Legal storm brews over Greater Bengaluru Act; civil society, BJP likely to move court
Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike
(BBMP) into several smaller corporations under the new Greater Bengaluru Governance (GBG) Act, 2024, has sparked a legal and political storm, with opposition parties and
civil society
groups preparing to challenge the law in court.
The legislation, passed recently in both Houses, received governor Thaawar Chand Gehlot's assent Wednesday and was subsequently notified in the official gazette. However, the Act now faces stiff resistance from several quarters, including principal opposition
BJP
and a coalition of civil society organisations under the banner Bengaluru Town Hall.
You Can Also Check:
Bengaluru AQI
|
Weather in Bengaluru
|
Bank Holidays in Bengaluru
|
Public Holidays in Bengaluru
"We will fight legally against the GBG Act," said opposition leader R Ashoka of BJP. "The governor has done his best under the circumstances. People are bound to criticise. If he gives his assent, they say he is pro-Congress and if he returns the bill, they brand Raj Bhavan as a BJP office."
BJP had earlier petitioned the governor to withhold assent, joining civil society members who contend that the bill violates the spirit of the 74th Constitutional Amendment by undermining local self-governance. Despite the objections, the govt re-sent the bill to Raj Bhavan last week.
The governor had initially returned the bill but is understood to have given assent considering a recent Supreme Court order mandating that governors must decide on pending bills within three months.
"We clearly explained our concerns about the bill in our memorandum to the governor," said Prakash Belavadi, convener, Bengaluru Town Hall. "We told him it would be detrimental to the development of the city. Now that the governor has given assent and the legislation has been enacted, we will study circumstances leading to it. We will hold a meeting with lawyers and domain experts on May 1. Taking legal recourse is one option we are exploring."
Citizen groups such as Citizen Action Forum are also gearing up to approach the high court. Several individuals are also expected to file separate petitions challenging the Act.
Meanwhile, deputy chief minister DK Shivakumar has indicated an intent to seek political consensus. "He will soon convene an all-party meeting to avert legal battles," sources said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Will quit post if UDF wins 100 seats in Kerala assembly election 2026: Vellappally Natesan
KOCHI: Asserting that the Congress-led UDF will not be able to win the 2026 assembly elections, SNDP Yogam general secretary Vellappally Natesan on Sunday challenged Leader of Opposition V D Satheesan, saying he will resign from his post if the UDF secures 100 seats. 'Satheesan is merely boasting by saying that the UDF will win 100 seats. If it manages to win that many seats, then I will resign from the SNDP Yogam general secretary post. (Otherwise) Is he ready to go into political exile? The LDF will enjoy a third term in power... their (Congress') Thiruvananthapuram district president itself said so,' Vellappally said. His continued tirade against Satheesan came at separate meetings of SNDP Yogam union leaders in North Paravoor and Kochi. Vellappally continues tirade against Satheesan, calls him arrogant leader Calling Satheesan an 'arrogant leader', Vellappally claimed that the same leader of Opposition who had called him three weeks ago, seeking a one-to-one meeting, was now raising charges against him. 'He thinks he is a superstar... He is trying to create confusion in the minds of the Ezhava community by claiming their support in his constituency. The community should be cautious against such false appeasing attempts,' Vellappally said, while speaking at a meeting of the SNDP union leaders of Kanayannur taluk held at Palarivattom.
