Congress Ministers again push for 3 more Deputy CMs in Karnataka
Bengaluru: With demand for three more Deputy Chief Ministers in Karnataka once again coming to the fore, the State Congress chief D K Shivakumar on Monday said the party's central leadership will take a call.
Some of the Ministers in the Siddaramaiah-led cabinet have been pitching for deputy chief minister posts to be given to leaders from Veerashaiva-Lingayat, SC/ST and minority communities.
Currently, Shivakumar from the Vokkaliga community is only the Deputy Chief Minister in the cabinet.
"Party will decide.....I don't know about all those things," Shivakumar told reporters in response to a question on three more Deputy CMs and changing the party state President.
A section within the Congress is said to be of the opinion that statement by the Ministers was part of a plan by Siddaramaiah's camp to keep Shivakumar in check, amid talks he might seek the CM post after two-and-half years of this government's tenure and to counter his influence both in the government and party.
ALSO READ: Here's why DK Shivakumar wants to contest from JD(S) stronghold Channapatna in by-election
The Ministers who have pitched for three more DCMs are considered close to Siddaramaiah.
Stating that when power is distributed all communities will show their liking towards the party and it will not be the case only if a few people enjoy power, Co-Operation Minister K N Rajanna said he had proposed a Deputy Chief Minister from Lingayat, SC/ST and minority communities.
"There is an example of BJP doing it in the past," he said. Rajanna earlier too had made a similar demand.
Minister for Housing B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan saw nothing wrong with the demand to have more DCMs.
"Every one will have desire, there will be a demand from all communities for Deputy CM post whether it is Muslim community, Lingayats, SC/ST. From Vokkaliga community D K Shivakumar is there (as DCM). What's wrong in other communities asking? Ours Ours is a high command party, they will decide ultimately, whether to give or not," he said.
Social Welfare Minister H C Mahadevappa said, there is no quota for such posts in the Constitution, and the position is given based on one's capability. "Many Dalit leaders have the capability and based on that it should be given, not on quota."
Asked whether it was an attempt to weaken Shivakumar, he said, "no one can weaken any one. Whatever has to be decided will be ultimately decided by the Congress high command...when I'm asked for my opinion, I will tell the party."
Earlier, Public Works Minister Satish Jarkiholi too had spoken favouring the proposal, keeping the communities that have stood by the party in mind.
The Congress had reportedly decided that Shivakumar will be "the only" Deputy CM amid stiff competition between him and Siddaramaiah for the Chief Minister's post after the Assembly election results in May last year.
It was also said to be a "commitment" made by the Congress leadership to Shivakumar while convincing him to give up his claim for the CM post and to take up the role of deputy chief minister.
Meanwhile, IT Minister Priyank Kharge termed the demand for more DCMs as their "personal opinion".
"Everyone has the right to ask, let them go and ask the high command, but if every thing will happen only by making more DCMs, let there be one CM and rest all in the cabinet be made DCMs. Is it possible?" he said.
"As Ministers we have to introspect on party performance in the Lok Sabha polls, whether we have given power to party workers, whether we are doing our job as Ministers correctly...place your demand at the right form, not before you (media)," he said.
Home Minister G Parameshwara said: "It is left for high command to decide, if necessary they will do."
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.
'Fraud on Constitution': SC rules against religious conversion for quota benefits
New Delhi (PTI): In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has said religious conversions undertaken solely to avail reservation benefits without genuine belief amounted to a "fraud on the Constitution".
Justices Pankaj Mithal and R Mahadevan passed the verdict on November 26 in a case filed by one C Selvarani and upheld a Madras High Court decision of January 24 denying a scheduled caste certificate to a woman who converted to Christianity but later claimed to be a Hindu to secure employment benefits.
Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the 21-page verdict for the bench, further underscored that one converted to a different religion, when they were genuinely inspired by its principles, tenets and spiritual thoughts.
"However, if the purpose of conversion is largely to derive the benefits of reservation but not with any actual belief in the other religion, the same cannot be permitted, as the extension of benefits of reservation to people with such ulterior motives will only defeat the social ethos of the policy of reservation,” he noted.
The evidence presented before the bench was found to have clearly demonstrated that the appellant professed Christianity and actively practiced the faith by attending church regularly.
"Despite the same, she claims to be a Hindu and seeks for a SC community certificate for the purpose of employment," it noted.
"Such a dual claim made by her," said the bench "was untenable and she cannot continue to identify herself as a Hindu after baptism".
The top court, therefore, held the conferment of scheduled caste communal status to the woman, who was a Christian by faith, but claimed to be still embracing Hinduism only for the purpose of availing reservation in employment, "would go against the very object of reservation and would amount to fraud on the Constitution".
The top court underlined a religious conversion solely to access reservation benefits, without genuine belief in the adopted religion, undermined the fundamental social objectives of the quota policy and her actions were contrary to the spirit of reservation policies aimed at uplifting the marginalised communities.
Selvarani, born to a Hindu father and a Christian mother, was baptised as a Christian shortly after birth but later claimed to be a Hindu and sought an SC certificate to apply for an upper division clerk position in Puducherry in 2015.
While her father belonged to the Valluvan caste, categorised under scheduled castes, he had converted to Christianity, as confirmed by documentary evidence.
The verdict said the appellant continued to practice Christianity, as seen by the regular church attendance, making her claim of being a Hindu untenable.
The bench noted individuals converting to Christianity lose their caste identity and must provide compelling evidence of reconversion and acceptance by their original caste to claim SC benefits.
The judgement said there was no substantial evidence of the appellant's reconversion to Hinduism or acceptance by the Valluvan caste.
Her claims lacked public declarations, ceremonies, or credible documentation to substantiate her assertions, it pointed out.
"One converts to a different religion when genuinely inspired by its principles. Conversion purely for reservation benefits, devoid of belief, is impermissible," the bench held.
The apex court opined in any case, upon conversion to Christianity, one lost their caste and couldn't be identified by it.
"As the factum of reconversion is disputed, there must be more than a mere claim. The conversion had not happened by any ceremony or through 'Arya Samaj'. No public declaration was effected. There is nothing on record to show that she or her family has reconverted to Hinduism and on the contrary, there is a factual finding that the appellant still professes Christianity,” it noted.
The bench said there was evidence against the appellant, and therefore, her contention raised that the caste would be under eclipse upon conversion and resumption of the caste upon reconversion, was "unsustainable".
