‘Bagina politics': Farmers allege KRS honoured but Kabini ignored
Chief Minister Siddaramaiah offered Bagina, the traditional thanksgiving to the river, consequent to the reservoir attaining the full level at the KRS on Monday.
All these years, the practice was to visit the Kabini first, make the offerings, and then visit the KRS to complete the rituals on the same day.
Irked by the Chief Minister offering Bagina only at the KRS, the Karnataka State Sugarcane Growers' Association president H. Bhagyaraj and others staged a demonstration in Mysuru to voice their protest.
Angered by the CM's move, Mr. Bhagyaraj said Bagina has been offered hastily at the KRS for political spectacle. But when the water is released to Tamil Nadu during distress years and when Karnataka has to comply with the Supreme Court's directives, it is the farmers from the Kabini command area whose interests are sacrificed by the government, Mr. Bhagyaraj added.
The farmers also alleged that several illegal resorts have been built along the Kabini backwaters, though none of the development works previously announced by the government have materialised so far.
The farmers also criticised the government for its alleged move to privatise the power sector and said that the installation of smart meters was a step in that direction.
In due course, the installation will be extended to the agriculture sector as well, pushing farmers out of agriculture and facilitating the entry of the corporates to the agricultural sector, said Mr. Bhagyaraj.
Opposing the compulsory installation of smart meters, the farmers urged the government to withdraw the notification failing which the association threatened to launch an agitation.
They urged the government to fix the Fair and Remunerative Price for sugarcane at ₹4,000 a tonne for the current season. Other demands included putting an end to 'forced land acquisition' for development, ensuring reparation works of canals and channels in the rural hinterland, and filling up the waterbodies.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
How basic structure doctrine protects constitutional rights
The Constitution of India enshrines a vision of justice — social, economic, and political — and a commitment to equality in status and opportunity. But history has shown us that these ideals are often contested terrain. In the early decades after independence, as India grappled with urgent demands for land reform, social equity, and economic stability, the pillars of democracy — the legislature, the executive, and the judiciary — often stood at odds. From the 1950s until the 1970s, India was crying out for reforms — agrarian and economic. Land redistribution was key, but it clashed directly with the constitutional right to property — then a Fundamental Right under Articles 19 and 31. After years of wars, economic disparities, and political turmoil, public pressure on the government was mounting, and so the government moved to abolish the zamindari system by acquiring private property. But this clashed with the Fundamental Right to Property under Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution. These reforms were challenged in courts; some were struck down. In response, Parliament passed the First Amendment in 1951, introducing Article 31A, Article 31B, and the Ninth Schedule to shield such laws from judicial review. Shankari Prasad v. Union of India (1951) was the first case to test this. Shankari Prasad Singh Deo, a zamindar, challenged the First Amendment Act, arguing that the State cannot make any law which takes away fundamental rights. But the Supreme Court disagreed. The court ruled that Parliament could indeed amend the Constitution — including the part on Fundamental Rights. Soon after Shankari Prasad, a Jalandhar-based family, the Golaknaths, which owned vast farmlands, reopened the same questions, challenging the Punjab Security and Land Tenures Act, 1953. Once again, the spotlight was on a single, seismic question: Could Parliament rewrite the Fundamental Rights? In Golaknath, the Supreme Court — by the slimmest of margins, 6:5 — drew the line. Fundamental Rights are 'transcendental' and 'immutable' — and therefore are beyond the reach of Parliament. This sent shockwaves through political corridors. Riding on a landslide victory in the fifth Lok Sabha elections, the government wasted no time in flexing its muscle. Within five months Parliament bulldozed through the 24th Amendment, expressly granting Parliament the power to amend any provision of the Constitution and tied the President's hands by mandating assent to any constitutional amendment bill. The battle wasn't over. The clash between Parliament's desire for reform and the judiciary's role as guardian of the Constitution was about to reach its biggest showdown in the history of India — Kesavananda Bharti v State of Kerala (1973). Kesavananda Bharti challenged the limit of property one can hold under the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The question — can Parliament amend Fundamental Rights — rose again. The courtroom witnessed the finest from the Bombay Bar — Nani Palkhivala, Fali Nariman and Soli Sorabjee — defending the petitioner and a determined HM Seervai represented the government in what would become India's longest argued case with the largest constitutional bench ever assembled. The Supreme Court overturned the Golaknath verdict, ruling that while Parliament has the power to amend any part of the Constitution, it cannot alter its 'basic structure'. That structure — a democratic, secular, federal republic which preserves separation of powers — is the very DNA of India. It gave birth to the basic structure doctrine, a safeguard against unchecked parliamentary power. But, this legal victory was only the beginning. Two years later, the judiciary faced the same questions