MLC Polls: JDS fields candidates only in 7 seats out of 25

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: Following reports of fresh Nipah virus (NiV) cases in West Bengal and heightened vigilance across parts of Southeast Asia, the Karnataka Health Department has placed the state on high alert and activated emergency preparedness protocols.

Health officials said enhanced surveillance measures have been initiated after two healthcare workers in Barasat, West Bengal, tested positive for the virus earlier this month. While no cases have been reported in Karnataka so far, authorities said the state’s past exposure to Nipah outbreaks and high inter-state mobility warranted preventive action.

Officials have directed district health teams to intensify monitoring, particularly at hospitals and points of entry, and to ensure early detection and isolation of suspected cases.

High Mortality Virus with Multiple Transmission Routes

Nipah virus is a zoonotic disease that can spread from animals to humans and has a reported fatality rate ranging between 60 and 75 per cent. Fruit bats, also known as flying foxes, are the natural reservoirs of the virus and can transmit it by contaminating food sources with saliva or urine.

Known modes of transmission include:

•    Contaminated food: Consumption of fruits partially eaten by bats or raw date-palm sap
•    Animal contact: Exposure to infected pigs or other animals
•    Human-to-human transmission: Close contact with body fluids of infected persons, particularly in healthcare settings

Symptoms and Disease Progression

The incubation period typically ranges from 4 to 14 days, though delayed onset has also been reported. Early symptoms often resemble common viral infections, making prompt clinical suspicion critical.

•    Initial symptoms: Fever, headache, body aches, fatigue, sore throat
•    Progressive symptoms: Drowsiness, disorientation, altered mental state
•    Severe stage: Seizures, neck stiffness and acute encephalitis, which can rapidly progress to coma

Public Health Advisory

The Health Department has issued precautionary guidelines urging the public to adopt risk-avoidance practices to prevent any local spillover.

Do’s
•    Wash fruits thoroughly before consumption
•    Drink boiled and cooled water
•    Use protective equipment while handling livestock
•    Maintain strict hand hygiene

Don’ts
•    Avoid fruits found on the ground or showing bite marks
•    Do not consume beverages made from raw tree sap, including toddy
•    Avoid areas with dense bat populations
•    Do not handle sick or dead animals

Preparedness Measures

Officials confirmed that isolation wards are being readied in major government hospitals and that medical staff are being sensitised to identify early warning signs.

“There is no cause for panic, but there is a need for heightened vigilance,” a senior health official said, adding that there is currently no approved vaccine or specific antiviral treatment for Nipah, and care remains largely supportive.

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.