Congress wants Karnataka CM to quit after BJP MLA's son held on bribery charges
Bengaluru (PTI): The Congress on Saturday demanded the resignation of Karnataka Chief Minister Basavaraj Bommai following the arrest of government officer Prashanth Kumar M V while accepting a bribe of Rs 40 lakh on behalf of his father, a BJP MLA.
More than Rs 8 crore unaccounted cash has been seized in subsequent raids at various locations by Lokayukta. The arrested officer's father is Madal Virupakshappa, the MLA representing Channagiri constituency in Davangere district of the state.
The Congress started a poster campaign accusing the ruling BJP in the state of collecting 40 per cent commission on public works.
The party workers took out a mammoth rally to lay siege to the Chief Minister's residence and raised anti-BJP slogans.
Prior to the rally, former chief minister Siddaramaiah tore into the ruling BJP at a public meeting.
"It is not enough that you arrested Prashanth Kumar. If they have little shame, you should arrest the MLA Madal Virupakshappa immediately. Basavaraj Bommai should resign taking moral responsibility," Siddaramaiah said.
The Congress stalwart claimed the BJP government has been lying to the people.
"Your government is plundering the state. Your ministers, chief minister and the chairman of various boards and corporations have been directed to collect a definite amount. According to me, BJP is set to spend Rs 100 crore in each constituency," Siddaramaiah charged.
Alleging that in the byelections alone, the BJP had spent Rs 40 crore to Rs 50 crore, the former chief minister said the BJP wants to win the election through money power. He appealed to the people to teach the BJP a lesson in the next election.
Siddaramaiah slammed Union Home Minister Amit Shah for calling the previous Congress government led by him for using Karnataka as "an ATM for a family".
"You called my government an ATM government. Now, Mr Shah what will you say about this? Without any evidences, you make allegations but here we have a solid proof," the former chief minister charged.
He said the Congress does not need to take any lessons from Shah.
The Congress leader said former CM B S Yediyurappa was removed from his position because he refused to allow corruption in the administration.
"You projected Yediyurappa as someone who sacrificed his life but the fact is that Yediyurappa did not agree to dance to their tune. You wanted someone who can toe the RSS line. You removed Yediyurappa and made him cry. Today, you are praising him only for votes," Siddaramaiah said.
He also challenged Prime Minister Narendra Modi to use the Enforcement Directorate and the Income Tax department on the BJP leaders the way central agencies were used against the opposition leader.
"Is there any instance of the contractors' association, unaided schools' association and the pontiffs of various ashrams and maths writing to the Prime Minister that 40 per cent commission is being demanded? Enough is enough of your 40 per cent government," Siddaramaiah said.
After the public meeting, a large number of Congress workers led by Siddaramaiah, Congress national general secretary Randeep Singh Surjewala, Congress state president D K Shivakumar, former ministers Priyank Kharge and Krishna Byregowda took out the march to lay siege to the Chief Minister's house.
They were later detained on the way by the police, who were deployed in large numbers.
The Lokayukta officials caught Prashanth Kumar, the chief accounts officer in the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board, while accepting a bribe of Rs 40 lakh at the Karnataka Soap and Detergent Limited (KSDL) office from a contractor.
Lokayukta said Prashanth was collecting money on behalf of his MLA father Virupakshappa, who is the KSDL chairman. The deal was for Rs 81 lakh and the first instalment was paid to him.
Prashanth allegedly pestered the contractor, who had supplied chemical required for soap and detergent manufacturing, to cough up 40 per cent commission on the contract.
Further searches led to the recovery of more than Rs 2 crore from the office.
Intensifying their search operation, the sleuths raided various places belonging to the father-son duo, which led to the seizure of another cache of more than Rs 6 crore of cash, 4.4 kg gold, 26 kg silver ornaments, two luxury cars and investment details.
According to the Lokayukta sleuths, the legislator has 232 acres of land in Chitradurga district, 60 acres in Shivamogga district, 64 acres in Davangere and 52 acres in Vijayanagar.
Virupakshappa resigned on Friday from KSDL but maintained that he has been framed on baseless charges as part of 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.