at a time when India's political waters churned with unrest. Severe fiscal and oil crises resulted in bold economic reforms. An electoral triumph in light of powerful social movements led a presumptuous government to take drastic steps to cling to power. On June 25, 1975, a national Emergency was declared. Civil liberties were suspended, dissent was crushed, and the very essence of democracy was threatened. The Emergency was more than a political crisis — as the government suspended fundamental rights, the Constitution's basic structure was once again under siege. As we mark 50 years since that day, the lessons remain urgent. The 'basic structure' isn't just a legal doctrine — it's the first and last line of defence. The memory of this dark day urges us to protect judicial independence, civil liberties, and tolerate dissent — because without checks, freedoms, and the liberty to speak out, democracy is just a word. Insiyah Vahanvaty is an author and journalist and Ashish Bharadwaj is professor and dean of BITS Law School. The views expressed are personal.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Court's pivot on social justice
Caste-based reservation in employment is an important feature of the social justice architecture envisaged in the Indian Constitution. It covered the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes in the early years after Independence, and was extended to the other backward classes (OBCs) after the Centre accepted the Mandal Commission in 1990. Meanwhile, political mobilisations provided the thrust to the making of a legislative climate favourable to the introduction of laws mandating quotas in various public institutions. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, supported these moves and, in fact, nurtured the vision that some form of affirmative action is necessary to realise the Constitutional ideal of building an egalitarian democracy through judgments that fine-tuned the reservation policy. Ironically, the Supreme Court, which is authorised by the Constitution to set its own rules on its functioning, had forgotten to implement this vision in its institutional structure, though multiple high courts had introduced reservations. PREMIUM Importantly, Justice Gavai's initiative to adopt a reservation-in-promotion policy for the apex court will have a bearing on other public institutions as well. (ANI) Which is why Chief Justice of India Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai's June 24 curricular, first reported in HT, that introduced a formal policy of reservation in the direct appointment and promotion for Scheduled Caste (SC) and Scheduled Tribe (ST) staff working in the apex court, is historic. To be sure, the policy does not extend to the appointment of judges, though the collegium is trusted to ensure that the judiciary is representative of the larger society. Nor does it extend to OBCs: The lack of compatibility between state and central lists make extending reservation to the OBCs a tricky affair, but surely, the Court will work its way around the problem. Importantly, Justice Gavai's initiative to adopt a reservation-in-promotion policy for the apex court will have a bearing on other public institutions as well. Legal and procedural complications had stymied affirmative action in promotions leading to skewed representation in higher posts. The establishment of a model roster and an updated register are steps that should help ensure internal accountability in promotions. The Supreme Court's experience could offer a template for other institutions, which have been reluctant to crack the glass ceiling in promotions. Besides cementing the legacy of Justice Gavai, only the second Dalit CJI, the initiative has sought to address a major incongruence in the working of the Constitution's social justice vision. Representation is an essential feature of constitutional democracy in India. It's a welcome step when it aligns the apex court with that vision.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday (July 2, 2025), ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by newer state laws regulating the procedure, including statutes that criminalise abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. The ban state lawmakers adopted in 1849 made it a felony when anyone other than the mother 'intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child.' It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalising abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Also read: U.S. Supreme Court's decision on right to abortion is both scorned and praised Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the 1849 ban in court, arguing that it could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski had asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. The justices concluded that 'the legislature impliedly repealed' the ban 'by enacting comprehensive legislation about virtually every aspect of abortion, including where, when, and how healthcare providers may lawfully perform abortions,' Justice Rebecca Dallet wrote for the majority. 'That comprehensive legislation so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was clearly meant as a substitute for the 19th-century near-total ban on abortion.' In a dissent, Justice Annette Ziegler called the ruling 'a jaw-dropping exercise of judicial will." She said the liberal justices based the decision on their personal preference to allow abortions. Urmanski's Attorney, Andrew Phillips, didn't immediately respond to an email Wednesday morning seeking comment. Kaul's spokesperson, Riley Vetterkind, also didn't immediately return an email. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play a pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The High Court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
