Reservation row: Muslim League condemns Eshwarappa's remarks

March 3, 2012

Mangalore, March 3: By stating that grant of reservation for Muslims will result in bloodshed, BJP State President K S Eshwarappa is trying to divide people on communal lines in order to gain mileage in Udupi-Chikmagalur by-polls, alleged Mr. C Ahmed Jamal, Secretary, DK District Committee, Indian Muslim League.

He was addressing media persons at the Press Club in the city on Friday.

Representatives of the League said that Mr. Eshwarappa, who himself is from a backward class community, has failed to understand the constitution of India.

The League, in its press statement has stated that by granting 4% reservation to Muslims within the 27% reservation quota, no injustice would be done to other communities as they would still have 23% of reservations for them. Many commissions have recommended reservation for Muslims to the government. Commissions formed by the union government such as the Justice Mandal Commission, Justice Sachar Commission, Justice Ranganath Mishra Commission etc have recommended reservations for Muslims after studying the social, economic, and educational condition of Muslims in India. Similarly, in Karnataka Justice Chinnappa Reddy Commission, Havanur Commission, Goodwala Commission etc have also recommended reservations for Muslims. Besides, the architect of Indian constitution Dr B R Ambedkar and Chairman of the Sub-Committee for Reservations in Constitution Vallabhai Patel too had recommended reservations for Muslims under the reservation quota of backward classes.

Out of the total reservation quota, 22% is meant for Harijans. Even if 4% of reservation out of the prescribed 27% is kept for Muslims, the rest of the 23% will still belong to the Hindus. The other 51% has also been given to the Hindus. Not even 0.001% has been given to Musilms. All Commissions who made this study knew this fact and therefore recommended reservation for Muslims who are the biggest among the minority communities of India, the press statement further states.

If Mr. Eshwarappa does not apologise for the remarks he made against Muslims, the Muslim League will take to streets and hold protests, Mr. Ahmed Jamal warned.

Comments

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