Bengaluru:
The violence during the anti-CAA protest in Mangaluru in December 2019, which left two people dead in police firing, rocked the Karnataka assembly on Wednesday, with Congress holding the ruling BJP responsible for it and demanding a judicial probe headed by a sitting High Court judge into the incident.
Terming the ‘golibar’ (firing) as “pre planned” and blaming the city police commissioner for it, Leader of the Opposition Siddaramaiah questioned the government on the rule of law, as he expressed fears about the ‘danger’ to democracy and ‘anarchy’ taking over the system.
The debate on the law and order condition saw heated exchanges between ruling and opposition sides, even forcing an adjournment
Treasury and opposition benches clashed over LoP quoting the High Court’s observations against police, while granting conditional bail to 21 people, who were allegedly involved in Mangaluru violence, stating that the matter was sub-judice.
“It was pre planned by police.The court itself has remarked about police excess. Even the complaint by the family of two innocent persons killed in the Golibar was not taken.
Twenty one people, mostly youths, were arrested in the case and sent to jail… This is police excess. Karnataka had never in the past become a police state,” Siddaramaiah said.
Questioning whether there was rule of law in Karnataka, he said “we believe in rule of law. Without rule of law there will be anarchy and democracy will be in danger.”
Stating that those killed did not belong to any party,he demanded to know how police had opened fire, despite instructions from the Chief Minister that there should not even be a lathicharge.
He suspected the role of some “unseen hand” behind the violence and police firing.
“I demand a judicial inquiry into the Mangaluru incident by a sitting judge of the High Court. The guilty should be punished,” he said as he held the police department, Mangaluru police commissioner and state government directly responsible.
Two people were killed in police firing inMangaluruin December 19 as the protest against the CAA had turned violent, following which the city was brought under curfew and mobile internet service was suspended.
Siddaramaiah referred to the recent arrest of a parent and a school headmistress (now on bail) in the “sedition case” for their alleged involvement in staging a drama, portraying the Prime Minister in poor light over CAA and NRC and charged the government with using police to ‘fix’ political opponents and those opposing BJP’s “divisive polices.”
He said Congress leader U T Khader and a student from Mysuru were booked under sedition charges for opposing CAA and NRC and holding a ‘Free Kashmir’ poster, while no cases were filed against BJP leaders Somashekara Reddy, Anant Kumar Hegde and RSS strongman Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat for their “inflammatory speeches”.
The discussion saw repeated arguments between Siddaramaiah and Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister J C Madhuswamy as the former often referred to the High Court’s observations on the matter.
As Siddaramaiah tried to defend Khader,saying his alleged inflammatory statements did not amount to sedition, Madhuswamy pointed out that the case was before the court raised objections to it, leading to exchanges between both sides.
While senior Congress legislators like R V Deshpande and K J George came to the LoPs defence, Minister C T Ravi and many BJP MLAs targeted Khader and Congress for his alleged comments during the anti CAA protest.
Georges comment that police was working as per orders being received from higher ups on filing cases against political opponents and in the Mangaluru incident drew a rebuttal from Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai, who said police have worked efficiently to maintain law and order.
As Siddaramaiah charged Mangaluru police with high handedness and quoted the High Court’s observations against police while granting bail to 21 people allegedly involved in the case and for lack of proof against the accused, Madhuswamy said the matter was sub-judice and raised a point of order.
Police was yet to file a chargesheet and produce evidence before the court. “This is not the final order for the LoP to repeatedly quote from it in the House, it is bail. Is it right to speak on matter that is still under adjudication?.”
Despite the Speaker, after hearing the point of order, stating that the discussion should happen responsibly, considering that the matter was before the court, Siddaramaiah continued to make references to observations made in the bail order and Madhuswamy warned him of contempt.
This led to heated arguments between the ruling and treasury benches, following which Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair, adjourning the House for some time.
