SC/ST Act: Curfew in parts of MP after Bharat Bandh turns violent; 1 killed
Patna: Dalit organisations across the country have called a 'Bharat bandh' on Monday to protest a recent Supreme Court ruling "diluting" the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Modi government on Monday filed a review petition on the Supreme Court judgment on the SC/ST Act. The protests left one dead in Madhya Pradesh's Morena, where a curfew was later imposed along with parts of Gwalior. Protests turned violent in Rajasthan's Barmer, with cars and property being damaged. Similar reports emerged from Meerut, where cars were reported to have been damaged.
The Bharat bandh has already brought Punjab to a standstill, as CBSE has postponed the board exams scheduled for April 2, and transport services have been suspended. According to an Indian Express report, several army units have been kept on a standby, should the situation take an ugly turn. Internet services in the state were suspended on Sunday and will remain so through Monday.
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, will later in the day hear a review petition filed on the matter by the government. The Centre is likely to tell the apex court that dilution of the Act will render it ineffective and prevent the dispensing of justice to the marginalised Dalit and tribal communities.
On March 20, the apex court had introduced the provision of anticipatory bail in the Act while directing that there would be no automatic arrest on any complaint filed under the law.
The Supreme Court said that the change was brought to protect honest public servants discharging duties from being blackmailed with false cases under the Act. The apex court said government servants should not be arrested without prior sanction and private citizens, too, should be arrested only after an inquiry under the law.
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.
Mysuru royal family member asks villagers not to panic after her claim over 4,500 acres of land
Bengaluru (PTI): Pramoda Devi Wadiyar of the erstwhile Mysuru royal family on Monday said the residents of Siddayyanapura in Chamarajanagar district need not worry as she would not take any steps even if the land she has staked claim is found in the name of the royal family.
The assurance came after Wadiyar said over 4,500 acres of land in Siddayyanapura belonged to the royal family as per the agreement between the Maharaja of erstwhile Mysore and the Government of India in February 1951.
Recently when the state government moved ahead to declare Siddayyanapura as a revenue village, Wadiyar shot a letter to the Deputy Commissioner and Tehsildar of Chamarajanagar and other senior officials in the Government of Karnataka in this regard stating that the Mysuru royal family owns a parcel of land in the village, which they want to declare as a revenue village.
As the panicked villagers made a beeline before the Deputy Commissioner to resolve the issue and even claimed that the Mysuru Maharaja had gifted them land.
In order to clear confusion among people of Siddayyanapura, Wadiyar told reporters here, “We don’t know why the villagers are in fear. I am saying this now that they need not get scared now or even in future. I am giving them assurance that even if the Khatha comes in our name, they need not be afraid.”
She, however, complained that the Deputy Commissioner did not provide any document regarding the status of the property. Wadiyar wondered why people were in fear.
“I was away from the town and I was not aware of this issue at all. I learnt about this only when I read about it. I don’t know who created fear among them and I am not aware of what happened on the ground,” the successor of Mysuru royal family said.
Regarding the claim that the Mysuru Maharaja had given them land as gift, Wadiyar said, “If the Mysuru Maharaja had given them gift then do we need to snatch it back from them?”
She also said that the district authorities could have told her about the status of the land when they decided to make it a revenue village.
“Even if the land is transferred in our name, I will not create a situation that would scare them. I cannot give more assurance than this. We will do our best without the intervention of the State government, and there is no need for the government to intervene.
