Karnataka govt opposes new criminal laws, says Centre did not take suggestions
Bengaluru, Jul 1: The Karnataka government on Monday opposed the three new criminal laws, which came into force on July 1, saying the Centre did not take its suggestions into consideration.
The three laws Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) replacing Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act should have been implemented by the BJP government during its previous tenure itself and not now, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said in a press conference
The Minister recalled that in 2023, Union Home Minister Amit Shah wrote to CM Siddaramaiah asking him to review and give suggestions on these laws.
Based on the Chief Minister’s direction, an expert committee was formed. The panel submitted a report to Siddaramaiah, which was forwarded to Shah.
ALSO READ: Karnataka police registers first case under new penal code
“We gave a total of 23 suggestions but the central government did not take any of it seriously. No opinion of ours is included in it. Now, the new codes have been duly implemented,” the Minister said.
“These three laws have been promulgated ignoring public opinion and the suggestion of the legal luminaries. Thus, our government opposes these three laws."
According to Patil, the new penal codes have more disadvantages than advantages along with some confusing amendments.
He also charged that the Centre has no moral rights to implement the three laws now.
“The three laws have been changed and new laws have been implemented. Any government that makes a law has the right to enforce it during its tenure. However, it is an unethical and politically absurd move to implement after the end of the government's tenure,” Patil said.
“The decision made by the cabinet of the previous government is not right to be implemented now. They had the right to enforce it in their previous term itself."
Patil noted that the replacement of these laws with the original ones is equivalent to the amendment of the Constitution and hence all precaution should be taken during the enforcement of this law.
To a query, the Minister said the state government is empowered to amend laws. There is an opportunity to make amendments exercising the constitutional rights.
Explaining the scope for amendment, Patil said, “Fasting in protest against the government action is an offense, but suicide is not a crime in this law. This is unfortunate. It is an insult to the freedom struggle. In this regard, we will bring an amendment on fasting.”
The Karnataka government had suggested to the Centre to amend the law to prosecute those who show disrespect to the father of the nation, national emblem and tricolour but it did not agree. In this regard, the state government has contemplated an amendment, the minister noted.
The new law gives investigative agencies unilateral and discretionary powers to prosecute individuals for the organised crime.
Further, he pointed to a provision for three years imprisonment and fine for hurting the national integrity.
The Act will be amended for cyber crime, hacking, financial crime, nuclear weapons secrecy and sabotage through technology, he explained.
The minister pointed out that under the new Act, police custody is allowed for 90 days, which is a long period. Hence, the amendment has to be made to minimise the duration of police custody, 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.
Tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub derogatory, communal: Delhi HC
_vb_72.jpeg)
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday termed certain tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub "highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal" as it sought her stand on a petition seeking removal of the allegedly objectionable content from social media.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who was hearing a lawyer's petition alleging that Ayyub's tweets insulted Hindu Deities and "revered historical figures", observed that even an FIR was also directed to be registered against her in relation to the tweets and called upon the Centre, Delhi Police and X to "work in tandem" and "do the needful in 24 hours".
"Let the matter be called day after. Action is necessary in view of the highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets by respondent no. 4 (Ayyub), pursuant to which FIR has also been directed against respondent no. 4 by a court of competent jurisdiction," the court ordered.
Observing that the "matter requires consideration", the court issued notice to the Centre, Ayyub as well as X on the petition seeking the immediate removal of the "highly derogatory, inflammatory, and communal tweets" by Ayyub.
The court also made Delhi Police a party to the case.
Petitioner Amita Sachdeva said she is a devout follower of the Sanatan Dharm, and on her complaint, a magisterial court had already directed the registration of an FIR while holding that the journalist's tweets prima facie disclose cognisable offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The plea said the petitioner approached X's resident grievance officer as well as the Grievance Appellate Committee for the removal of the content.
However, the committee declined to grant relief, stating the matter was sub-judice, it added.
The petitioner said the continued public availability of the tweets has caused continuing and direct injury to her religious sentiments and violated her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (Right to life and liberty) and 25 (Freedom of religion) of the Constitution.
In January 2025, a magisterial court directed Delhi Police to register an FIR against Ayyub for allegedly making derogatory posts in 2016-17 that included "insults to Hindu deities, spreading of anti-India sentiment and incitement of religious disharmony."
In an order dated January 25, 2025, it said, "From the facts of the case, prima facie cognisable offences are made out under sections 153 A (punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc), 295 A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 505 (statements conducing public mischief) of the IPC."
_vb_86.jpeg)
_vb_85.jpeg)
_vb_92.jpeg)