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.
Court dismisses corruption complaint against CM Siddaramaiah, minister over ad revenue losses
Bengaluru, May 6 (PTI): A Special Court in Bengaluru has dismissed a complaint alleging a conspiracy involving Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Minister K J George, and three senior officials to cause significant advertisement revenue losses to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) between 2015 and 2017.
The court ruled that the accusations lacked substance and were based on conjecture rather than concrete evidence.
The complaint, filed by N R Ramesh, a former corporator and BJP leader, claimed that the BBMP suffered losses of Rs 68.14 crore during Siddaramaiah’s earlier tenure as Chief Minister (2013–2018).
Ramesh alleged that the state government used BBMP-owned bus shelters to advertise its achievements without paying the mandatory advertisement fee.
He further claimed that Congress leaders may have bribed BBMP and Information Department officials to avoid raising dues.
However, in its April 28 order, the Special Court, presided over by Judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat, found the allegations insufficient to warrant even a preliminary inquiry.
The judge remarked that the complaint was rooted in "assumptions and presumptions" rather than material evidence, and emphasised that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated based on speculative claims.
The court acknowledged that while the use of bus shelters for government publicity without formal payments may indicate procedural lapses, such irregularities do not necessarily constitute corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Karnataka Lokayukta had earlier closed the complaint, stating that the BBMP, being the potentially aggrieved party, had not filed any grievance against the state government. It also noted that the complaint failed to establish the direct involvement of Siddaramaiah or George and appeared to challenge an administrative decision rather than allege a specific act of corruption.
Although Ramesh contended that the Lokayukta issued a “one-sided report” and failed to investigate thoroughly, the Special Court upheld the Lokayukta’s findings.
It also pointed out that since the BBMP receives financial aid from the state government, claiming misuse of public funds based solely on the absence of invoices was speculative.
Concluding its verdict, the court stated that reopening the case would not serve the cause of justice. "The complaint is devoid of merit and deserves to be rejected," it ruled, affirming that no prima facie case had been made under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
