CM Bommai dismisses opposition's demand for his resignation
Chitradurga (KTK), Mar 4: Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai on Saturday dismissed the Congress demand for his resignation following the recovery of Rs 8.23 crore cash from BJP MLA Madal Virupakshappa's son Prashanth Kumar M V, saying that the opposition party is left with no other job.
Hitting out at former chief minister Siddaramaiah, he said there were 59 corruption cases, which could not be investigated because he had weakened the Lokayukta institution by bifurcating it and creating an anti-corruption bureau.
Speaking to reporters here, he said his government has given independence to the Lokayukta which made the impartial probe possible.
"The opposition has no other job other than seeking my resignation. I would like to ask Siddaramaiah whether he had resigned as chief minister when Rs two lakh was found from a minister's house," Bommai said.
He also said that Siddaramaiah would have been arrested had there been a strong Lokayukta in the state.
"Siddaramaiah had weakened the Lokayukta institutions to cover up such cases. Today the impartial probe is taking place due to a strong Lokayukta," Bommai said.
The Congress which shut 59 cases cannot wash off its sin by making these allegations, the Chief Minister said adding that the Congress resorted to demonstration and was seeking my resignation to cover up its corruption cases.
Stating that his government has waged a fight against corruption he said no one would be spared irrespective of the party affiliation.
"It's our battle against corruption irrespective of party affiliations. If there is anyone who has morality then it is us. We are very clear. Our policies are very clear. Whoever indulges in such an act, we have given independence to the Lokayukta to probe it impartially. The law is doing its duty and the guilty will be punished," Bommai said.
More than Rs eight crore unaccounted cash has been seized in subsequent raids at various locations by Lokayukta two days ago. Prashanth, a Karnataka administrative services officer, is the son of Madal Virupakshappa, the MLA representing Channagiri constituency in Davangere district of the state.
Lokayukta sources said apart from cash, documents for huge investment in land, gold and silver were also found from the MLA's house.
The MLA Virupakshappa, who resigned as the Karnataka Soaps and Detergent Limited chairman, the office where his son was caught red-handed receiving cash, termed the trap a conspiracy against him.
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.
SC to hear pleas against laws granting immunity to husbands in marital rape cases
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court has said it listed for Tuesday pleas on the vexed legal question of whether a husband should enjoy immunity from prosecution for the offence of rape if he forces his wife, who is not a minor, to have sex.
A bench of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice JB Pardiwala said the pleas were already "listed tomorrow" and they would be taken up after some part-heard cases.
The pleas for early listing were mentioned by senior advocate Karuna Nundy, appearing for a litigant in the case.
On September 18, senior advocate Indira Jaising, appearing for one of the litigants, mentioned that the pleas needed to be heard urgently.
The top court on July 16 agreed to list for hearing the pleas on the legal question. The Chief Justice had indicated that the cases might be taken up on July 18.
Under the exception clause of Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), now repealed and replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his wife, the wife not being minor, is not rape.
Even under the new law, Exception 2 to Section 63 (rape) says that "sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape".
The top court on January 16, 2023, sought the Centre's response on a clutch of petitions assailing the IPC provision, which provides protection to a husband against prosecution for forcible sexual intercourse if the wife is an adult.
On May 17, it also issued a notice to the Centre on a similar plea challenging the BNS provision on the issue.
The BNS, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam came into effect from July 1, replacing the IPC, Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the Evidence Act, respectively.
"We have to resolve the matters concerning marital rape," the bench had said.
The Centre earlier said the issue had legal as well as social implications, and the government would like to file its response to the petitions.
One of the pleas is related to a Delhi High Court split verdict of May 11, 2022, on the issue.
The appeal has been filed by a woman, who was one of the petitioners before the high court.
While delivering a split judgment, Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice C Hari Shankar concurred on granting the petitioners a certificate of leave to appeal in the Supreme Court as the matter involved substantial questions of law, which required a decision by the top court.
While Justice Shankar, who headed the division bench, favoured striking down the marital rape exception for being "unconstitutional" and said it would be "tragic if a married woman's call for justice is not heard even after 162 years" since the enactment of the IPC, he said the exception under the rape law was not "unconstitutional and was based on an intelligible differentia".
The concept of intelligible differentia distinguishes people or things grouped together from those that are left out.
Another plea has been filed by a man against a Karnataka High Court verdict that paved the way for his prosecution for allegedly raping his wife.
Karnataka High Court had on March 23 last year said exempting a husband from allegations of rape and unnatural sex with his wife ran against Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution.
The set of pleas are PILs filed against the IPC provision and have challenged the constitutionality of the marital rape exception under Section 375 (rape) of the IPC on grounds that it discriminates against married women who are sexually assaulted by their husbands.
