Ivan D'Souza hits back at Poojary in Congress workers meet

Bengaluru: Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar on Sunday criticised the Union Budget presented by Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman, claiming it offered no tangible benefit to the state.

Though he said he was yet to study the budget in detail, Shivakumar asserted that Karnataka had gained little from it. “There is no benefit for our state from the central budget. I was observing it. They have now named a programme after Mahatma Gandhi, after repealing the MGNREGA Act that was named after him,” he said.

Speaking to reporters here, the Deputy Chief Minister demanded the restoration of MGNREGA, and made it clear that the newly enacted rural employment scheme — VB-G RAM G — which proposes a 60:40 fund-sharing formula between the Centre and the states, would not be implemented in Karnataka.

“I don’t see any major share for our state in this budget,” he added.

Shivakumar, who also holds charge of Bengaluru development, said there were high expectations for the city from the Union Budget. “The Prime Minister calls Bengaluru a ‘global city’, but what has the Centre done for it?” he asked.

He also drew attention to the problems faced by sugar factories, particularly those in the cooperative sector, alleging a lack of timely decisions and support from the central government.

Noting that the Centre has the authority to fix the minimum support price (MSP) for agricultural produce, Shivakumar said the Union government must take concrete steps to protect farmers’ interests.

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.