Hindustan Times
13 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Karnataka BJP demands action against firms selling fake seeds, fertiliser
As farmers across the state staged protests over an alleged shortage of urea and reports of fake agricultural inputs surfaced, the state BJP on Sunday accused the Congress-led government of negligence and demanded immediate action against companies distributing counterfeit seeds and fertilisers. State BJP president BY Vijayendra alleged that the crisis was not the result of supply constraints but a consequence of poor planning by the state government (PTI) State BJP president BY Vijayendra alleged that the crisis was not the result of supply constraints but a consequence of poor planning by the state government. He claimed that despite receiving sufficient quantities of urea from the Centre, the government had failed to ensure proper distribution, causing distress among farmers and panic in several districts. 'The efforts to trouble the food-providing farmers and exploit them within the system have been ongoing for a long time. Companies supplying fertilizers and seeds are engaging in the despicable act of sabotaging agricultural activities by providing fake seeds to the enthusiastic farming community that is expecting a good harvest in the backdrop of a promising monsoon this time,' Vijayendra said. He demanded the registration of criminal cases against such firms and called for a dedicated police vigilance team to investigate and dismantle networks involved in deceiving farmers. 'I urge the government to file a criminal case against such companies in this regard and take strict action, and also to take all necessary measures to ensure that the farming community gets quality seeds and necessary fertilizers in a timely manner,' he added. Vijayendra further said the BJP's farmers' wing would stage statewide protests on Monday to express solidarity with the farming community. According to him, the state received over 870,000 metric tonnes of urea from the Centre, but only around 530,000 metric tonnes had reached the market. He alleged that the remaining quantity was being hoarded by middlemen and traders, with the state government turning a blind eye. 'What about the rest? The fear is that somewhere there is some kind of hand-in-glove. Brokers and traders are keeping the stocks; it has to be released. The state government is trying to create an artificial shortage. This will not help farmers and that's the reason farmers are upset,' he said. The BJP leader claimed the early arrival of the monsoon had worsened the situation. 'This time, mother nature has embraced the farmers through a good monsoon, I urge the government to take all possible precautionary measures to thwart any fraudulent attempts that may disrupt the farmers from enjoying its benefits,' Vijayendra said. Agriculture minister N Chaluvarayaswamy, however, pushed back against the allegations, attributing the pressure on fertiliser supply to a combination of early monsoon and increased cultivation. 'The rains have been good for the past one and a half months. The monsoon arrived early, which has caused some challenges as the dams have filled up sooner than expected. Moreover, the area under cultivation has increased by two lakh hectares. Because of these factors, the demand for fertilizer has gone up. I have urged the chief minister to focus on addressing the farmers' issues instead of criticising them, and requested him to write a letter,' he said. The minister said the global situation had also disrupted supply chains. 'I have already written to minister Pralhad Joshi regarding the disruption in urea supply due to the ongoing conflict in Iran. I've also sent letters to all MPs from the state and the Union ministers representing Karnataka. Yet, Joshi ignored these efforts and instead chose to target Siddaramaiah,' he said. 'I didn't expect them to politicise an issue as serious as agriculture. Fertilizer used to be supplied on time, and we had better stock last season. But currently, there are two or three issues at the central level. Due to the Iran conflict, urea supply has been disrupted, and shipments from China have completely stopped. National-level production is also low,' he said, insisting that the Centre must step up. Chaluvarayaswamy sought to reassure farmers. 'I can criticise too, but that's not what matters right now. What's important is resolving the problems farmers are facing. Farmers need not worry. We will ensure they get whatever they need, whenever they need it. Everyone should remain calm. Even if there's a delay of two days, we'll make sure it's delivered by the third or fourth day,' he added.
