Minister Zameer Ahmed Khan questions sanction of funds for minorities in BJP MLA's constituency
Bengaluru, Feb 19: Karnataka Housing and Minorities Welfare Minister B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan on Monday wondered why development funds for minorities should be sanctioned in a BJP MLA’s constituency who spoke ill of Muslims.
Khan’s statement in the Karnataka assembly led to a commotion as the BJP legislators said this was discriminatory and blocked government money for the welfare of minorities.
During the question hour, Shikaripura MLA B Y Vijayendra, who is also the BJP state president, asked Khan about the funds released for the development of minorities’ colonies.
He accused the government of releasing Rs 1,000 crore for the minorities when there was a severe drought in the state and farmers were waiting for support.
ALSO READ: HD Kumaraswamy making offers for RS elections, threatening MLAs to buy votes, alleges DK Shivakumar
Khan, who holds the Housing, Wakf and Minorities Welfare portfolio, said Chief Minister Siddaramaiah did not release Rs 1,000 crore but prepared an action plan of Rs 1,000 crore which was stretched for three years.
The grant allocated for the development of minorities’ colony in the budget is Rs 250 crore and an additional Rs 50 crore has been earmarked under the Panchayat Development Plan. All put together, it is only Rs 300 crore but only Rs 165 crore has been released, Khan explained.
He also pointed out the minorities have not been given even one per cent of the Rs. 3.71 lakh crore budget.
The Minister said the government has put the minority colonies into A, B and C categories based on the population
To this, BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yatnal said there are 1.2 lakh Muslims in Vijayapura constituency but no funds have been released.
Zameer said, “Should you be given grants? Do you want grants? After becoming MLA you said no Burqa-clad woman and no one with a beard should approach me. We will not do anything for Muslims. How can we give you grants?” The BJP MLAs retorted saying that being a minister he should not have said that.
This is the Government's fund and not Zameer Ahmed Khan’s money,” former minister Dr C N Ashwath Narayan said.
Former chief minister Basavaraj Bommai advised Khan to answer the political questions in a political manner outside the assembly and not inside the House.
“Don’t you want the minorities’ colony in Vijayapura to be developed when there is a huge Muslim population there? Will you be the protector of minorities by excluding 1.2 lakh minorities in Yatnal’s constituency,” Bommai said.
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.
Karnataka HC quashes FIR against three men accused of 'preaching Islam' near temple premises
Bengaluru, Jul 25 (PTI): The Karnataka High Court has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) filed against three Muslim men who were accused of "preaching Islam" and distributing religious pamphlets near a Hindu temple in Jamkhandi, Bagalkot district.
The complaint had alleged that the men attempted religious conversion by making promises of employment and passed derogatory remarks about Hinduism.
However, the High Court held that there was no substantial evidence of coercion, fraud, or inducement--criteria necessary for prosecution under the Karnataka Protection of Right to Freedom of Religion Act, 2022.
The court made it clear that mere expression or distribution of religious literature does not amount to an offence unless accompanied by forceful or deceitful attempts to convert.
"The essence of a free society lies in the freedom to express, discuss, and propagate beliefs," the bench observed.
It further stated that peaceful preaching, in the absence of coercion or allurement, is protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to freely profess and propagate one's religion.
Additionally, the bench noted that the complainant in the case was neither the alleged victim nor a relative of one. As per Section 4 of the 2022 Act, only an aggrieved individual or their close relatives are permitted to lodge such complaints--making the FIR procedurally invalid.
