
High Court orders removal of living politicians' names from government properties
The order came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by advocate Raghavendra from Davangere, who questioned the trend of naming public assets after sitting politicians. The petition cited several examples, including the naming of Davangere Municipal Corporation's hall, the Zilla Panchayat hall, the renovated old bus stand, parks and localities after current public representatives like Shamanur Shivashankarappa, Minister S.S. Mallikarjun and S.A. Ravindranath.
The petitioner argued that only deceased freedom fighters or eminent personalities should be honoured in this manner, not living politicians. Agreeing with the plea, the High Court cited its earlier 2012 order which prohibits naming government properties after livingpersons. The court directed the competent authorities including the Deputy Commissioner and the Chief Secretary to ensure compliance within four weeks.
Reacting to the order, BJP MLA B.P. Harish welcomed the decision, pointing out that even the Supreme Court had made a similar observation 13 years ago. 'Some leaders think people won't remember them after their death, so they name public properties after themselves while alive. Such names must be removed,' he said.
Congress MLA Shivaganga Basavaraj echoed similar sentiments, stating, 'No government building or project should bear the names of serving politicians.
These buildings are constructed with taxpayers' money, not from our personal wealth. The practice is fundamentally wrong and stronger orders must be issued to prevent this.'
The court's firm direction has brought renewed focus on the need for depoliticising public spaces and respecting taxpayers' contribution to public infrastructure.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
3 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka HC allows X to amend plea seeking scrapping of content takedown provision
Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills Microblogging site X (formerly Twitter) has made a plea to amend its petition filed in the Karnataka High Court four months ago, making an additional demand to scrap Rule 3(1)(d) of the Information Technology Rules that empowers government agencies to order intermediaries to remove content from their original petition, filed in March, had sought the court to declare that Section 79(3)(b) of the IT Act, 2000 does not authorise the government to issue information blocking orders to intermediaries, or social media platforms, like 79(3)(b) provides for authorities to remove immunity from liability accorded to intermediaries if they failed to comply with orders to take down unlawful content. In conjunction with Rule 3(1)(d) of the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, it also allows them to issue takedown Tuesday, senior counsel KG Raghavan, appearing for X, informed Justice M Nagaprasanna of the high court that he had filed a plea to amend the original petition. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, who represented the government, said he has filed objections based on the merits of the proposed amendment but has no objections in allowing the petition to be a written statement filed on June 30, the government opposed challenging the constitutionality of the rule at 'this late stage'.Justice Nagaprasanna allowed X to file its amended petition in two days and fixed July 8 for the final hearing.X is seeking the court to declare Rule 3(1)(d) unconstitutional for being ultra vires (exceeding the remit) of the IT Act, or at least read it down and to declare that it does not grant the state any blocking powers. It also wants the court to hold that the Indian Cyber Crime Coordination Centre 's (I4C) Sahyog portal is ultra vires of the IT Act and/or is union home ministry had developed the Sahyog portal to automate the process of sending notices to intermediaries by the government or its its March petition, X also sought protection for not joining the Sahyog portal as well as not complying with the notices sent via the portal. It had also argued that the government could issue content takedown orders only under Section 69A of the IT Act, 2000 and not Section 79(3)(b).


