Special cabinet meeting on caste census in Karnataka ends without any major decision
Bengaluru, Apr 17 (PTI): Amid internal differences over the Social and Educational Survey report, popularly known as 'caste census', a special meeting of Karnataka cabinet that was convened on Thursday to discuss it, ended inconclusive, without any major decision.
However, denying any internal rifts, ministers who attended the meeting said they discussed the parameters used for the survey, and sought for more information and technical details from senior officials.
The cabinet will once again discuss the survey report on May 2 and decide on it.
"The cabinet has discussed the report in detail and it was felt that more information and technical details were required for discussion. So, senior officials have been asked to provide it. The discussion today was incomplete," Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said.
Briefing reporters, he said that the discussions happened in a cordial atmosphere, and several matters like population, backwardness, the parameters that were used during the social and educational survey, the economic parameters that were considered, were all discussed to an extent.
As discussions were incomplete, it will be discussed once again. "As the next cabinet meeting will be held in MM Hills in Chamarajanagar district with focus on developmental issues of the region, it has been decided to discuss this matter once again in the cabinet that will be held on May 2, and make a final decision," he added.
According to sources, some ministers expressed reservations about the survey report, citing concerns expressed from several quarters calling it unscientific and outdated, and about undercounting. Following this, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah asked all ministers to give their opinion in writing or verbally.
Soon after the meeting ended, Transport Minister Ramalinga Reddy, speaking to reporters, said that the chief minister had asked ministers to give their opinion before the next cabinet meeting.
Though there were reports that a couple of ministers spoke in an "upset tone" during the discussion on the survey report, expressing their reservation about it, this was not confirmed by other ministers present in the cabinet meeting. They maintained that the meeting was held in a cordial atmosphere.
Various communities, especially Karnataka's two dominant ones -- Vokkaligas and Veershaiva-Lingayats -- have expressed strong reservations about the survey that has been done, calling it "unscientific", and have demanded that it be rejected, and a fresh survey be conducted.
Objections have also been raised by various sections of society, and there are also strong voices against it from within the ruling Congress.
However, not everyone is opposed. Leaders and organisations representing Dalits and some sections of OBCs, among others, are in support of it, and want the government to make the survey report public and proceed with it, stating the government has spent about Rs 160 crore public money on it.
With strong disapproval from the two politically influential communities, the survey report may turn out to be a political hot potato for the government, as it may set the stage for a confrontation, with Dalits and some sections of OBCs, among others demanding for it to be made public and implemented.
Responding to a question, was there any discussion regarding pros and cons of the survey report at the cabinet, Patil said, "nothing like that....Parameters used for the survey like the person's source of income, whether he or she is owning cattles -- such things came up for discussion. Some senior ministers gave their guidance on certain matters and sought for some details."
"Details will be provided by officials. It will be discussed in the next cabinet and decided," he said.
To a question whether there was discussion on the contentious issues of population strength of various communities, the Law Minister said the misinterpretations that are going on regarding the population are not completely true and it has already been clarified. "94.17 per cent of the population was surveyed."
Asked if anyone disputed about the Vokkaliga and Veerashaiva-Lingayat population mentioned in the survey, he said that matter did not come up for discussion today.
Findings of the survey is said to be contrary to the "traditional perception" with regard to the numerical strength of various castes, especially the dominant Veerashaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas, making it a politically sticky issue.
According to sources, ministers from these two communities have placed their objections in this regard, during the cabinet meeting.
Both Veershaiva-Lingayats and Vokkaligas, and also few other communities have alleged that their various sub castes have been divided among different categories of OBC, resulting in decrease in their respective population numbers. They have alleged that many households were left out from the survey or undercounting.
After a long wait, the Karnataka State Commission for Backward Classes' report was placed before the cabinet for the first time on April 11.
The Siddaramaiah-led Congress government (2013-2018) had in 2015 commissioned the survey in the state.
The State Backward Classes Commission, under its then chairperson H Kantharaju, was tasked with preparing a caste census report. The survey work was completed in 2018 towards the end of Siddaramaiah's first tenure as Chief Minister, and the report was finalised by his successor K Jayaprakash Hegde in February 2024.
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.
Detaining prisoner without trial amounts to pre-trial punishment; bail is rule, says HC
Mumbai, May 11 (PTI): The Bombay High Court has emphasised that the principle of bail is the rule, and refusal is an exception, saying detaining a prisoner for a long period without trial amounts to "pre-trial punishment".
A bench of Justice Milind Jadhav on May 9 also took note of overcrowded jails in the state, and said the courts need to strike a balance.
The bench made the observations while granting bail to one Vikas Patil, arrested for allegedly killing his brother in 2018.
Justice Jadhav noted that trials are nowadays taking perpetuity to conclude, and prisons were simultaneously overcrowded in some segments.
The bench said it regularly deals with cases where undertrial prisoners have been in custody for a long period and is equally aware of the conditions of the prisons.
Justice Jadhav referred to a December 2024 report from the superintendent of the Arthur Road Jail, which stated that the facility was overcrowded beyond its sanctioned capacity by more than six times.
It noted that every barrack sanctioned to house only 50 inmates, as of date, has anywhere between 220 to 250 inmates.
"Such an incongruity leads us to answer the proposition: How can courts find a balance between the two polarities?" Justice Jadhav remarked.
The court said these are cases concerning the liberty of undertrial prisoners who have been incarcerated for long periods, impacting their constitutional right to speedy justice and personal liberty.
The principle rule is bail is the rule, and refusal is the exception, it said.
Justice Jadhav referred to an article written by two undertrial prisoners, "Proof of Guilt", which raised the question of the long incarceration of persons awaiting trial.
He said while mere long incarceration cannot be an absolute proposition for bail, it was an important issue that needed consideration along with the right to a speedy trial.
The paradox in the question raised in the article as to how long is too long a period of incarceration until the right to a speedy trial is defeated is relevant prima facie, and there cannot be one definite answer, the court remarked.
Detaining an undertrial prisoner for a long period only served to legitimise the award of "surrogate punishment" without trial, which amounts to pre-trial punishment, the court said.
The bench also called for a change in the mindset and approach of the prosecution and referred to how prosecutors vehemently oppose bail pleas even in cases of long incarceration pending trial under the mistaken impression that the crime was serious, and hence, bail should not be granted.
"The overarching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, however stringent the law may be," Justice Jadhav said.
The court noted that in the present case, the accused has been in jail for over six years, and there is no distinct possibility of the trial to start or conclude in the near foreseeable future.
