‘We are not asking for a city like London or Paris, all we want is clean water, decent roads'
The gathering focused on several pressing concerns, including the need for clean drinking water, proper underground drainage, road repairs, and measures to curb the menace of stray dogs and cattle.
Inaugurating the convention, senior advocate R. Pandu said that Article 21 of the Constitution guaranteed every citizen the right to live with dignity and yet the right has been clearly denied in Ballari.
'Contaminated water is being supplied once every eight-10 days, roads are in poor condition and pollution levels have worsened. The municipal corporation is more focused on collecting taxes rather than addressing civic issues. We are not asking for a city like London or Paris. All we want is clean water, clean air and decent roads,' he asserted.
BNHS district advisor Narasanna remarked, 'A nation is not just about its land or borders, but its people. Unfortunately, Ballari's civic issues show that the authorities have forgotten this. Despite slogans like Swachh Bharat, our streets remain filthy. If our problems are not addressed, what is the point of having a municipal corporation?'
Retired inspector and BNHS advisor Murtuza Saab, who helped lead the month-long preparations for the convention, said that over one lakh signatures have already been collected in support of the demands.
'This has already forced the municipal body to carry out some minor works. This is the power of people's movements,' he noted, urging citizens to intensify their participation in future protests.
Presiding over the meeting, BNHS district coordinator R. Somashekhar Gowda said that the municipal corporation is creating new civic problems instead of solving the existing ones.
'Residents must form local citizen committees and fight back. Struggle is the only way forward,' he said.
BNHS advisor and industrialist Shyamsundar, executive committee members N. Pramod and A. Shanta addressed the gathering.
Information on the problems affecting various neighbourhoods and possible solutions was shared. A new 47-member action committee was formed to spearhead future efforts. The committee plans to submit a memorandum to the Mayor on Wednesday.
The convention witnessed participation from numerous resident welfare associations and citizens across Ballari.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
13 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Presidential Reference to SC can help redraw boundaries between institutions
The upcoming hearing in the Supreme Court of the Presidential Reference arising from the Court's judgment in The State of Tamil Nadu vs The Governor of Tamil Nadu (2025) is of seminal constitutional significance. This is because of the perceived encroachment of the states' defined sovereign functions and the troubling non-observance of conventional discipline in the exercise of high constitutional power. The Court's advisory opinion, though not binding, will have significant persuasive value for the exercise of sovereign power by the states and the central government in the future. In its adjudicatory decision, the Court has indicted the Tamil Nadu Governor for withholding assent for an unreasonably long time to bills passed by the Legislative Assembly. It held that his conduct was unconstitutional and it was permissible for the Court to read into the silences of the Constitution an implicit obligation on the Governor's part to exercise constitutional discretion reasonably and impartially. Relying on government circulars, the Court held that decisions by the Governor and the President concerning assent to bills are required to be taken within three months of the date of receipt of the government's recommendation for assent. The judgment is unexceptionable for its constitutional logic as far as the Governor's conduct is concerned. However, the extension of the Court's reasoning to the exercise of presidential prerogatives and its suggestion to the President to seek the Court's advisory opinion 'when deciding on bills reserved by the Governor' is fraught and open to interrogation for judicial overreach. This is because the President's prerogatives were not directly in question before the Court and because the President's sovereign power operates in a different realm and on a different plane in our constitutional scheme. As the repository of the highest sovereign power, the President is entitled to the fullest presumption of regularity in the performance of constitutional duties, unaffected by the assumed possibility of an irregular exercise of power. Inspired by national imperatives generally not amenable to judicially manageable standards, the nature of the President's functions place the head of state in a unique position that does not warrant equivalence with the Governor, who holds office at the pleasure of the President as her representative in the state. It is not surprising, therefore, that in a clear disapproval of the Court's judgment, the President has sought the Court's advisory opinion on the key constitutional issues that emanate from its decision. The core question raised in the Reference concerns the 'constitutional boundaries of executive and judicial authority', which are fundamental to the republic's constitutional arrangement. Pertinently, because the Court's advisory opinion cannot displace a binding judicial precedent, the Reference is seen as an opening for a review of the judgment or justification for a possible legislative initiative to insulate the President from the restraints imposed by the Court, should the advisory opinion be at variance with the ratio and reasoning in the Tamil Nadu case in so far as it relates to the President. The Reference also seeks the Court's view on several specific and substantial questions of public importance. These