SC seeks K'taka’s response on exemption granted to Kodavas,Jummas on having firearms without license
The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice NV Ramana on Tuesday referred the Karnataka High Court’s verdict on the exemption granted to the Kodava Community and Jumma tenure holders to carry and possess firearms without license.
According to a report published by Scroll.in, the Ministry of Home Affairs had exempted the Kodava community and Jumma tenure holders from some of the provisions of the Arms Act, 1995.
The Kodava community lives predominantly in the Coorg region of Karnataka while Jumma tenure holders are people belonging to agriculturist castes inheriting land tenure called jumma.
Taking into account the exemption granted to only one community, a retired Army officer Captain Chethan YK had filed a petition earlier in the Karnataka HC which was later moved to Supreme Court.
“The arms or ammunition carried or possessed by any person being Coorg by race and every Jumma tenure holder in Coorg and herein exempted whilst residing or travelling outside the district of Coorg shall not exceed one rifle with 100 rounds of ammunition for the same and one smooth bore breech or muzzle loading gun with 500 cartridges or the equivalent in leaden shot and gunpowder,” said the notification filed by Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 29 October 2019.
Earlier in September, the High Court bench comprising Justices Satish Chandra Sharma and SS Magadum had upheld the Union Ministry’s validation of the exemption.
However, challenging this, Chethan had argued that the government notification creates discrimination based on “caste/race and ancestral land tenure” in a plea to the Supreme Court.
He also pointed out that according to the Section 41 of Arms Act, exemption from getting an arms license can be granted only in “public interest”.
“However, no reasoning has been given in the notification on granting such exemption to the Kodava community,” the plea added.
A senior counsel appearing for the Kodava community argued that the exemption had been since the British ruled India.
The Supreme Court has now proceeded to seek Karnataka government’s response in this regard.
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.
Tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub derogatory, communal: Delhi HC
_vb_72.jpeg)
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday termed certain tweets by journalist Rana Ayyub "highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal" as it sought her stand on a petition seeking removal of the allegedly objectionable content from social media.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, who was hearing a lawyer's petition alleging that Ayyub's tweets insulted Hindu Deities and "revered historical figures", observed that even an FIR was also directed to be registered against her in relation to the tweets and called upon the Centre, Delhi Police and X to "work in tandem" and "do the needful in 24 hours".
"Let the matter be called day after. Action is necessary in view of the highly derogatory, inflammatory and communal tweets by respondent no. 4 (Ayyub), pursuant to which FIR has also been directed against respondent no. 4 by a court of competent jurisdiction," the court ordered.
Observing that the "matter requires consideration", the court issued notice to the Centre, Ayyub as well as X on the petition seeking the immediate removal of the "highly derogatory, inflammatory, and communal tweets" by Ayyub.
The court also made Delhi Police a party to the case.
Petitioner Amita Sachdeva said she is a devout follower of the Sanatan Dharm, and on her complaint, a magisterial court had already directed the registration of an FIR while holding that the journalist's tweets prima facie disclose cognisable offences under the Indian Penal Code.
The plea said the petitioner approached X's resident grievance officer as well as the Grievance Appellate Committee for the removal of the content.
However, the committee declined to grant relief, stating the matter was sub-judice, it added.
The petitioner said the continued public availability of the tweets has caused continuing and direct injury to her religious sentiments and violated her fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (Right to life and liberty) and 25 (Freedom of religion) of the Constitution.
In January 2025, a magisterial court directed Delhi Police to register an FIR against Ayyub for allegedly making derogatory posts in 2016-17 that included "insults to Hindu deities, spreading of anti-India sentiment and incitement of religious disharmony."
In an order dated January 25, 2025, it said, "From the facts of the case, prima facie cognisable offences are made out under sections 153 A (punishment for promoting enmity between different groups on the ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc), 295 A (deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 505 (statements conducing public mischief) of the IPC."
_vb_86.jpeg)
_vb_85.jpeg)
_vb_92.jpeg)