Kumaraswamy hits out at Cong over denotification charge, says he has no role
Mysuru (PTI): JD(S) leader and Union Minister H D Kumaraswamy on Friday hit out at the ruling Congress in Karnataka for leveling allegations against him in connection with a land denotification in Bengaluru, and claimed that he had no role in it.
He also claimed that the investigations into the case have found no illegality but, aimed at targeting him, the case has been "kept open."
The Congress on Thursday asked the Lokayukta to expedite its probe against former Chief Ministers B S Yediyurappa and Kumaraswamy in connection with the alleged denotification of land here.
Ministers Krishna Byre Gowda, Dinesh Gundu Rao and Santhosh Lad had held a joint press conference and released documents regarding the denotification of 1.11 acres of land at Gangenahalli in Kasaba hobli of Bengaluru North.
"....I'm not running away, I need not take protection under someone else's name, on issues concerning me... the only relationship with that property is, it is related to my wife's mother, I'm not denying it. Have I done the denotification?" Kumaraswamy told reporters.
Stating that he was under the impression that Krishna Byre Gowda was "intelligent as he has studied abroad," while he had studied at a school in Haradanahalli in Hassan, Kumaraswamy said in 2015 Siddaramaiah, "through" a person named Jaya Kumar Patil, had filed a case against him in this cases in which Yediyurappa is accused number 1 (A1) and he is accused number 2 (A2).
"For the last three months they have been struggling to do something (against me).....in 2015 this case was filed with Lokayukta. TIll 2018 Siddaramaiah was the Chief Minister, what was he doing without getting investigated?" he said, adding that after he made allegations against the Siddaramaiah government in connection with CSR funds and transfer related issues, they started looking for "means to tackle him."
Alleging that a 'benami' named Rajashekharaiah, "who has nothing to do with the said land (that was notified)", gave a petition when Kumaraswamy was the Chief Minister in 2007, seeking denotification of the land, which was acquired 30 years ago, Krishna Byre Gowda has alleged Kumaraswamy had then asked officials to move the file in this regard.
He has said, the original owner of the said land had 21 heirs, who gave a general power of attorney to Kumaraswamy’s mother-in-law.
Further pointing out that when Yediyurappa was the CM in 2010, despite the then principal secretary to the urban development department K Jothiramalingam noting on the file that it was not a fit case for denotification, the former ordered denotification, Gowda claimed. "Subsequently after the denotification of the land in June, 2010, it was registered in the name of Kumaraswamy’s brother-in-law Channappa in July that year."
Citing the documents, Kumaraswamy asked, "what is there in it? Have I denotified (the land)? or have I prepared the grounds for denotification? What is my role in it?"
Accusing Krishna Byre Gowda of leveling allegations against him to "appease someone", he said: "no one can shake me...I will not discuss such things....get it investigated in whatever way you want."
Questioning as to what evidence was there to prove that he had asked officials to denotify, the former CM rubbished the allegation that Yediyurappa subsequently did the denotification to benefit him, and pointed out that "everyone knows that there was a fight between both of us then. Will Yediyurappa do something in favour of me?"
So far in his political life he has not sought favour or protection from anyone, he said, "I have said that if anyone one brings out even a single minor mistake of his while in power twice, he will not remain in politics for five seconds."
Accepting that the denotification had happened during Yediyurappa's tenure and that his in-laws brought the property, Kumaraswamy asked as to what was his role in it or was it done illegally?
Already inquiries have happened on all these and the investigators in their report had come to the conclusion that it was a legal transaction, he said. "But, to target me, the probe was not closed and was kept open. Their aim is to target Kumaraswamy, and they are looking for all possible things to target me."
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.
Bombay High Court strikes down Centre's plan to set up Fact-Check Unit
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has struck down the central government's plan to establish a fact-checking unit (FCU) under the Information Technology Amendment Rules, 2023. The decision comes in response to a petition filed by standup comedian Kunal Kamra, challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre's move.
Justice A.S. Chandurkar, delivering the final verdict, declared that the proposed IT Amendment Rules violated key provisions of the Indian Constitution, namely Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedom of speech and expression), and 19(1)(g) (right to profession).
“I have considered the matter extensively. The impugned rules are violative of Articles 14, 19, and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India,” Justice Chandurkar said in his judgment. He further remarked that terms like "fake, false, and misleading" in the IT Rules were "vague" and lacked a clear definition, making them unconstitutional.
This judgment followed a split verdict issued by a division bench of the Bombay High Court in January. The bench, consisting of Justices Gautam Patel and Neela Gokhale, was divided in their opinions. While Justice Patel ruled that the IT Rules amounted to censorship and struck them down, Justice Gokhale upheld the rules, arguing that they did not pose a "chilling effect" on free speech, as the petitioners had claimed.
The matter was then referred to a third judge, leading to today's decision. The Supreme Court had previously stayed the Centre's notification that would have made the fact-checking unit operational, stating that the government could not proceed until the Bombay High Court ruled on the case.
Kunal Kamra and other petitioners had argued that the amendments posed unreasonable restrictions on freedom of speech and expression. They contended that the provisions would lead to government-led censorship, effectively granting the government unchecked powers to determine what constitutes 'truth' online. The petitioners further claimed that such powers would turn the government into "prosecutor, judge, and executioner" in matters of online content.
With the Bombay High Court’s ruling, the Centre's move to create fact-checking units has been effectively halted, reaffirming the importance of protecting freedom of speech and expression in the digital space.
