Mangaluru girl Asrina cracks judicial exam, takes oath as Civil Judge from Karnataka Chief Justice
Mangaluru: A young law graduate from Mangaluru, Asrina cracked judicial exams and has now taken Oath as the Civil Judge. She was administered oath by the Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court on Monday.
Hailing from Haleangadi, Asrina is the daughter of Akbar Ali and Asmath. They are currently settled at Chokkabettu in Krishnapura here. Asrina completed her Primary and High School Education in Haleangadi and Kinnigoli before choosing law for her higher education at SDM Law College in Mangaluru.
After her graduation, Asrina began her career as a young lawyer under the mentoring of senior Advocates of Mangaluru Mayura Keerthi and Sharath Kumar B. She appeared for judicial exams in 2019 and successfully cracked it to become the Civil Judge.
Asrina’s father Akbar Ali is an employee of MRPL in Mangaluru and her mother is a housewife. The couple has three daughters all of whom are said to be academically excellent. Asrina’s elder sister is a Lecturer at PA College in the city and her younger sister is pursuing Ph.D. at a private college in Mangaluru.
Speaking to Vartha Bharati, Asrina recalled how she was ambitious to achieve something big in her life and also recalled that she had no set goal to initially as to what to pursue. “It was only after I joined SDM Law College, I set things straight that I wanted to become a judge, and then I started working towards achieving this,” Asrina said.
“My grandparent Sheikh Adam and Kaiyali Bavaka, and grandparents Saleemamma and Atijamma, my parents, and all the family members encouraged me in pursuing my dream. I was fortunate to have worked under two senior advocates at the beginning of my career. All this helped me in accomplishing my dream of becoming a judge” she added.
Expressing her joy over Asrina’s accomplishment, her grandmother Atijamma added as a young girl she wanted to pursue higher education but then due to the cultural bindings of not letting women pursue higher education, she was deprived of studying further. “That made me take the pledge that the girl children in our family should pursue higher education and should be able to accomplish their dreams and aspirations. Asrina’s achievement has made all of us happy” she said.
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."
