Puttur: BJP leader Jagannivas Rao gets show cause notice from party
Puttur: The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has issued a show cause notice to P.G. Jagannivas Rao, former Nagar Mandal President and current member of the Puttur City Municipal Council, in connection with a controversy involving his son that has drawn public and media attention, causing embarrassment to the party.
The notice, issued by BJP’s Puttur Nagar Mandal President Shivakumar on the directions of the Dakshina Kannada District BJP President, cites concerns over the allegations against Rao’s son, Srikrishna J. Rao.
Srikrishna has been accused of cheating his childhood friend by allegedly promising to marry her, engaging in a sexual relationship, and later impregnating her. The woman has since given birth to a baby boy. During a recent press conference, the victim’s family alleged that Jagannivas Rao failed to act justly in the matter and supported his son instead.
In the notice, the party emphasized that Rao, as a public representative, is expected to act responsibly and ensure that justice is served. It warned that failure to do so may invite disciplinary action in the party’s interest. He has been asked to respond to the notice immediately.
The notice was reportedly sent to his residence via registered post.
Meanwhile, a case has been registered against Srikrishna J. Rao at the Dakshina Kannada District Women's Police Station based on the victim’s complaint. After remaining absconding for ten days, he was arrested by police in T. Narasipura, Mysuru, and was later remanded to judicial custody by the court.
Jagannivas Rao was also arrested on charges of allegedly aiding his son in evading arrest. However, he was released on bail. The BJP has now formally demanded an explanation from him through the show cause notice.
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.
