District administration to propose renaming Dakshina Kannada as Mangaluru: Report
Mangaluru: With the recent renaming of Ramanagara as Bengaluru South and growing calls to rename Tumakuru as Bengaluru North, a similar push is now underway in coastal Karnataka.
The Dakshina Kannada district administration is preparing to submit a proposal to the Karnataka government to rename the district as Mangaluru, The New Indian Express quoted Deputy Commissioner H.V. Darshan as saying.
The decision to put forth a proposal was initiated during the District Development Coordination and Monitoring Committee (DISHA) meeting, after Belthangady MLA Harish Poonja urged the administration to pass a resolution in favour of the name change. MP Capt. Brijesh Chowta and other stakeholders backed the suggestion, with officials reportedly stating that the proposal would be forwarded to the government shortly.
Supporters of the move argue that “Dakshina Kannada” lacks recognition beyond the state, while “Mangaluru” enjoys wider visibility as a centre for education, healthcare, banking, and industry, both nationally and internationally.
Meanwhile, Dayanand Kathalsar, of the Mangaluru District Tulu Movement Committee and former chairman of the Karnataka Tulu Sahitya Academy, also demanded the renaming. "Though we are freed from the rule of the Portuguese and the British, names like 'South Canara' or the Dakshina Kannada given during their period are still used, which need to be changed," TNIE quoted him as saying.
KPCC general secretary Rakshit Shivaram also voiced support for the renaming. Drawing parallels to the "Brand Bengaluru" initiative launched during S.M. Krishna’s tenure as chief minister, he said a similar push is needed for "Brand Mangaluru." He stated that they will soon meet the chief minister, deputy chief minister, home minister, and district in-charge minister to submit a memorandum.
“The present name is 'Dakshina Kannada' but we are not in the southern part of the state, instead we are in the Western part of the state. The highways, airport, port and the railway stations here are named after Mangaluru, hence, the district should also get the same name," he added.
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.
K’taka HC declines stay on menstrual leave order, says issue of public importance
Bengaluru: The State Government has strongly defended its decision to grant one day of paid menstrual leave every month to women employees, telling the Karnataka High Court that the notification was issued in the larger interest of women and is legally sound. The Court, treating the matter as one of significant public importance, refused to stay the implementation of the order and adjourned the hearing to January 20.
The Labour Department’s November 20, 2025 notification was challenged by the Bangalore Hotels Association, Avirat Defence System, Facile Aerospace Technologies Ltd and Samos Technologies Ltd. Justice Jyoti Mulimani heard the petitions on Wednesday.
At the start of the hearing, the bench asked whether the State had filed its objections. Advocate General K. Shashikiran Shetty informed the Court that objections had been submitted and that copies would be provided to the petitioners.
Defending the notification, the Advocate General said the government had introduced a progressive measure aimed at women’s welfare, one that no other state in India had implemented so far. He told the Court that 72 objections were received and considered before finalising the notification. He argued that the government was empowered to frame such policy under Article 42 of the Constitution and noted that the Supreme Court and the Law Commission had earlier made recommendations in this direction.
ALSO READ: MP Brijesh Chowta urges centre to grant point of call status to Mangaluru airport
When the Court asked whether the notification applied to all sectors, the Advocate General replied in the affirmative. The bench observed that the matter required detailed hearing because of its wider public impact and decided to take it up in January. The Court added that petitioners may file their responses to the State’s objections before the next hearing.
Petitioners’ counsel B.K. Prashanth requested that the State be restrained from enforcing the order until the case is decided. The Advocate General responded that the government had already begun implementing the notification across all sectors.
Justice Mulimani noted that nothing would change between now and the next hearing and emphasised that the Court would consider all arguments thoroughly before issuing any direction. The bench then adjourned the matter to January 20 and asked petitioners to file any additional applications with copies to the State’s counsel.
