MANDYA: Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Friday said the central government is trying to impose Hindi across the country, posing a threat to regional languages like Kannada. Everyone should protest against such imposition of Hindi and save Kannada, he said after inaugurating the 87th Kannada Sahitya Sammelana here.
He appealed to Kannadigas to speak and teach Kannada to non-Kannadigas and to save the rich language.
Attacking the Centre over allegedly discriminating against the state in devolution of funds and taxes, he said the central government paid Rs 55,000 crore against Rs 4.5 lakh crore tax collected by the state, affecting its development.
He accused the Centre of imposing higher taxes on the common man and reducing taxes on corporate companies. This has hit the purchasing power of the people, forcing the state government to introduce five guarantees for the benefit of the people, he added.
What was the necessity for outright arrest, asks the court
However, nothing is placed before the court to satisfy these conditions and prima facie case is made out for release. The petitioner is an MLC and the question of absconding does not arise and is entitled to release, the court said.
Senior advocate Sandesh Chouta, appearing for Ravi, argued that the Council Chairman made a statement indicating that there is no audio or video recording of the alleged derogatory remarks. The notice has to be issued under Section 35 as per the verdict of the apex court in the Arnesh Kumar case. Non-issuance of notice is a gross violation of fundamental rights and the petitioner is entitled for immediate release.
Further, the police have not issued a memo containing the grounds and reasons for the arrest. The high court can direct for release of the petitioner invoking Article 226 of the Constitution as the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the Arnab Goswami case, he argued, pointing out the bleeding injury suffered by the petitioner for which he was advised to undergo a CT scan to ascertain internal injuries.
State Public Prosecutor Belliappa BA argued that the bail petition of the accused is pending before the special court, to which the court observed that it wants to know whether notice under Section 35 is not applicable for the arrest, without going into the technicalities of the case. Belliappa replied that he had not yet received any instructions on the notice, but the petitioner was behaving like a freedom fighter, as per the footage.
Orally observing that it had not seen the footage of the incident, the court asked what was the necessity for outright arrest when the offence carries a punishment of a maximum of four years. “Are none of the decisions of the Supreme Court, cited by the petitioner, not applicable to the police?” the court observed.