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals
The US tariff saga has gone through many twists and turns. And many more are likely left. The ratcheting up of tariffs last month is broader and higher than expected. In late May, the view was that while the extant US average tariff rate was around 13-14 per cent, it was headed towards 18-20 per cent. Much of the increase was expected to be focused on ASEAN, where the tariff rate would be raised to that of China's to eliminate transshipment of Chinese exports to the US via the region. While those on Vietnam and Indonesia were in line with expectations, the additional tariffs on Brazil, Canada, and Mexico were not. Nor was the higher 50 per cent rate on copper. However, negotiations are ongoing, including with India, the EU, and Korea. If this week's Japan deal is any guide, tariffs on these economies will likely be half of the threatened levels. But, even at the reduced rate, if these, along with those on EU and the likely extensions of global sectoral tariffs to semiconductors and pharmaceuticals, are realised, then the effective tariff rate could well exceed 20 per cent. All eyes are therefore on August 1, which is the new deadline set by the administration for countries to finalise trade deals. But there is an upcoming and surprisingly overlooked event that could easily make these trade deals moot and plunge the tariff discussions into more uncertainty. On May 28, the US Court of International Trade (USCIT) ruled that tariffs imposed using the provisions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) overstepped the authority granted by the Act. The ruling did not consider the current conditions in the US to be a 'state of emergency,' which is needed to invoke IEEPA, to be convincing nor the use of tariffs to address it. Tariffs could be imposed, if the government so desired, but via the other options at its disposal. Not IEEPA. A federal appeals court granted the government a stay on the order and is slated to begin hearing arguments on the appeal on July 31. All the universal, reciprocal, and fentanyl-related tariffs are based on IEEPA. The tariffs unaffected are the Section 301 tariffs on China imposed under Trump 1.0 and extended by the Biden administration, and the global sectoral tariffs on aluminum, autos and auto parts, copper, and steel that were imposed under Section 232. It is unclear how the appeals court will rule. But regardless of the decision, either party is likely to move the case to the Supreme Court. If the tariffs under IEEPA are eventually disallowed by the US Supreme Court, the government will shift to other options. Tariffs are central to this administration's economic agenda and will thus be pursued. Unlike those under IEEPA, the tariffs under the other options are more cumbersome, limited in scope, and significantly more resource intensive. But they can be implemented in a compressed time frame if the administration so desires. A potential sequence of such actions could be the following. Use Section 122 to impose tariffs of 15 per cent for 150 days on all countries (justified to address balance of payments needs or to prevent a significant depreciation of the dollar). At the same time, ratchet up the tariffs on China that were imposed under Section 301 in Trade War 1.0 by both the Trump and Biden administrations. Keep tariffs on steel and aluminum at 50 per cent (as on copper) and raise that on autos from 25 per cent to 50 per cent. Hasten the ongoing Section 232 (sector specific on grounds on national economic security) investigations into semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and lumber to bring these under the tariff net of 25 per cent – 50 per cent. Use Section 338 to impose tariffs on countries that are deemed to discriminate specifically against US commercial interests (such as digital services taxes by Australia, the EU, Canada, India, and others, although the taxes are imposed on other countries too). Complete Section 301 investigations on large trading partners (some are ongoing, for example, on the EU and Brazil). These investigations are resource intensive as they need to first identify the specific policy of a trading partner that is the basis of 'unfair competition 'and then quantify the 'harm' that such policies impose on US consumers for each product and for each country. The tariff rate needs to be commensurate with the harm caused and, thus, differ, from product to product for each country. Finally, roll all tariffs under Sections 301 and 232. As one can imagine, this is an arduous and uncertain process. However, the direction of travel is more certain — the average effective tariff rate is likely to settle close to 20 per cent. Needless to say, the country- and product-specific impact of Sections 301 and 232 tariffs could be vastly different than under IEEPA. Markets so far have largely shrugged off the announced new tariffs. This is understandable given the quick deescalation after the strong market and corporate reaction to the Liberation Day tariffs; the possibility that the August 1 deadline is postponed; and the eventual negotiated tariff rates could be different from those announced. However, a court ruling on IEEPA could well turn both the August 1 deadline and the trade deals moot, including potentially that with India. If the basis of these deals, that is, IEEPA, is no longer admissible, then we are headed for renegotiations with tariffs under sections 301 and 232. These could be starkly different than those that are being negotiated now. The uncertainty around US tariffs will not be over after August 1, even with signed trade deals. US courts might well upset the best laid plans of mice and men. Continued uncertainty is the only certainty. The writer is Chief Emerging Markets Economist, J P Morgan. Views are personal
