RSS lathi stands for violence, Gandhi’s walking stick represents determination: B.K. Hariprasad
Bengaluru: Senior Congress leader B.K. Hariprasad on Friday strongly criticized the BJP and the Sangh Parivar, on an advertisement published in newspapers, alleging that their mindset continues the legacy of hatred that led to the killing of Mahatma Gandhi.
The advertisement, published by Bharatiya Janata party, Karnataka, shows Mahatma Gandhi raising his walking stick to hit Siddaramaiah, Rahul Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge, calling them 'Nungappas' in allegation of graft. Gandhiji is also shown speaking out in support of VB-G RAM G, saying, "Implemented by the Modi government to realize my dream of village self-rule," as against the MGNREGA project.
In a social media post, Hariprasad said the culture that murdered Gandhi, who stood for truth, non-violence, and tolerance, still survives. He alleged that the BJP had once again displayed this mindset by publishing an advertisement in newspapers that insulted Mahatma Gandhi.
ALSO READ: Extensive efforts made to expand medical education infrastructure, Lok Sabha told
Hariprasad said the Sangh Parivar and the BJP, whom he accused of thriving on violence, cruelty, and hooliganism, had insulted Gandhi’s ideals of non-violence. He objected to an advertisement that showed Gandhi’s walking stick alongside Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi, and AICC president Mallikarjun Kharge, portraying it as if they were about to strike someone.
“The RSS lathi is a symbol of violence, while Gandhi’s walking stick was not a weapon but a symbol of strength, perseverance, and courage,” Hariprasad said. He said that the BJP and the Sangh Parivar have consistently attacked Gandhi’s ideology.
He also criticised media organisations for publishing what he described as insulting content about the Father of the Nation. He said newspapers should have upheld journalistic ethics by refusing to carry such advertisements and should not become part of what he termed “Godi media”.
Hariprasad further said the country should not forget that Mahatma Gandhi is also one of the most ideal journalists the country has ever seen.
ಸತ್ಯ, ಅಹಿಂಸೆ, ಸಹಿಷ್ಣುತೆಯನ್ನೇ ಉಸಿರಾಡಿದ ಮಹಾತ್ಮಾ ಗಾಂಧಿ ಅವರನ್ನು ಕೊಂದ ಸಂಸ್ಕೃತಿಯವರ ಮಾನಸಿಕ ಕ್ರೌರ್ಯ ಮುಂದುವರೆಯುತ್ತಲೇ ಇದೆ. ಗಾಂಧೀಯನ್ನು ಅವಮಾನಿಸುವ, ಹೀಯಾಳಿಸುವ ಹೀನ ಮನಸ್ಥಿಯನ್ನೇ ಇಂದು ಪತ್ರಿಕೆಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ ಜಾಹೀರಾತುಗಳಲ್ಲಿ @BJP4Karnataka ಪ್ರಕಟಿಸಿದೆ.
— Hariprasad.B.K. (@HariprasadBK2) February 6, 2026
ಕ್ರೌರ್ಯ, ಕೊಲೆ, ಹಿಂಸೆ, ದೌರ್ಜನ್ಯ, ಗೂಂಡಾಗಿರಿಯನ್ನೇ… pic.twitter.com/ND6uA1YrYZ
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.
Court can reject anticipatory bail but cannot direct accused to surrender: SC
New Delhi (PTI): A court can reject anticipatory bail of an accused but it has no jurisdiction to direct him to surrender before the trial court, the Supreme Court has said.
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observation while hearing a plea filed by a man accused of cheating and forgery.
"If the court wants to reject the anticipatory bail, it may do so, but the court has no jurisdiction to say that the petitioner should now surrender," the bench said.
The Jharkhand High Court had rejected anticipatory bail plea of the accused and asked him to surrender and seek regular bail.
In this case, a complaint had been filed before a magistrate alleging offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 420 (cheating), 467 (forgery of valuable security), 468 (forgery for purpose of cheating), 471 (using forged document) and 120B read with 34 of the IPC, in connection with a land dispute.
The high court had dismissed the second anticipatory bail application of the accused on the ground that no new circumstances were shown.
It had relied on its earlier order rejecting his first anticipatory bail plea, in which the court directed the petitioner to surrender before the trial court and seek regular bail in terms of the decision in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI.
The top court said such a direction was wholly without jurisdiction and said that if a court chooses to reject anticipatory bail, it may do so, but it cannot compel the accused to surrender.
