E-Paper
Lawmakers back Belagavi DC after Maha MP files complaint
Karnataka MPs unite to support Belagavi's deputy commissioner after Maharashtra lawmaker's privilege complaint over movement restrictions during tensions.
Members of Parliament from Karnataka across party lines have come together in support of Belagavi deputy commissioner Mohammed Roshan after a Maharashtra lawmaker accused the district administration of violating parliamentary privilege by restricting his movement during a politically sensitive event.
The support follows a breach of privilege complaint filed by Dhairyasheel Mane, a Lok Sabha member from Maharashtra’s Hatkanangale constituency, who alleged that he was unlawfully prevented from entering Belagavi district on November 1. The restriction was imposed on Karnataka Rajyotsava, a day that coincides with the annual observance of Black Day by pro-Maharashtra groups opposing the inclusion of Belagavi in Karnataka after the linguistic reorganisation of states in 1956.
State minister Satish Jarkiholi said all 28 MPs from Karnataka had agreed to write jointly to Lok Sabha speaker Om Birla, urging him not to admit the complaint. “The Deputy Commissioner has committed no mistake. The restriction on MP Mane was imposed only to maintain law and order and public peace,” Jarkiholi said.
The show of unity extended to the Bharatiya Janata Party. Belagavi MP Jagadish Shettar said the action taken by the district administration was based on the situation on the ground and did not amount to a breach of privilege. “This does not constitute a breach of privilege. All MPs from the State will place the facts before the Speaker,” Shettar said. He added that the MPs would meet the speaker under the leadership of Union minister Pralhad Joshi.
In his complaint to the Speaker, Mane argued that as an elected Member of Parliament he had the constitutional right to travel freely across the country. He alleged that the district administration violated this right by preventing him from entering Belagavi district on a day when pro-Maharashtra organisations were marking Black Day.
The observance of Black Day has long been a flashpoint in the border district, where competing claims over language and identity have periodically led to tensions. Each year, the Maharashtra Ekikaran Samiti and sections of Marathi-speaking residents protest the inclusion of Belagavi in Karnataka, while Kannada organisations view such events as provocations that threaten public order.
Kannada groups rejected Mane’s allegations, arguing that the restriction was imposed not because of his status but because of the purpose of his visit. Ashok Chandargi, convenor of the Kannada Organisations’ Action Committee, described the complaint as baseless. He said people from Maharashtra, including political leaders, frequently visit the Yellamma temple at Saundatti in Belagavi district without facing any restrictions. According to Chandargi, Mane was stopped only because his visit was intended to participate in activities that could disturb linguistic harmony.
Pro-Kannada organisation Karnataka Rakshna Vedike organised a protest march to the Deputy Commissioner’s office, backing the district administration’s decision and opposing what it described as an attempt to politicise a preventive action.
Legal experts have also weighed in, largely supporting the administration’s stand. Senior Supreme Court advocate Mohan Katarki said the Deputy Commissioner acted strictly within the framework of law.
Katarki said such orders apply uniformly to all individuals, with no exemptions for Members of Parliament or other constitutional functionaries. He also noted that parliamentary privileges under Article 105 of the Constitution are confined to proceedings within Parliament and do not extend to political activities outside the House, particularly in sensitive border areas like Belagavi.
Given these legal parameters, observers believe the privilege motion is unlikely to be admitted by the Speaker. The rare consensus among Karnataka MPs has further strengthened the case of the district administration, presenting the issue as one of public order rather than political targeting.
