JDS Minorities Cell slams Deviprasad Shetty over remarks on minority votes in bypolls

March 24, 2012

Mangalore, March 24: Condemning the statement of Udupi district JDS President Deviprasad Shetty that JDS lost the Udupi-Chikmagalur bypolls due to the 'betrayal' of minorities, the Dakshina Kannada district minorities cell of the party has demanded that Shetty take back his words.

Addressing media persons at a press briefing in Mangalore on Saturday, D M Aslam, President, DK JDS Minorities Cell, said that Deviprasad Shetty, has wrongly stated that it was the lack of minority votes that cost the party a victory.

“The minorities of DK and Udupi districts have a lot of regard for Deve Gowda and HD Kumaraswamy. But they knew that JDS didn't stand a chance in Udupi. They wanted to teach BJP a lesson and therefore Congress benefited. The Congress and the BJP have some base in Udupi district while we start from the scratch. That we got 70,000 odd votes is actually an achievement. We are still in the process of strengthening the party in the district. Our party hardly has any representation in the Panchayats and other bodies in Udupi district. To put the blame entirely on minorities is wrong”, he said.

Mr. Aslam also questioned as to why Mr. Shetty does not speak about votes of other communities although their leaders had campaigned in the constituency. “Can Mr. Shetty answer as to why Bunts did not vote for JDS? Can he answer as to why Billavas did not vote for JDS although Madhu Bangarappa had campaigned? Why blame only the minorities?” he asked.

Abdul Azeez, Corporator, on the occasion expressed doubt if Mr. Shetty's own family members had voted for JDS. “His own family might have voted for the candidate belonging to their caste”, he said.

Maintaining that minority votes should not be taken for granted, Mr. Azeez said that BJP's candidate Sunil Kumar who had stated that his party does not need minority votes, has learnt his lesson.

Though Mr Shetty submitted resignation for the post of the district unit of the party following the defeat in bypolls, it was not accepted.

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