include whether '… the judiciary can modify or override constitutional powers exercised by the President or Governor through Article 142', which confers upon the Supreme Court judicial power of the widest amplitude. Despite its internal coherence and unimpeachable logic in relation to the conduct of the Governor, the Court's decision can be questioned for its directions (cloaked as a suggestion) to the President to seek its advice under Article 143 on legal issues impinging on the legality of bills requiring presidential assent. This has been critiqued, not unreasonably, as an unwarranted judicial intervention in the exercise of sovereign discretion, not necessitated by the scope of the legal challenge that was limited to the conduct of the Governor of Tamil Nadu. This part of the judgment can also be faulted in view of the established processes of decision-making by the President, including those pertaining to legal counsel. Judicial intervention in policy choices of the government/Parliament and in the exercise of sovereign power, unless palpably malafide, has raised questions about the balance of constitutional power. The necessity of restraint in the exercise of judicial power has been reiterated by the Court in the Tamil Nadu case itself, holding that [in] 'the exercise of self-imposed restraint… courts do not venture into areas of governance in which the Constitution gives a prerogative solely to the executive.' Chief Justice B R Gavai, in his recent address at the Oxford Union, is reported to have endorsed a balanced exercise of judicial power. Judges, made wise by experience, disciplined by law and elevated by knowledge, are expected to weigh and balance competing values, a function central to their role. The nation trusts the sagacity of the highest court to configure a just constitutional equilibrium of power so that the country's democratic order is not held hostage to the unfettered impulses of any single branch of the Indian state. As the nation's conscience-keeper, the Court is expected to vindicate this trust by the consistency and moral integrity of its judgments and by guarding against the 'juridification of politics and politicisation of the judiciary'. We know that it is in the wisdom of the wise that enduring answers to some of the vexed questions of our time will be found. The writer is senior advocate, Supreme Court and former Union Minister for Law and Justice. Views are personal
Indian Express
43 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Today in Politics: Rahul, Priyanka Gandhi expected to lead Opposition charge on Day 2 of Op Sindoor debate
After a day-long discussion in the Lok Sabha on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor, the special debate continues in the House on Tuesday. Among the big guns from the Opposition who are expected to address the Lower House are the Gandhi siblings, Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Wayanad MP Priyanka. At the same time, Union Home Minister Amit Shah is expected to address the House from the government side. The speakers from the Opposition have, by and large, focused their attacks on the alleged security lapses and intelligence failure, the alleged role the US government led by Donald Trump played in the ceasefire declaration, and the aircraft the Air Force lost in the May 7-10 military offensive against terror infrastructure in Pakistan. The government countered by saying that the Opposition was asking the wrong questions — this was the crux of Defence Minister Rajnath Singh's remarks, as Vikas Pathak reported — and clarified there was no link between the trade talks with the US and the halt in military operations against Pakistan. The Rajya Sabha, meanwhile, will start the debate on Tuesday. What punches the two sides land in the two Houses will be among the top political stories of the day. The Supreme Court will take up the reference made to it by the President under Article 143 of the Constitution, following the court's April 8 verdict setting a three-month deadline for the President and Governors to act on Bills passed by state Assemblies. Under Article 143(1), the President may refer a 'question of law or fact' to the Supreme Court for its opinion. The opinion, unlike a ruling, is not binding. On Tuesday, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B R Gavai is likely to decide the schedule of the hearings, which are expected to begin sometime in the middle of August. The Tamil Nadu government has moved the court, urging it to declare the Presidential reference as not maintainable and return it as unanswered. It labelled the Presidential reference an 'appeal in disguise'. As Apurva Vishwanath quite lucidly explained in this article, in its 1991 opinion on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, the court said Article 143 was not a mechanism for the executive to seek review or reversal of its established judicial decisions. The government can, however, file for a review of the April 8 ruling and move a curative petition in an attempt to reverse it. The Assam government is gearing up to conduct one of the biggest eviction drives of late, in eastern Assam's Golaghat district, reports Sukrita Baruah. Officials estimate that around 15,000 bighas (around 4,900 acres) of land in the Rengma Reserve Forest in the Uriamghat area of Golaghat will be cleared of 'encroachers' over two phases, with the first phase scheduled for Tuesday. Around 2,700 families, mostly Bengali-origin Muslims, live on this land. The Himanta Biswa Sarma government's eviction drive has been politically contentious, given that it comes at a time when the Mamata Banerjee government and the Trinamool Congress (TMC) have mobilised over the alleged mistreatment of Bengali migrant workers in various BJP-ruled states, including Assam, framing it as 'linguistic terrorism'. Assam's neighbouring states, too, are on guard about the possible influx of undocumented migrants into their territory and have heightened vigil in the border districts, Sukrita reported last week. To know how these eviction drives play out, affecting people's lives, read Sukrita's ground report from earlier this month: 'Even if you cry, your house won't be spared': Inside Assam's latest mega eviction drive
