Charitable Endowments (Amendment) Bill
Context
- The Karnataka State Assembly passed the amendment in March 2024.
- Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has reserved the Bill for Presidential assent, citing legal and constitutional concerns.
Why Was It Reserved?
- The original 1997 Act was struck down by the Karnataka High Court in 2006 for violating:
- Article 14 ,Article 25 ,Article 26
- However, the Supreme Court stayed the High Court judgment in 2007, keeping the Act in effect.
Key Provisions of the Amendment Bill
- Temple Contributions to Common Pool Fund:
- Temples with annual income > ₹1 crore: 10% of gross income to be contributed.
- Temples with annual income between ₹10 lakh – ₹1 crore: 5% of gross income to be contributed.
- Earlier: The levy was on net income for temples earning over ₹5 lakh.
- Article 200: Governor’s options – assent, withhold, return, or reserve for President.
Article 201: President may assent, withhold, or return (non-money bills).
Revocation of Suspension of 18 BJP MLAs in Karnataka Assembly
Context
- Karnataka Assembly Speaker U T Khader revoked the six-month suspension of 18 BJP MLAs, allowing them to attend the upcoming monsoon session.
Background
- MLAs were suspended during the Budget Session for disruptive behavior.
- Removed from the House by marshals.
Speaker’s Powers & Constitutional Limits
- Speaker can suspend MLAs for maintaining order (Assembly Rules).
- Article 190(4): MLA seat can be declared vacant after 60 days of unapproved absence.
- Article 212: Legislature controls own proceedings — but not immune to judicial review.
- Rule 53 of Assembly: Suspension valid only during the ongoing session.
- RPA 1951, Sec 8(3): Disqualification if convicted & sentenced to 2+ years.
Judicial Stand
- SC Judgment (Ashish Shelar Case): Suspension beyond one session/60 days is unconstitutional.
- Long suspensions can deny constituency representation and violate democracy.
Courts act as a check on Speaker’s discretion to prevent misuse.
Karnataka Government vs Mysore Royal Family – TDR Dispute
Context
- The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Karnataka’s plea challenging a direction to grant TDR (Transferable Development Rights) worth ₹3,011 crore to the heirs of the Mysore royal family.
Background of the Dispute
- 1996: Land (15 acres of Bangalore Palace Grounds) was acquired by the State under the Bangalore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act.
- 1997: Royal family challenged the validity of the 1996 Act in the Supreme Court — case still pending.
- 2004: Section 14B added to Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act – introduced TDR provision.
Recent Developments
- May 22, 2025: SC bench (Justices MM Sundresh & Aravind Kumar) directed State to issue TDR certificates worth ₹3,011 crore in a contempt proceeding.
- Karnataka Government now seeks review, arguing that:
- Land was acquired in 1996, before TDR provisions (2004)
- Rs 11 crore compensation was already fixed under the 1996 Act.
About TDR (Transferable Development Rights)
- A compensation mechanism where landowners receive development rights instead of monetary compensation.
- Commonly used for public projects like road widening or infrastructure development.
Applies mainly when land is voluntarily surrendered.
