Coastal Muslim leaders convene in Bhatkal, call for protests against new Waqf law
Bhatkal, April 15: Leaders and representatives from Muslim organizations across Karnataka’s coastal districts and parts of Goa gathered at Rabita Hall in Bhatkal on Tuesday to express collective opposition to the Waqf (Amendment) Act passed by the central government. The meeting was organized by Majlis-e-Islah wa Tanzeem, a prominent community organization in Bhatkal, and brought together voices from Uttara Kannada, Udupi, Dakshina Kannada, and neighbouring regions.
Participants at the convention described the new law as a direct attack on the autonomy of Waqf institutions and accused the government of interfering in Muslim religious matters. They warned that the changes could weaken the management of properties meant for community welfare and religious purposes.
A resolution adopted at the meeting called for protest demonstrations to be held on Friday, April 18, across Uttara Kannada district after Friday prayers. Protesters will hand over memorandums addressed to the President and Prime Minister through local authorities. Community leaders also announced that an awareness campaign would be launched to educate people on how the new amendments could impact Waqf properties and institutions.
Speakers at the meeting emphasized the importance of unity within the community and urged collaboration with secular-minded individuals from other faiths, noting the success of past movements such as the anti-CAA protests.
Advocate M.K. Maitri, a senior lawyer from Bengaluru, presented an overview of the legal implications of the Waqf amendment, cautioning that it could give the government more control over Waqf institutions. Maulana Ilyas Jakati Nadvi, a member of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), opened the session by explaining the Board’s stance and ongoing national campaign against the law.
The event was chaired by Inayatullah Shabandri, President of Majlis-e-Islah wa Tanzeem. Several notable community leaders were present, including Atiqur Rahman Muniri of Rabita Society, Abdul Raqeeb MJ Nadvi of Tanzeem, and political figures like Ashraf Beary and former MLA Mohiuddin Bava. Delegates from Mangaluru, Udupi, Karwar, Sirsi, Murdeshwar, Honnavar, and Goa were also in attendance.
The gathering appreciated Tanzeem’s efforts to bring leaders together and proposed setting up a regional coordination body to continue raising concerns over the Waqf law and other issues affecting the Muslim community.
The speakers reiterated that the protests would be peaceful and lawful and urged community members to participate in large numbers to ensure their voices are heard.
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.
HC says no coercive action against Sonu Nigam over Kannada song row, allows video appearance
Bengaluru, May 15 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday directed that no coercive steps be taken against singer Sonu Nigam until the next date of hearing, in connection with a recent criminal case registered against him for allegedly making offensive remarks during a concert.The court also permitted the singer to appear via video conferencing for recording his statement, if required by the investigating officer (IO). Alternatively, if the IO insists on a physical appearance, the court said the officer could visit Nigam, with the singer bearing the associated expenses.
The case stems from a complaint lodged after an incident at a concert, where some Kannadiga fans had requested Nigam to sing in Kannada. The singer allegedly took offence to the tone of the request and reportedly remarked, “This is why Pahalgam happened,” drawing a controversial comparison to the April 22 terror attack in Jammu and Kashmir.
During the hearing, Nigam’s counsel, Dhananjay Vidyapati, argued that the complaint was filed solely for publicity and that the alleged offence of public mischief under Section 505 of the IPC was not made out.
He also said it was a solitary incident, the concert proceeded smoothly, and the complaint was filed by a third party.
The state counsel, however, maintained that Nigam’s remarks needed to be examined in the course of investigation to determine intent.
“Whether the comments were intentional or not cannot be adjudicated under Section 482 (CrPC). He has not cooperated with the investigation. He could have at least said he was busy,” the State submitted.
Arguing against special privileges, the State’s counsel added, “A person who does not respect due process of law cannot be given benefit under 482… He is not a normal man, but that is precisely why he should not have made such a statement.”
When the court asked why Nigam’s statement could not be recorded virtually or even at his residence, the State objected, saying that would amount to giving the singer “too much convenience.”
Responding to concerns raised by Nigam’s counsel about the media spectacle that would follow a physical appearance, the court observed: “If you want physical appearance, you go to his place and record his statement. He could bear the expenses.”
The court recorded the State’s submission that no coercive steps would be taken if Nigam cooperated with the investigation. It stayed the filing of any final report in the case until the next date of hearing.