Indian Express
3 hours ago
- Indian Express
Can a child obtain an OBC certificate from their mother? Supreme Court to decide
The Supreme Court on June 23 flagged the lack of guidelines on issuing Other Backward Class (OBC) certificates to the children of single mothers, and listed the matter for hearing on July 22. A division bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and N Kotiswar Singh was hearing a plea by a single mother holding an OBC certificate seeking the issuance of an OBC certificate to her child based on her own status. The plea requested amending the current guidelines, which give primacy to patrilineal lineage on caste certification. The case raises questions on gender equality under Article 14. Here is what to know. What is the case about? The petitioner, a single mother with OBC status, approached the apex court on June 23 to challenge the existing guidelines of the Delhi Revenue Department regarding the issuance of an OBC certificate for her child. She argued that as a single mother belonging to the OBC community, the guidelines must allow her child to inherit her caste. According to the existing guidelines, a copy of an OBC certificate from the father or blood relatives on the paternal side should be attached to the application form. This, she said, violates her child's right to equality and personal liberty under Articles 14 and 21, respectively. Additional Solicitor General SD Sanjay, appearing for the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, informed the Court that reference for the guidelines can be taken from the 2012 Supreme Court judgment in Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs. State of Gujarat. This case pertained to the caste status of children born from inter-caste marriages, specifically between SC/ST/tribal and non SC/ST partners. The Supreme Court had then held that while each situation varies and must be assessed based on its facts, as a general principle, a woman who marries a man of a different caste can not take on the caste of her husband; however, a child who is born from such an inter-caste marriage typically inherits the caste of the father. The Court said that, 'In an inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal, there may be a presumption that the child has the caste of the father. This presumption may be stronger in the case where, in the inter-caste marriage or a marriage between a tribal and a non-tribal, the husband belongs to a forward caste. But by no means the presumption is conclusive or irrebuttable, and it is open to the child of such marriage to lead evidence to show that he/she was brought up by the mother who belonged to the scheduled caste/scheduled tribe.' The exception to this is that if a couple separates or divorces, and the child is raised by a mother belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the child may then assume her caste, provided that she is the sole caregiver. Different courts have considered the paternal lineage rule currently in place, and sought evidence meriting an improvement in the child's wellbeing from being supplied an OBC certificate. In Rumy Chowdhury v. The Department of Revenue, Government of NCT Delhi (2019), a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court heard challenges to the Delhi Government's guidelines. The petitioner was an Indian Air Force officer belonging to the Scheduled Caste community, and married to her husband, who was from the forward caste. She had raised her two sons as a single mother; therefore, she claimed that they are entitled to a certificate certifying that they belong to the same community to which she belongs. The Executive Magistrate rejected her request for a caste certificate. The High Court upheld this order of the Magistrate. This decision was appealed in 2020, wherein the division bench of the Delhi High Court determined that for children to inherit the mother's caste, they have to produce cogent evidence of being subjected to deprivation and disadvantages. The mother could provide a decent life to her kids, the court held that 'issuance of a caste certificate to the appellant's children would result in depriving a genuine schedule caste person of an opportunity to claim entitlement to the limited number of schedule caste seats reserved in higher education and in service, thereby causing a setback to the equality goal enshrined in the Constitution.' In Smti. Moonsoon Barkakoti v. The State Of Assam (2024), the Gauhati High Court was hearing a case about the validity of a Junior Grade officer's OBC certificate which she had inherited from her mother, despite her father belonging to the general category. The court upheld the enquiry report that verified that the officer was raised in her mother's community, and consequently suffered from disadvantages while growing up. The court reaffirmed that caste identity in inter-caste scenarios depends on actual lived experience and community integration, not just paternal lineage.


News18
5 hours ago
- News18
Elon Musk's X Challenges Takedown Orders In Court: ‘Every Tom, Dick And Harry Is...'
Last Updated: Elon Musk's X told the Karnataka High Court that arbitrary content takedown orders by low-level officials threaten free expression. Elon Musk-owned social media platform X (formerly Twitter) told the Karnataka High Court that it is being subjected to arbitrary content takedown orders issued by 'every Tom, Dick and Harry officer" with little to no oversight. These orders are threatening free expression and platform integrity, the platform said in the court. What X Said In Karnataka High Court On Takedown Orders Appearing for X, senior advocate KG Raghavan argued that many recent takedown orders under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act were being issued by low-level government officials, often without proper legal reasoning or due process. He called the situation 'mischievous" and an example of overreach and abuse of executive power. Citing a specific example, KG Raghavan referred to a recent order by the Railways Ministry, which sought the removal of a viral video showing a woman driving on railway tracks. KG Raghavan maintained the video was clearly newsworthy and compared the scenario to the classic media test: 'A dog biting a man is not news, but a man biting a dog certainly is." He argued that blocking such content arbitrarily amounts to censorship, not regulation. Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly objected to the 'Tom, Dick and Harry" remark, asserting that these were duly appointed officers of the state. He maintained that no digital platform should expect a regulation-free environment and that the state has the right to enforce laws in public interest. Adding further weight to the debate, the Association of Digital Media Houses also approached the court, stressing that content creators, not just platforms, face the real-world consequences of takedown orders. The group argued that creators should be given a chance to be heard before their content is removed stating that arbitrary censorship endangers digital journalism and artistic freedom. Taking note of all submissions, the Karnataka High Court scheduled the matter for final hearing on July 8. First Published: July 01, 2025, 16:40 IST