Karnataka by-polls: 'Crorepatis' galore in Hoskote constituency
Bengaluru: Hoskote, one of the 15 assembly constituencies that is expected to witness a high stake battle for December 5 bypolls in Karnataka has "Crorepatis" in the fray.
The constituency on the outskirts of Bengaluru is seeing a three-cornered contest between BJP, Congress and JD(S) supported independent candidate.
While the ruling BJP has fielded MTB Nagraj, one of the disqualified Congress MLA, as the party candidate; Congress has fielded Padmavathi, who is the wife of Hebbal legislator Byrathi Suresh.
JD(S) has decided not to filed any candidate, and has extended support to BJP's rebel Sharath Bachegowda, who is contesting as independent candidate.
According to an election affidavit of MTB Nagaraj filed along with his nomination, his total assets are worth about Rs 1,200 crore, which has grown by over Rs 180 crore in the last 18 months.
Nagaraj, considered one among the state's "richest politician," had declared assets worth about Rs 1,015 crore during the 2018 assembly polls.
One among the 17 disqualified legislator, whose resignation and absence from the trust vote led to the collapse of H D Kumaraswamy headed coalition government and paved way for BJP to come to power, he has movable assets worth Rs 419.28 crore, while his wife M Shanthakumari has Rs 167.34 crore.
His immovable assets include Rs 417.11 crore in self- acquired property and Rs 2.64 crore in inherited property, while wife has self-acquired property valued at Rs 189.14 crore and her inherited property at Rs 27.50 lakh.
The couple has loans from banks and financial institutions to the tune of Rs 27.90 crore and Rs 1.57 crore respectively.
Nagaraj also owns high-end cars including Prado, Fortuner, Benz, Bolero, Land Rover and an i10 together worth over Rs 2.54 crore, while wife owns a Porsche worth Rs 1.72 crore.
Interestingly, many have pointed out the 50 odd deposits in his account during the first week of August, soon after the fall of coalition government, most of them worth over Rs 90 lakh. Defending his assets Nagaraj has said, he had paid taxes for it.
He said he was a businessman and had not joined the BJP for monetary reasons.
On the other hand, Congress candidate Padmavathi along with her husband, Byrathi Suresh, who is MLA from Hebbal have assets worth Rs 424 crore, the election affidavit said.
Padmavathi who is making electoral debut has declared her occupation as business. She along with her husband have movable assets worth Rs 16.63 crore, while their immovable assets run into Rs 407 crore. Suresh has major share in the properties.
The couple have cars worth Rs 3.13 crore, they include- Prado, Audi, Hyundai i20, JCB (backhoe), Benz, Innovas, Mahindra jeep.
On the other hand, Sharath Bachegowda, who is contesting as independent candidate, rebelling against the BJP, after the party denied him the ticket favouring disqualified Congress MLA MTB Nagaraj, has declared assets worth Rs 138 crore along with his wife Pratibha in his election affidavit.
Sharath, the son of BJP MP from Chikkaballapura, B N Bachegowda, has declared his occupation as public service and business. He has also declared certain cases pending against him.
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.
Supreme Court declines fresh curbs on hate speech, says existing laws are enough
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday refused to issue additional directions to curb hate speech across the country, holding that the existing legal framework is sufficient and that the real issue lies in implementation rather than absence of law.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta said creation of criminal offences falls within the legislative domain and courts cannot legislate or compel Parliament and state legislatures to enact laws.
The Bench observed that constitutional courts can interpret the law and issue directions for enforcement of fundamental rights, but cannot step into the law-making role.
“At the highest, the court may draw attention to the need for reform. The decision whether and in what manner to legislate remains within the exclusive domain of Parliament and the state legislatures,” the court said.
The court held that the field of hate speech is not legally vacant and said concerns arise mainly from poor enforcement of existing provisions.
It also noted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, provides a comprehensive mechanism to set criminal law in motion, meaning there is no legislative vacuum.
Referring to remedies already available under the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the BNSS, the court said police are duty-bound to register an FIR when a cognisable offence is disclosed, as laid down in the Lalita Kumari judgment.
It said if police fail to register an FIR, an aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of CrPC or Section 173(4) of BNSS, and thereafter move the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC or Section 175 BNSS, or file a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 BNSS.
The Bench further held that an order directing investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC does not amount to taking cognisance under Section 190 CrPC or the corresponding Section 210 of BNSS.
Even while declining fresh directions, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the issue.
It observed that hate speech and rumour-mongering directly affect fraternity, dignity and constitutional order.
The Bench urged legislative authorities to consider whether further policy or legal measures are needed in view of changing social challenges, including suggestions made in the 267th Report of the Law Commission in 2017.
The judgment came in a batch of petitions arising from events dating back to 2020, when multiple pleas were filed over alleged communal narratives spread through television channels and social media.
Among the earliest cases were challenges relating to content described as the “Corona Jihad” campaign and a programme aired by Sudarshan TV titled “UPSC Jihad”. During those proceedings, the court had restrained further telecast of the programme.
Later, more petitions were filed over speeches made at religious gatherings described as “Dharam Sansad” events.
These included pleas moved by journalist Qurban Ali and Major General S.G. Vombatkere seeking action against alleged hate speeches made at such forums.
During the pendency of the matter, the Supreme Court in 2023 had issued major directions asking all states and Union Territories to act proactively in cases involving communal hate speeches or remarks hurting religious sentiments.
It had directed police to register FIRs suo motu, without waiting for formal complaints.
Later, contempt petitions were also filed alleging poor implementation of those earlier directions.
