Kumaraswamy warns Karnataka govt against ordinance to amend labour laws & APMC Act
Bengaluru: Warning against any move by the government to amend labour laws and APMC Act through ordinance, JD(S) leader H D Kumaraswamy on Tuesday asked Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa work in the interest of the people and not budge under any pressure from the centre or to please party bosses.
The former Chief Minister questioned the urgency to bring forward such ordinances on important subjects and asked the government to have a public debate on it and also discuss it in the assembly.
"I'm warning the government... I have been watching everything silently till now, I have not caused any embarrassment to the government.
I want to tell government, don't push us to do it," Kumaraswamy said.
Speaking to reporters here, he said the party has supported the government in it's fight against COVID-19 and not criticized it, despite mistakes.
"Please don't take our silence as weakness, I'm warning the government," he said, as he told Yediyurappa that he has become Chief Minister to protect the people's interests and asked him not to budge under pressure from the central government or to please the Prime Minister or someone else.
His warning came amidst reports that the state government was mulling relaxing some key labour laws in line with those brought in other BJP ruled states like Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat.
Also, that it planned to amend the agricultural marketing laws to remove restrictions on sale of farm produce and allow farmers to sell their produce anywhere.
Alleging that the government planned to bring in modifications in the APMC act,Kumaraswamy said the Cooperative Minister himself had said that the decision to dilute APMCs powers will result in losses of no less than Rs 600 crore to the exchequer and that the state will have to abide by it as it was the decision taken by the centre.
"This amendment will end Agricultural Produce Market Committees and help big private companies. There will be no protection to farmers," he said.
Further alleging that there are plans to modify labour laws that include extending work hours,Kumaraswamy accused the government of bringing such "anti people" amendment through ordinance during lockdown as none can come out on the streets and protest against it.
"Bring those amendments to the assembly, explain the need for them to the house, have a public debate about it... don't bring such ordinance under the directives of the centre, to please someone," he said.
The former Chief Minister said he would write to the Governor to use his discretionary powers before approving such ordinances, after a thorough scrutiny.
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.
Bhojshala complex registered as 'mosque' in old revenue records: Muslim side to MP HC
Indore (PTI): The disputed Bhojshala Temple-Kamal Maula Mosque complex has historically been registered as a 'mosque' in revenue records and available sources don't clearly mention any Saraswati temple established by then-king Raja Bhoj, the Muslim side has told the Madhya Pradesh High Court.
The Hindu community considers Bhojshala a temple dedicated to Goddess Saraswati, while the Muslim side calls the 11th-century monument Kamal Maula Mosque. The disputed complex located in Dhar district is protected by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI).
During the hearing before the HC's Indore bench of Justices Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi on Wednesday, Qazi Moinuddin questioned two PILs filed as intervenors in the Bhojshala case by an organisation named Hindu Front for Justice, one Kuldeep Tiwari and another individual.
Moinuddin claims to be a descendant of Sufi saint Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti and the 'Sajjadanashin' (spiritual head, guru, or successor of a Sufi shrine, khanqah, or religious site).
The PILs state that Bhojshala is actually a Saraswati temple and only Hindus should be granted the right to worship at the disputed complex.
Moinuddin's lawyer, Noor Ahmed Sheikh, claimed in the court that his client's ancestors, who are descendants of Maulana Kamaluddin Chishti, have historically held titles to the complex, and the site was also recorded as a "mosque" in government revenue records.
He contended that those associated with the management of the Kamal Maula Mosque, located within the complex, have been in "continuous and peaceful occupation" of the site for a long time.
Citing Muslim law, Sheikh argued that in the case of religious property, particularly a mosque or its related properties, officials such as the Sajjadanashin and Mutawalli (person entrusted with management, maintenance, and administration of a Waqf), and their descendants, not only have the right to intervene, but also have the right to manage and use such a structure.
Citing provisions of the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Muslim side's lawyer said the term "in-charge of the property" is used in this law, which makes it clear that the person or party who has been in charge of a property for a long time has rights over it.
During the hearing, Touseef Warsi, the lawyer representing the Maulana Kamaluddin Welfare Society of Dhar, claimed that Hindu parties in both PILs had made "misleading representations" regarding historical facts before the high court.
He further claimed that available historical sources do not clearly mention the existence of a Saraswati temple established by Raja Bhoj, the legendary king of the Parmar dynasty who ruled Dhar from 1010 to 1055.
The ASI, a central government agency, has adopted three different positions in the lawsuits filed regarding the Bhojshala dispute, changing its answers from time to time, and this situation raises serious questions about judicial scrutiny of the complex, Warsi submitted.
He raised objections regarding the ASI's process of scientific survey of the Bhojshala complex, carried out on the HC order in 2024, and the method of videography and requested the court to examine these objections.
The hearing in the Bhojshala case will continue on Thursday.
The HC has been regularly hearing four petitions and one writ appeal since April 6, contesting the religious nature of the monument.
