Campaigning for 1st phase of LS polls in Karnataka ends today

Bengaluru, Feb 1: For travelers landing at Kempegowda International Airport (KIA), the sleek, wood-paneled curves of Terminal 2 promise a world-class welcome. But the famed “Garden City” charm quickly withers at the curb. As India’s aviation sector swells to record numbers—handling over 43 million passengers in Bengaluru alone this past year—the “last mile” has turned into a marathon of frustration.

The Bengaluru Logjam: Rules vs Reality

While the city awaits the 2027 completion of the Namma Metro Blue Line, the interim has been chaotic. Recent “decongestion” rules at Terminal 1 have pushed app-based cab pickups to distant parking zones, forcing weary passengers into a 20-minute walk with luggage.

“I landed after ten months away and felt like a stranger in my own city,” says Ruchitha Jain, a Koramangala resident. “My driver couldn’t find me, staff couldn’t guide me, and the so-called ‘Premium’ lane is just a fancy tax on convenience.”

•    The Cost of Distance: A 40-km cab ride can now easily cross ₹1,500, driven by demand pricing and airport surcharges.

•    The Bus Gap: While Vayu Vajra remains a lifeline, its ₹300–₹400 fare is often cited as the most expensive airport bus service in the country.

A National Pattern of Disconnect

The struggle is not unique to Karnataka. From Chennai’s coast to Hyderabad’s plateau, India’s airports tell a familiar story: brilliant runways, broken exits.

City:    Primary Issue   |    Recent Development

Bengaluru:    Cab pickup restrictions & distance  |    App-based taxis shifted to far parking zones; long walks and fare spikes reported

Chennai:    Multi-Level Parking (MLCP) hike  |    Passengers report 40-minute walks to reach cab pickup points

Hyderabad:    “Taxi mafia” & touting  |    Over 440 touting cases reported; security presence intensified

Mumbai:    Fare scams  |     Tourists charged ₹18,000 for just 400 metres, triggering police action

In Hyderabad, travelers continue to battle entrenched local groups that intimidate Uber and Ola drivers, pushing passengers toward overpriced private taxis. Chennai flyers, meanwhile, complain that reaching the designated pickup zones now takes longer than short-haul flights from cities like Coimbatore.

The ‘Budget Day’ Hope

As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman presents the Union Budget 2026 today, the aviation sector is watching closely. With the government’s renewed emphasis on multimodal integration, there is cautious hope for funding toward seamless airport-metro-bus hubs.

The vision is clear: a future where planes, trains, and metros speak the same language. Until then, passengers at KIA—and airports across India—will continue to discover that the hardest part of flying isn’t the thousands of kilometres in the air, but the last few on the ground.

Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot read only three lines from the 122-paragraph address prepared by the Congress-led state government while addressing the joint session of the Legislature on Thursday, effectively bypassing large sections critical of the BJP-led Union government.

The omitted portions of the customary Governor’s address outlined what the state government described as a “suppressive situation in economic and policy matters” under India’s federal framework. The speech also sharply criticised the Centre’s move to replace the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) with the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Act, commonly referred to as the VB-GRAM (G) Act.

Governor Gehlot had earlier conveyed his objection to several paragraphs that were explicitly critical of the Union government. On Thursday, he confined himself to the opening lines — “I extend a warm welcome to all of you to the joint session of the State legislature. I am extremely pleased to address this august House” — before jumping directly to the concluding sentence of the final paragraph.

He ended the address by reading the last line of paragraph 122: “Overall, my government is firmly committed to doubling the pace of the State’s economic, social and physical development. Jai Hind — Jai Karnataka.”

According to the prepared speech, the Karnataka government demanded the scrapping of the VB-GRAM (G) Act, describing it as “contractor-centric” and detrimental to rural livelihoods, and called for the full restoration of MGNREGA. The state government argued that the new law undermines decentralisation, weakens labour protections, and centralises decision-making in violation of constitutional norms.

Key points from the unread sections of the speech:

•    Karnataka facing a “suppressive” economic and policy environment within the federal system

•    Repeal of MGNREGA described as a blow to rural livelihoods

•    VB-GRAM (G) Act accused of protecting corporate and contractor interests

•    New law alleged to weaken decentralised governance

•    Decision-making said to be imposed by the Centre without consulting states

•    Rights of Adivasis, women, backward classes and agrarian communities curtailed

•    Labourers allegedly placed under contractor control

•    States facing mounting fiscal stress due to central policies

•    VB-GRAM (G) Act accused of enabling large-scale corruption

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.