Codava meet on geo-political autonomy and tribal rights
Speaking to Hans India President of the CNC NU Nachappa, the seminar will address CNC's core demands, including the creation of a Codava Autonomous Region (CAR) under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution — akin to the autonomous councils in the Northeast and the Darjeeling Gorkha Hill Council. The organisation is also seeking Scheduled Tribe (ST) status for the Codavas, whom it identifies as a distinct animistic, mono-ethnic indigenous community.
The keynote speaker for the event is Vikram Hegde, a constitutional lawyer practising in the Supreme Court, who has previously represented the CNC in the landmark Codava Gun Rights case. His lecture will delve into constitutional provisions for regional autonomy, linguistic rights, and the protection of customary practices — subjects he also teaches as a visiting faculty at the National Law School of India University (NLSIU), Bengaluru.
The CNC is currently pursuing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that seeks legal recognition of Codavaland's claim for geo-political autonomy, arguing that their demands are both constitutionally viable and historically justified.
Joining Hegde at the seminar will be his wife, Hima Lawrance, also a Supreme Court lawyer, qualified to practice in both India and New York. The event is expected to draw academics, legal experts, regional leaders, and community stakeholders from across Karnataka, as discussions around regional autonomy and tribal classification continue to gain traction in India's federal structure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
19 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Govt. silent on reforms to address judicial misconduct
At a time when the government is seeking to remove Allahabad High Court judge Justice Yashwant Varma after burnt currency notes were found at his official residence in Delhi this March, the Law Minister, while speaking in Parliament, did not specify the government's stance on legislative reforms regarding the Supreme Court's in-house procedure to address judicial misconduct. Responding to a question in Lok Sabha whether reforms were required in the top court's procedure, Union Law Minister Arjun Ram Meghwal only described the existing rules and regulations for removal of judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts and did not speak on the need for reforms. 'Article 124 (4) provides that a judge of the Supreme Court shall not be removed from his office except by an order of the President passed after an address by each House of Parliament supported by a majority of the total membership of that House and by a majority of not less than two-thirds of the members of that House present and voting has been presented to the President in the same session for such removal on the ground of proved misbehaviour or incapacity,' he said. 'For Judges of the High Court, Article 217(1)(b) stipulates that 'A Judge may be removed from his office by the President in the manner provided for in clause (4) of Article 124 for the removal of a Judge of the Supreme Court,' the Minister said in a written reply in the House. The Minister described the procedure adopted by Parliament for the removal of a judge but skipped the reply to a question about steps being taken on reforms, and if there has been any consultation with experts on this. Opposition parties and civil rights groups have, in the past, raised the demand for judicial accountability. Apart from Justice Varma's case, questions on judicial integrity were raised by the Opposition when Allahabad High Court judge Justice Shekhar Yadav, last December, made veiled attacks on the Muslim community while speaking about Uniform Civil Code at a Vishwa Hindu Parishad event. The judge had said that the country would run as per the wishes of the 'majority'. The Opposition, across party lines, had objected to the speech and had demanded his removal. In the ongoing monsoon session of Parliament, CPI(M) MP John Brittas said that the integrity and transparency of the judiciary needed to be maintained. 'We are for the removal of Justice Varma. We have already expressed our desire to be part of that process,' he said.
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC
New Delhi, The Supreme Court on Friday said procedure was only a "handmaiden and not a mistress of justice' and held courts can allow amendment in criminal complaints if changes do not cause any prejudice to the accused in trial. Courts can allow changes in criminal complaints if no prejudice caused: SC A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and K V Viswanathan further observed procedural law was meant to aid justice, not hinder it. The top court's verdict reinforced the principle that procedural technicalities must not override the course of justice and allowed an amendment in a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. When a charge is altered, the court said, if there is no prejudice to the accused, the trial can proceed. 'Further, if it is likely to prejudice, the court may either direct a new trial or adjourn the trial to such a period. Section 217 of the CrPC grants liberty to the prosecutor and the accused to recall witnesses when charges are altered under the conditions prescribed therein. The test of 'prejudice to the accused' is the cardinal factor that needs to be borne in mind,' it added. The court found it appropriate to observe that amendments to complaints were "not alien" to the Code of Criminal Procedure . 'Section 216 of the CrPC deals with the power of court to alter any charge and the concept of prejudice to the accused. No doubt when a charge is altered, what is altered is the legal provision and its application to a certain set of facts. The facts per se may not be altered….,' the bench said. The case at hand stemmed from a complaint that three cheques issued by the respondents, amounting to ₹14 lakh, dishonoured. The complaint alleged the cheques were issued for the purchase of 'Desi Ghee '. However, the complainant later sought to amend the complaint to correct a purported typographical error stating that the goods sold were actually 'milk.' While the trial court allowed the amendment in September 2023, holding no prejudice would be caused as the cross-examination had not yet begun, the Punjab and Haryana High Court reversed its decision. The high court observed the amendment changed the nature of the complaint and potentially had tax implications under the GST regime. Setting aside the high court verdict, the top court held the amendment was a 'curable irregularity' and that it did not cause any prejudice to the accused. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
