Siddaramaiah says he wants to contest from 2 constituencies in Karnataka Assembly polls
'Yathindra will not be contesting from any constituency'
Bengaluru, Mar 25: Congress legislature party leader and former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Saturday said he wants to contest from two seats in the upcoming Karnataka Assembly polls, as the party fielded him from his home turf of Varuna in Mysuru district.
He said he wants to contest from Kolar too along with Varuna, if the party agrees.
The Congress earlier in the day announced its first list of 124 candidates for the polls, due by May, which included the announcement of Siddaramiah's candidacy from Varuna. This marks the return of the 75-year-old leader to his home constituency, which is currently represented by his son Yathindra Siddaramaiah, after a gap of five years.
Siddaramaiah had earlier won twice from Varuna in 2008 and 2013, and even went on to become the Chief Minister after winning from there in 2013.
The Leader of Opposition in Karnataka had zeroed in on Varuna, after weighing on various options.
"I had said, it is left for the high command to decide (regarding the constituency). High Command has asked me to contest from Varuna. I have said, I will contest from two constituencies, from Kolar and here, again it is left to the high command," Siddaramaih said.
Speaking to reporters here, he said, his son Yathindra will not be contesting from any constituency.
The Congress has not yet announced any candidate for the Kolar seat, and also Badami, which Siddaramaiah currently represents.
According to some party functionaries, Siddaramaiah, in the event of winning from both the seats, plans to vacate Varuna seat, and field Yathindra from there in the subsequent bypolls.
Siddaramaiah, who is nursing Chief Ministerial ambitions in the event party coming to power, and was looking for a "safe seat", had announced in January that he will be contesting the polls from the Kolar, reportedly after conducting surveys, subject to the approval of the party's Central leadership.
However, there were reports last week that Congress leadership including Rahul Gandhi, during the party's Central Election Committee meeting, had advised Siddaramaiah not to contest from Kolar, which is said to be "risky" for him.
Following this, Siddaramaiah on Tuesday told a large group of supporters from Kolar, who had gathered near his residence here, that the Congress high command had asked him not to take even 1 per cent risk' while choosing a constituency to contest the elections.
Siddaramaiah, who currently represents Badami segment of Bagalkote district in northern parts of the State, has repeatedly indicated that he may not contest from there, citing his inability to give more time for people and party workers of the constituency as the reason.
Siddaramaiah, who has announced that 2023 Assembly polls will be his last, has made it clear that he would not contest from his former Chamundeshwari constituency in Mysuru. As the then sitting Chief Minister, he lost the 2018 polls in Chamundeshwari to JD(S) G T Deve Gowda by 36,042 votes.
He, however, won Badami, the other constituency from where he had contested the 2018 polls, and defeated B Sriramulu (BJP) by 1,696 votes.
Making his debut in the Assembly in 1983, Siddaramaiah had got elected from Chamundeshwari on a Lok Dal Party ticket. He has won five times from this constituency and tasted defeat thrice.
After neighbouring Varuna became a constituency in 2008 following delimitation, Siddaramaiah represented it till he vacated the seat for his son Yatindra (MLA) in the 2018 Assembly polls and went back to his old constituency of Camundeshwari.
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.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
