K'taka MLAs group photoshoot triggers speculation about leadership change, cabinet rejig
Bengaluru (PTI): A group photoshoot of Karnataka MLAs on Wednesday triggered speculation about a possible leadership change and cabinet reshuffle in the state.
The timing of the group photoshoot gave rise to speculation, as such an exercise is generally held during the end of the Assembly's five years tenure, which is 2028 in this case.
While some, including those in the ruling party and opposition, linked it to the possibility of a CM change in the days ahead, there is also speculation linking it to the much-awaited cabinet reshuffle.
There are also talks within the ruling party circles that Speaker U T Khader arranged the group photoshoot because he is likely to be inducted into the cabinet during the rejig.
Interestingly, when the Speaker announced the group photoshoot in the House on Tuesday and invited MLAs to attend the same, Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar, addressing the Chair, expressed surprise about its timing.
Trying to take a dig at the ruling party, the opposition BJP posted the group photo on 'X' and asked the Congress, "This is CM Siddaramaiah's outgoing photo shoot, isn't it?"
Meanwhile, Leader of Opposition R Ashoka in the Assembly, poking fun at Speaker Khader said, "I have doubts about him (Khader). Usually, group photoshoots are done at the end of five years. I think he feels his tenure as Speaker is ending, so he wants to keep the photo ready before that."
He asked CM Siddaramaiah to tell the House as how longer Khader will be the Speaker.
Siddaramaiah responded by saying Khader will be Speaker until the high command decides.
Ashoka, laughingly, retorted, saying Khader was desiring and dreaming of becoming a minister. Khader responded by saying "No, nothing like that."
Congress MLA Vijayananda Kashappanavar, questioning what's wrong if the photo shoot is held now, told reporters, "Speaker Khader may have expectations to become a minister and he may become a minister....I too have similar expectations for myself."
Amid the ongoing power struggle within the ruling Congress fueled by speculation about a chief minister change, some Congress MLAs have been pushing for a cabinet rejig for some time, with several aspirants openly expressing their wish to be inducted.
Karnataka has a sanctioned strength of 34 ministers, including the chief minister. Two cabinet berths are currently vacant, following the resignation of B Nagendra over allegations of embezzlement at the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki ST Development Corporation, and the sacking of K N Rajanna on the instructions of the party high command.
The speculation about leadership change has been fuelled by the reported "power-sharing" arrangement between Siddaramaiah and Deputy CM D K Shivakumar at the time of government formation in 2023.
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 rejects plea against MHA's circular on Vande Mataram, says it's not mandatory
New Delhi (PTI): The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a plea against a recent home ministry circular on singing of national song Vande Mataram at official events and schools, saying the directive was not mandatory.
A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi noted that there was no penal consequence prescribed for not singing the song and termed the plea as "premature".
"We just feel that you have some vague apprehensions of discrimination which do not have any clear nexus with the impugned circular," Justice Bagchi told senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for petitioner Muhammed Sayeed Noori.
CJI Kant agreeing with the views of Justice Bagchi pointed out that the circular uses the word 'may' which indicates that the directive was advisory in nature.
"It is a premature apprehension; if there are any penal consequences, you come to us," the CJI said, adding, "The word 'may' is used in the circular. There are no penal or adverse consequences. Nobody has asked that you do it in your academy or school."
The CJI further said, "This is only a protocol. The word used is 'when it is played'. Earlier, we had a national flag protocol... which says what are the things to be followed when the national flag is hoisted."
Hegde, however, submitted that even if there is no penalty prescribed for not following the 'advisory', it can lead to compulsions to sing Vande Mataram, and those who do not follow it can be singled out and discriminated against and they will be threatened to conform.
Noori has challenged the Ministry of Home Affairs circular of January on the protocol to be followed for singing of the entire stanzas of Vande Mataram song.
During the hearing, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was present in the court for hearing in another matter said, "Do we need to be advised to respect the national song?"
Hegde objected to the submission of Mehta without filing a formal reply to the petition and highlighted that people from all religions, including atheists, will be eventually compelled to sing the song as a social demonstration of loyalty.
Mehta referred to Article 51A(a) of the Constitution which establishes the fundamental duty of every citizen to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals, institutions, the national flag and the national anthem.
Hegde said as per Article 51A(a), a citizen only has the fundamental duty to respect the national flag and the national anthem, and there was no reference to Vande Mataram and referred to an earlier order of the apex court which observed that patriotism cannot be compelled in respect to directive to sing the national anthem in a cinema hall.
Justice Bagchi said, "The statement 'patriotism cannot be compelled' was only a viewpoint. I am sorry many will disagree with this view of yours."
"It cannot be compelled even for the national anthem," the CJI remarked, adding, "We will appreciate this argument if it is made mandatory. That part is completely silent, there are no penal consequences, there is no sanction, there is no requirement that it has to be sung."
Hegde further contended that the Constitution has to protect individual conscience and the tradition teaches us tolerance.
"If there's an advisory without sanctions, this court may take it, there's no way that advisory can be enforced," he said.
The bench told Hegde that he is at liberty to approach the court if he is discriminated against or any notice threatening penal action is issued on the basis of the MHA's circular.
CJI Kant said, "It is a premature apprehension. If there are any penal consequences, you come to us. We are giving you this liberty."
Mehta submitted, "A person who says patriotism is not compulsory should not be entrusted with a writ in the court."
Hegde objected to Mehta's remark and said, "The Constitution is for all. It does not depend on where you stand politically or religiously."
