Bengaluru: Kannadigas living overseas are seeking the right to vote through postal ballots or polling booths at their respective embassies, ahead of the upcoming Karnataka Assembly elections. Approximately five lakh non-resident Indians (NRIs) from Karnataka are mostly unable to exercise their franchise as they are unable to travel to their hometowns to cast their votes.

This time, Kannadigas residing in countries such as Italy, England, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, among others, have approached the Election Commission of India and their respective embassy or Consulate General of India’s (CGI) offices seeking permission to vote through postal ballots or booths at their embassies.

ASLO READ: BJP promises to implement uniform civil code in poll-bound Karnataka

The Sagarottara Kannadigaru association, registered in the UK to represent overseas Kannadigas worldwide, has filed a public interest litigation in the Karnataka high court, where a hearing is scheduled for May 2. Ravi Mahadev, the association's joint secretary, told the Times of India that he came to Mysuru to vote on May 10. He stated that the cost of visiting India for elections is high, and neither the ECI nor the government encourages NRIs to vote. Although there is a provision to register as an overseas Kannadiga in Form-6A, it does not provide postal voting or booths in the countries where NRIs work.

Association president Chandrashekhar Lingadalli, who has come to Banahatti, his hometown in Bagalkot, from Dubai, said non-resident Kannadigas have started a campaign to submit memorandums to their respective embassies. The number of eligible NRI Kannadigas are of three types - working, dependents, and students. When countries like Algeria, the Philippines, Italy, and Romania allow their citizens to vote by setting up polling booths at their embassies, why is it not possible for about 60 lakh NRIs, he asked.

Hemegowda Rudrappa has submitted a memorandum to CGI in Italy, while Ravi Mahadeva has submitted a memorandum to the chief electoral officer, Karnataka, in Bengaluru. The campaign highlights the difficulties faced by NRIs in travelling to India to vote, particularly during a pandemic. They argue that the establishment of postal voting or polling booths at embassies is a practical solution that will allow NRIs to exercise their democratic rights without having to incur significant costs.

All the latest news from Mangaluru/Udupi, just one click away. CLICK here to read all the important news from Mangaluru/ Dakshina Kannada in a single click.

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.



Prayagraj, Jul 25 (PTI): The Allahabad High Court has observed that each incident of mob lynching or mob violence is a separate incident and cannot be monitored in a public interest litigation (PIL).

A bench of Justices Siddharth and Avnish Saxena was hearing a PIL filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind seeking compliance of apex court's guidelines for checking incidents of mob lynching.

Disposing of the PIL, the bench said that the judgement of the apex court in the Tehseen S. Poonawalla Vs Union of India (2018) is binding upon the state government as well as the central government.

"Therefore, it is always open for the aggrieved party to approach the government first before rushing to this court seeking compliance of the judgement of apex court," it added.

In the PIL, the petitioner had sought extensive directions concerning the implementation of the apex court's binding guidelines in the case of Tehseen Poonawalla.

In the PIL, specific incidents of mob lynching and mob violence in Uttar Pradesh, including one in May in Aligarh, were referred.

The petitioner had sought setting up of a special investigation team (SIT) headed by an inspector general-rank officer to investigate the mob violence incident in Aligarh, the notification and circular related to the appointment of nodal officers in each district dealing with mob lynching cases, along with a status report on such cases.

Counsel for the state government opposed the maintainability of the PIL.

In its judgment passed on July 15, the court said that although the reliefs prayed in the PIL were consistent with the apex court's guidelines in Tehseen Poonawalla case, they could not be granted through a PIL seeking general oversight over individual incidents.

The court, however, noted that the affected parties have the liberty to first approach the appropriate government authority for the implementation of the apex court's directions.