New Delhi/Bengaluru (PTI): BJP leader Basanagouda Patil Yatnal on Wednesday said he has explained to the party leadership in detail the alleged "adjustment politics, grand corruption and dynastic politics" prevailing in the Karnataka unit of the party.
The MLA said he has submitted a six-page reply to the notice served to him by BJP Central Disciplinary Committee (CDC) member secretary Om Pathak for his “tirade against the state-level party leadership and defiance of party directives.”
“In my letter, I have said that our party should come out of the adjustment politics, grand corruption, clutches of dynastic politics and the voice of Hindutva should grow stronger because UP, Assam, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh are now leaning towards Hindutva,” Yatnal told reporters in New Delhi.
According to him, people of Karnataka are not ready to accept anyone against Hindutva.
“I have also explained the serious cases against Yediyurappa and his family and the adjustment politics,” Yatnal added.
He said he demanded a neutral national leader for Karnataka.
Yatnal said that there were many neutral leaders, who were unhappy with the Yediyurappa family, but they are not speaking against the former CM because of internal discipline.
Yatnal is a strong critic of BJP veteran B S Yediyurappa and his family, especially his son and the party's Karnataka chief B Y Vijayendra.
He has often targeted them and demanded that the BJP central leadership check Yediyurappa's 'dynasty politics' in order to fight against the 'dynasty politics' of Congress effectively.
Yatnal along with a few senior BJP leaders, including MLA Ramesh Jarkiholi, Arvind Limbavali, Mahesh Kumtahalli, and Madhu
Bangarappa had taken out a month-long anti-Waqf march from Bidar to Chamarajanagar. The march started on November 25 and will conclude on December 25.
The march is widely perceived as a show of strength by the anti-Vijayendra faction within the BJP. Yatnal has said the march was not directed against any individual but aimed at "protecting farmers, Sanatana Dharma, and Hindus from eviction notices issued by the state Waqf Board."
However, the march is perceived as a show of strength against Yediyurappa and Vijayendra. It does not have the sanction of the state party leadership.
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.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has sought details from the Allahabad High Court following controversial statements made by Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad's legal cell on December 8.
Justice Yadav, addressing the topic of the Uniform Civil Code, asserted that India would function according to the wishes of the majority community, calling it the "law of the land." He further stated that the welfare of the majority population must take precedence.
The remarks included the use of the term "kathmullah," considered a slur, to describe individuals he alleged were harmful to national progress. He also criticised certain practices within the Muslim community, such as animal slaughter during religious ceremonies, claiming it hindered tolerance among children.
Justice Yadav expressed confidence that India would soon enact the Uniform Civil Code, claiming it as a constitutional necessity.
The speech has triggered widespread criticism, with organisations like the Campaign for Judicial Accountability and Reforms (CJAR) filing complaints with the Chief Justice of India. The CJAR demanded an in-house inquiry into the judge's conduct, citing concerns over the judiciary's neutrality and independence.
Hyderabad MP Asaduddin Owaisi and Srinagar MP Ruhullah Mehdi condemned the remarks. Mehdi announced plans to move an impeachment motion in Parliament under Article 124(4) of the Constitution, citing Justice Yadav's statements as grounds for removal.
Senior Advocate Rebecca John called the speech an "assault on the Constitution," emphasising that such conduct is unbecoming of a sitting judge. Calls for the withdrawal of Justice Yadav's judicial duties have also surfaced.
The Supreme Court's administrative wing is currently reviewing the matter.