Choice of state anthem tune challenged in K'taka HC
Bengaluru, Oct 1: The selection of the tune composed by late Mysore Ananthaswamy for the Karnataka state anthem by the state government through its September 25 order, has been challenged in the Karnataka High Court.
Justice Krishna S Dixit, who heard the petition by singer Kikkeri Krishnamurthy, ordered the notice to be issued to the government on Friday.
The poem, 'Jaya Bharata Jananiya Thanujate' written by late poet laureate Kuvempu was declared the state anthem in 2004. But ever since, there have been concerns regarding the anthem's rendering duration, tune and addition of words to it.
In June 2013, the Vasantha Kanakapura committee set up for the purpose had said that the tune composed by C Ashwath would be continued for the anthem as even Ananthaswamy had agreed to it. Ananthaswamy had not composed the tune for the entire song, the committee had stated.
Later, the Dr Channaveera Kanavi committee also recommended the tune set by C Ashwath. The latest H R Leelavathi committee had recommended the tune set by Ananthaswamy.
Kikkeri Krishnamurthy, in his petition before the HC, has submitted that he had given a petition to the state government against this on September 17 but the government went ahead and issued the order on September 25.
The petition claims that it is impossible to implement the government's new order as "there is no full tune of the State Anthem composed by Mysore Ananthaswamy."
If the government gets another person to compose the tune for the remaining portions, "it amounts to showing disrespect to Mysore Ananthaswamy and as well as the State Anthem," according to the petition that is seeking to quash the government's order.
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.
Disqualification row: SC unhappy over Telangana CM's statement on bye-elections
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Thursday expressed its displeasure over Telangana Chief Minister A Revanth Reddy's statement in the assembly that there would be no bye-elections, and said he was expected to exercise "some degree of restraint".
"Did we commit a mistake by letting him go at that time and not taking an action for contempt?" a bench of Justices B R Gavai and Augustine George Masih asked.
The top court was perhaps referring to a separate matter in which it had last year disapproved of Reddy's comments on the top court granting bail to rival BRS leader K Kavitha in cases linked to the alleged Delhi excise policy scam.
The apex court's observations came during the arguments on the pleas raising the issue of alleged delay by the Telangana Assembly speaker in deciding on petitions seeking disqualification of 10 BRS MLAs who had defected to the Congress.
The bench reserved its verdict in the matter.
During the arguments, the issue over Reddy's recent statement in the assembly cropped up before the bench.
"Mr Singhvi, having experience of earlier occasion, was the chief minister not expected to at least exercise some degree of restraint?" Justice Gavai asked senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, who was appearing for the assembly speaker.
Justice Gavai said the court was not bothered about statements of politicians.
"We exercise self-restraint. We respect the other two wings of the democracy. Same is expected of the other two wings also," he said.
Senior advocate C A Sundaram, representing the petitioner and BRS leader Padi Kaushik Reddy, referred to the transcripts of the chief minister's statement, calling it shocking.
A BRS MLA, the counsel said, had said in the assembly that this should not be raked up as the matter was pending before the apex court but the chief minister still made the statement.
Sundaram quoted the chief minister's statement as saying, "Mr speaker, I am telling on your behalf to everyone present in the assembly that they need not worry about any bye-elections in future. No Bye-elections will come".
Sundaram said when the chief minister made the statement, the speaker did not say anything.
During the hearing, the bench asked what would be the "reasonable period" for a speaker to decide on the disqualification petitions.
It asked whether such applications for disqualification "should be permitted to die its natural death and the Tenth Schedule be thrown in the dustbin?".
The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution deals with provisions on disqualification on the ground of defection.
Sundaram requested the bench to put a time limit for deciding the disqualification petitions, referring to it as an "extraordinary situation".
Reddy had allegedly said in the assembly on March 26 that there would be no bye-elections even if BRS members switched sides.
"If this is said on the floor of the house, your chief minister is making a mockery of the Tenth Schedule," the bench said on April 2.
The apex court had also asked the speaker why he took about 10 months to issue notices on the petitions for the disqualification of BRS MLAs who defected to the Congress.
While one of the pleas in the apex court has challenged the November 2024 order of the Telangana High Court in a matter concerning petitions seeking the disqualification of three BRS MLAs, another petition relates to the remaining seven legislators who defected.
A division bench of the high court in November last year said the Assembly speaker must decide the disqualification petitions against the three MLAs within a "reasonable time".
The division bench's verdict came on the appeals against the September 9, 2024, order of a single judge.
The single judge had directed the secretary of the Telangana Assembly to place the petition seeking the disqualifications before the speaker for fixing a schedule of hearing within four weeks.
On March 4, the apex court sought responses from the Telangana government and others on the pleas, saying a timely decision was the key and there could not be a case of "operation successful but patient is dead".
It had also sought the responses of MLAs Danam Nagender, Venkata Rao Tellam and Kadiyam Srihari in the matter.