Oppn motion to remove Justice Varma not admitted in Rajya Sabha: How impeachment works
The BJP-led government is slated to move a motion in the Lok Sabha to impeach Justice Yashwant Varma, the Allahabad High Court judge at whose home burned piles of cash were found in March. Varma has called the allegations against him a 'conspiracy'. But how can a sitting apex or high court judge be removed? What's the impeachment process? read more Justice Yashwant Varma is at the centre of a controversy after a pile of cash was recovered at his official home. via PTI Justice Yashwant Varma is set to be impeached. The BJP-led government is slated to move a motion in the Lok Sabha to impeach the Allahabad High Court judge at whose home burned piles of cash were found in March. Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla will now establish a committee to examine the charges with assent from the Rajya Sabha. Birla will recommend Varma's impeachment if warranted. This comes after the Opposition-backed motion accepted by Jagdeep Dhankhar in his capacity as Chairman of the Rajya Sabha was not tabled in Parliament. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Dhankhar has since resigned as Vice President. But how does the impeachment process work? Let's take a closer look: How does it work? The Indian Constitution does not mention the term 'impeachment' when it comes to judges. However, it lays down the process for removing Supreme Court and high court judges. Supreme Court judges can be removed under Article 124 (4) while high court judges can be removed under Article 218. In both instances, jurists can be removed for 'proven misbehaviour or incapacity'. This comes after a motion from both Houses that is approved by the President of India. The Judges (Inquiry) Act, 1968, spells out the process. The impeachment can be initiated in either House of Parliament. In the Rajya Sabha, around 50 MPs are needed, while around 100 MPs are needed in the Lok Sabha. This motion then handed over to the presiding chairman or speaker of the House. A multipartisan group of MPs submit a notice to Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla to seek the impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma. (Photo: ANI) The chairman or speaker can then talk to people and examine any information related to the motion. The chairman or speaker of the House can then decide to admit the motion or refuse to do so. The chairman or speaker is under no obligation to do so within a specific time period. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD What after the motion is admitted? If the motion is admitted a three-member committee is then established to investigate the matter. This committee usually comprises a Supreme Court judge, a high court judge and an eminent jurist. The committee can then call witnesses and examine the matter to its satisfaction. If the committee finds that the matter is without merit, the process ends with the report being sent to the chairman or speaker and it being tabled in the House. However, if the committee finds otherwise, the motion and the investigation report is then sent forward to both Houses. A copy of the matter is also sent to the judge with the charges framed. Back to Parliament The House in which the motion was introduced then takes up the matter first. The Speaker of the House must then table the report. Here, the judge is allowed to present their own case to Parliament. The motion will then be debated and put to a vote. The Monsoon Session of the parliament. File image/PTI The motion requires a special majority to pass – that is support from two-thirds of the members present and voting (which in itself should be not under half the House's total strength). This must be sent to the other House of Parliament, which must once again pass the motion with a special majority. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If this too is passed, the address is then sent to the President of India. The President must then pass an order removing the judge. Has this happened before? Yes, in 1993. Justice V Ramaswami was the first apex court judge against whom an impeachment motion was moved. Ramaswami was accused of extravagant expenditure during his time as the Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The motion ultimately went down to defeat in the Lok Sabha. In 2011, the Rajya Sabha passed an impeachment motion against Justice Soumitra Sen of the Calcutta High Court. However, before the Lok Sabha took up the matter, Sen resigned. What is the status of Varma's impeachment? Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla is expected to announce the formation of a high-level committee to examine the charges against Varma. Sources have said that the motion has already received over 100 signatures from the BJP and its allies. Opposition members will also submit their signatures soon. BJP leader Amit Shah, JP Nadda, Birla, and deputy Chairman Harivansh, who is currently presiding over the Upper House following Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar's resignation, have been discussing how to proceed. Union minister Kiren Rijiju said that the potential impeachment of Justice Yashwant Varma is a collective decision of all parties and not only the government. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Home Minister Amit Shah. ANI 'I have spoken to all the senior leaders of different political parties. I will also get in touch with some of the single-MP parties because I do not want to leave out any member. So it becomes a unified stand of the Parliament of India," Rijiju said. A three-judge inquiry panel had earlier confirmed the discovery of a large sum of cash at Justice Varma's residence on March 14, 2025. The panel's findings were submitted to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, who subsequently sent the report to President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister Narendra Modi, along with Justice Varma's response. Justice Varma has denied the allegations, stating that the cash was not stored by him or his family members. He has called the matter a 'conspiracy' against him. With inputs from agencies
