Mangaluru (Press release): Canara Plastic Manufacturers & Traders Association (CPMTA) Mangalore has whole heartedly welcomed the DCPC Govt of India for in principle approval for Mangalore Plastic Project.
With the commissioning of Polypropylene Petrochemical Complex and the proposed Polyethylene Project in Mangalore by MRPL the opportunities for Plastic Industries Canara Plastic Manufacturers Association(CPMTA) had requested with the Union Minister for Chemicals & Petrochemicals to set up a PLASTIC PARK in Mangalore.
Our Honorable Member of Parliament Mr.Nalin Kumar Kateel has persistently put his efforts to get the Plastic Park to Mangalore. But for his continous effort we would not have got this project to Mangalore.
Objective of Plastic Park is to
- Increase the competitiveness, polymer absorption capacity and value addition in the domestic downstream plastic processing industry through adoption of modern, research and development led measures. 2. Increase investments in the sector through additions in capacity and production, creating quality infrastructure and other facilitation to ensure value addition and increase in exports.3. Achieve environmentally sustainable growth through innovative methods of waste management, recycling, etc.
- Adopt a cluster development approach to achieve the above objectives owing to its benefits arising due to optimization of resources and economies of scale.
An amount of Rs. 40 crore will be provided by the Central Govt. as Grant in aid for this project. This Plastic Park will be implemented through KIADB will be initially in area of 96.05 acres. Entrepreneurs have already shown their expression of interest to investment in Mangalore Plastic park. This will create more employment opportunities for the people of this region.
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.
Shobha Karandlaje urges Governor to withhold assent to Karnataka hate speech bill
Bengaluru (PTI): Union Minister of State Shobha Karandlaje on Friday urged Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot to withhold assent to the Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill, 2025, terming the Bill "vague, overbroad, and susceptible to misuse".
She also requested him to reserve the Bill for the consideration of President Droupadi Murmu under Article 200 of the Constitution of India, in the larger interest of constitutional governance, democratic freedoms, and the rule of law.
The bill, passed by both houses of the legislature, will be sent to the Governor for his assent.
Taking to social media 'X', the minister said, "The Karnataka Hate Speech and Hate Crimes (Prevention) Bill 2025 hands the State sweeping authority to silence opposition voices, restrain the media, and intimidate the citizens who defend Karnataka's land, language, and Dharma. This isn't a hate speech prevention bill, it's rather a bill that prevents the right to speech." "We will not let Congress turn the law into a tool to choke free speech and democratic dissent," she added.
In a letter to the governor, Karandlaje said the objective of the Bill is to address hate speech and hate crimes. However, upon careful examination, it becomes evident that the Bill, in its present form, establishes a "State-controlled mechanism" for monitoring, assessing, and penalising speech, rather than narrowly addressing expression that poses a clear and imminent threat to public order.
"The structure of the Bill enables executive authorities to determine the permissibility of expression, thereby transforming the law into a tool capable of suppressing voices critical of the government. Such an approach undermines the constitutional guarantee of democratic dissent and free expression," she said.
Citing reference of article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India that guarantees freedom of speech and expression to every citizen, she said, "The Bill departs from these constitutional limits by employing broad, vague, and subjective expressions such as "disharmony," "ill-will," and "prejudicial interest," which are not precisely defined. These terms confer excessive discretion on the Executive, enabling arbitrary and selective enforcement, which is inconsistent with constitutional safeguards."
She said the constitutional infirmities of the present Bill must be examined in light of the Supreme Court's judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015), wherein the Court held that any law regulating speech must be clear, narrowly tailored and free from vagueness.
The minister alleged that the Bill further authorises executive authorities and law-enforcement agencies to assess and act upon speech without adequate judicial oversight. Penal consequences are linked to executive assessment, thereby concentrating investigative and adjudicatory functions within the Executive.
"Such an arrangement erodes procedural safeguards and is inconsistent with constitutional principles governing the protection of fundamental rights," she alleged.
Karandlaje also pointed out the potential impact of the Bill on "historically marginalised" and "constitutionally protected" voices.
"The vague and expansive language of the legislation is capable of being invoked to silence Kannada language activists, women's organisations, representatives of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, backward classes, minorities, journalists, student groups, and civil society organisations that raise issues of governance, social justice, or administrative accountability," she said.
Instead of empowering vulnerable communities, according to the minister, the Bill risks becoming an instrument to deter them from articulating grievances and participating meaningfully in public discourse, thereby defeating the very constitutional promise of equality, dignity, and inclusive democracy.
The minister alleged that the cumulative effect of the Bill is likely to create a "pervasive chilling effect" on public discourse, which is incompatible with democratic governance.
Pointing out that the Bill directly impacts fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution, she said, "In view of the serious constitutional questions it raises, this is a fit case for the exercise of constitutional discretion under Article 200. Reserving the Bill for the consideration of the President would enable a broader constitutional examination of its implications for civil liberties and the federal constitutional balance."