Hindustan Times
43 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Kerala moves SC seeking rejection of Prez reference
New Delhi: The Kerala government on Monday urged the Supreme Court to dismiss the presidential reference that has sought clarification on timelines set for the President and the Governor to act on bills presented for their consent, alleging the reference seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case. Kerala moves SC seeking rejection of Prez reference In an application moved a day before the hearing in the pending reference proceedings on Tuesday, the Kerala government pointed out that the apex court's April 8 judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor case has already addressed in detail the questions raised in the presidential reference in May. The state alleged that the presidential reference has 'supressed' this material fact. The Supreme Court in the Tamil Nadu v Governor case set the timelines for the Governor and President to act on the bills presented for their consent within three months. Pointing out that the Centre has not filed a review petition against the April 8 verdict, establishing it as a settled law, the Kerala government argued that if the Union government wanted to challenge the top court judgment, it should have filed a review or a curative plea in the Supreme Court, and not take the route of presidential reference. The presidential reference cannot 'obliquely' challenge a ruling of the court, which amounts to 'serious misuse' of Article 143 under which reference has been sought, the state argued. Noting that the presidential reference makes no reference to the April 8 judgment, the application said: 'The reference loses its legitimacy and seeks to mislead the court into setting aside its own judgment, the existence of which, as mentioned, has been suppressed. The reference therefore deserves to be returned unanswered.' The application, filed through advocate CK Sasi, said the President can only refer questions to the Supreme Court under its advisory jurisdiction of Article 143 of the Constitution if they had not been decided by the top court. 'The instant reference is being used as a device to obtain decisions on these vital issues, without disclosing and by suppressing the final findings already rendered on these issues by this Hon'ble Court, and to get this Hon'ble Court to deliver inconsistent judgments on the issue of timeframe under Article 200, which is not res integra (an untouched matter),' it added. Article 200 makes the governor's assent mandatory for clearing the bills passed by the state legislature. The first proviso to Article 200 states that the governor may 'as soon as possible after the presentation' of the bill for assent, return the bill if it is not a money bill together with a message for reconsideration to the House or Houses of the state legislature. The April 8 verdict, passed on a petition by Tamil Nadu challenging withholding of consent on 10 crucial bills, termed the governor's withholding of sanction 'illegal'. The court exercising its extraordinary power under Article 142 declared 'deemed' assent to the bills. The Kerala application said the foundation of the presidential reference is that Article 200 does not stipulate any timeframe upon the governor for the exercise of his powers and functions thereunder. 'This is amazing, and it is difficult to believe that the Council of Ministers, in advising the President, have not even cared to read the proviso to Article 200 which states that the Governor shall act 'as soon as possible after the presentation to him of the Bill for assent'. That there is a timeline in Article 200 stands settled by no less than three separate judgments of this Court,' the application said. It referred to past decisions of the top court in state of Telangana v Governor case and state of Punjab v Governor case, both decided in 2023, which affirmed that action by the governor on bills sent for consideration should be done 'as soon as possible'. 'If the reference itself is based on an erroneous statement, the entirety of the reference, which mainly relates to the time factor, should stand rejected,' Kerala argued, adding: 'The first 11 out of the 14 queries raised (in the reference) are directly covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the State of TN v Governor decision (of April 8, 2025), merely one month before the reference was made on May 13. The existence of the judgment is suppressed in this reference, on which ground alone the reference has to be rejected.' A five-judge Constitution bench took up the reference on July 22 and issued notices to Centre and state governments. The court had posted the matter for July 29 to fix timelines for hearing the matter in August. Incidentally, the Kerala government had last week withdrawn its appeal challenging the governor's inaction to clear eight bills pending for a period varying between one to three years in the southern state. Later in the day, the Tamil Nadu government filed an application in the same proceedings urging the top court to return the May 13 Presidential Reference as 'not maintainable,' calling it an attempt to reopen settled constitutional law. The state argued that no new 'substantial question of law' arises under Article 143(1), rendering the reference an 'appeal in disguise' and liable to be returned unanswered.
