Mahagathbandhan gets boost: Chandrababu Naidu to meet Deve Gowda tomorrow
Bengaluru, Nov 7: TDP supremo and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu, who is trying to unite opposition parties to take on BJP in the Lok Sabha Elections next year, will meet former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda and Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy here on Thursday.
Naidu will meet Gowda at his residence at Padmanabha Nagar and Kumaraswamy would also be present during the meeting, JD(S) said on Wednesday.
Interestingly, Naidu's meeting with the JD(S) supremo comes in the backdrop of Congress-JD(S) coalition resolving to contest the 2019 Lok Sabha elections together against the BJP,buoyed by the victory in the bypolls.
The Congress-JD(S)coalition in Karnataka on Tuesday won two of the three Lok Sabha seats and both assembly constituencies in the fiercely fought by-polls, giving a shot in the arm to the ruling combine that faces frequent questions about its longevity.
BJP had managed to hold on to the Shivamogga Lok Sabha seat.
The electoral sweep by the ruling coalition comes as a boost to it as the by-polls were seen as a barometer of the public mood ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
Naidu had called his Karnataka counterpart over phone on Tuesday and congratulated the latter on the JD(S)-Congress combine's "spectacular victory" in the by-elections.
JD(S) MLC Saravana said Naidu's meeting with Gowdais in continuation of the discussions the Andhra Chief Minister was holding with "secular" party leaders across the country.
"The bypolls results that have come is a good development as people of state have understood the need for secular forces. He (Naidu) is expected to seek Deve Gowda's cooperation," he added.
Naidu had also recently met NCP chief Sharad Pawar And National Conference president Farooq Abdullah, among others.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Shobha Karandlaje urges Governor to withhold assent to Karnataka hate speech bill
Bengaluru (PTI): Union Minister of State Shobha Karandlaje on Friday urged Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to withhold assent to the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, terming the Bill "vague, overbroad, and susceptible to misuse".
She also requested him to reserve the Bill for the consideration of President Droupadi Murmu under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, in the larger interest of constitutional governance, democratic freedoms, and the rule of law.
The bill, passed by both houses of the legislature, will be sent to the Governor for his assent.
Taking to social media 'X', the minister said, "The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill 2025 hands the State sweeping authority to silence opposition voices, restrain the media, and intimidate the citizens who defend Karnataka's land, language, and Dharma. This isn't a hate speech prevention bill, it's rather a bill that prevents the right to speech." "We will not let Congress turn the law into a tool to choke free speech and democratic dissent," she added.
In a letter to the governor, Karandlaje said the objective of the Bill is to address hate speech and hate crimes. However, upon careful examination, it becomes evident that the Bill, in its present form, establishes a "State-controlled mechanism" for monitoring, assessing, and penalising speech, rather than narrowly addressing expression that poses a clear and imminent threat to public order.
"The structure of the Bill enables executive authorities to determine the permissibility of expression, thereby transforming the law into a tool capable of suppressing voices critical of the government. Such an approach undermines the constitutional guarantee of democratic dissent and free expression," she said.
Citing reference of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India that guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen, she said, "The Bill departs from these constitutional limits by employing broad, vague, and subjective expressions such as "disharmony," "ill-will," and "prejudicial interest," which are not precisely defined. These terms confer excessive discretion on the Executive, enabling arbitrary and selective enforcement, which is inconsistent with constitutional safeguards."
She said the constitutional infirmities of the present Bill must be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015), wherein the Court held that any law regulating speech must be clear, narrowly tailored and free from vagueness.
The minister alleged that the Bill further authorises executive authorities and law-enforcement agencies to assess and act upon speech without adequate judicial oversight. Penal consequences are linked to executive assessment, thereby concentrating investigative and adjudicatory functions within the Executive.
"Such an arrangement erodes procedural safeguards and is inconsistent with constitutional principles governing the protection of fundamental rights," she alleged.
Karandlaje also pointed out the potential impact of the Bill on "historically marginalised" and "constitutionally protected" voices.
"The vague and expansive language of the legislation is capable of being invoked to silence Kannada language activists, women's organisations, representatives of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, backward classes, minorities, journalists, student groups, and civil society organisations that raise issues of governance, social justice, or administrative accountability," she said.
Instead of empowering vulnerable communities, according to the minister, the Bill risks becoming an instrument to deter them from articulating grievances and participating meaningfully in public discourse, thereby defeating the very constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and inclusive democracy.
The minister alleged that the cumulative effect of the Bill is likely to create a "pervasive chilling effect" on public discourse, which is incompatible with democratic governance.
Pointing out that the Bill directly impacts fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, she said, "In view of the serious constitutional questions it raises, this is a fit case for the exercise of constitutional discretion under Article 200. Reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President would enable a broader constitutional examination of its implications for civil liberties and the federal constitutional balance."
