birthday.

However, the government had postponed it at the last minute, citing Covid-19 related restrictions in place.

Both Congress and JD(S) flayed the move to name the flyover after Savarkar.

Alleging that the BJP government in Karnataka did not show any interest regarding the Sangolli Rayanna (18th century warrior and freedom fighter) statue in Belagavi district until there was a public movement for it, the state Congress in a tweet said, "It was shameful and an act of treason to name the flyover at Yelahanka after Savarkar, who was accused of being involved in Gandhi's killing."

JD(S) too, pointing at issues that had cropped up against installing the Sangolli Rayanna statue at Belagavi, said that in such a situation, it was against the move to name a public flyover after Savarkar, who does not have any connection with Karnataka.

Accusing the BJP government of adopting an "anti-state policy" from the day it came to power, JD(S) said the move to name the flyover after Savarkar too was an extended part of this policy and demanded to know why it had not got it named after any esteemed personality in the state.

JD(S) youth wing had planned a protest against the naming of the flyover, but were not given permission by police and it leaders were detained.

Earlier in May too, the Congress and JD(S) had opposed the move and termed it as an 'insult' to freedom fighters of the state.

Comments

Godsai could have been better.

Add new comment

Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.

HC refuses to quash probe against Mangaluru WhatsApp admin over offensive posts

News Network

February 1,2026

Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an investigation against a WhatsApp group administrator accused of allowing the circulation of obscene and offensive images depicting Hindutva politicians and idols in 2021.

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that, prima facie, the ingredients of the offence under Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code were made out. “The offence under Section 295A of the IPC is met to every word of its ingredient, albeit prima facie,” the judge said.

The petitioner, Sirajuddin, a resident of Belthangady taluk in Dakshina Kannada district, had challenged the FIR registered against him at the CEN (Cyber, Economics and Narcotics) police station, Mangaluru, for offences under Section 295A of the IPC and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act. Section 295A relates to punishment for deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens.

According to the complaint filed by K Jayaraj Salian, also a resident of Belthangady taluk, he received a WhatsApp group link from an unknown source and was added to the group after accessing it. The group reportedly had six administrators and around 250 participants, where obscene and offensive images depicting Hindu deities and certain political figures were allegedly circulated repeatedly.

Sirajuddin was arrested in connection with the case and later released on bail on February 16, 2021. He argued before the court that he was being selectively targeted, while other administrators—including the creator of the group—were neither arrested nor investigated. He also contended that the Magistrate could not have taken cognisance of the offence under Section 295A without prior sanction under Section 196(1) of the CrPC.

Rejecting the argument, Justice Nagaprasanna held that prior sanction is required only at the stage of taking cognisance, and not at the stage of registration of the crime or during investigation.

The judge noted that the State had produced the entire investigation material before the court. “A perusal of the material reveals depictions of Hindu deities in an extraordinarily obscene, demeaning and profane manner. The content is such that its reproduction in a judicial order would itself be inappropriate,” the court said, adding that the material, on its face, had the tendency to outrage religious feelings and disturb communal harmony.

Observing that the case was still at the investigation stage, the court said it could not interdict the probe at this juncture. However, it expressed concern that the investigating officer appeared to have not proceeded uniformly against all administrators. The court clarified that if the investigation revealed the active involvement of any member in permitting the circulation of such content, they must also be proceeded against.

“At this investigative stage, any further observation by this Court would be unnecessary,” the order concluded.

Comments