Big Boss fame, Sandalwood actress, Jayalakshmi joined Mahila Empowerment Party (MEP) officially on Friday, April 6 in a ceremony at Leela Palace Hotel in the city. She was welcomed into the party by Dr Nowhera Sheik, national president of MEP.

After her joining Jayalakshmi spoke to the scribes and said, “I have joined the party with the intention of conveying the ideology of MEP and the works done by Dr Nowhera Sheik, national president of the party to the commoner. Today politics has stoped to a very low level. The representatives we have elected and sent are busy abusing each other. In the coming Karnataka assembly elections, the role of MEP will be a deciding factor regardless of any party forming the government. I will contest from any constituency which the party assigns me.”

Speaking on the occasion Dr Nowhera Sheik said, “We will release the list of our party candidates very soon. We have the intention of fielding able candidates in 224 legislative constituencies. Out of the 35% will be represented by women,

The Supreme Court today did not agree to the fervent plea of an original litigant that the Ayodhya land dispute should be immediately referred to a larger bench as the issue was far more important than that of polygamy among Muslims, for which a constitution bench was constituted.

A special bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, made it clear to senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan, representing M Siddiq, that it will decide whether to send the matter to the larger bench only after hearing all parties to the litigation. Siddiq, now deceased, is one of the original litigants in the Babri Masjid-Ram Temple land dispute.

“You (CJI) sent pleas to strike down polygamy immediately to the Constitution Bench, but you are reluctant to send the Babri Masjid case to the Constitution Bench. Is polygamy more important than the right of Muslims to worship in a mosque,” Dhavan posed before the bench which also comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and S A Nazeer.

Former Attorney General and senior advocate K Parasaran, appearing for a Hindu group, opposed the plea and said it was the prerogative of the apex court to decide on which bench would hear the case.

Parasaran referred to the decision of the apex court that a five-judge bench would hear the petitions against the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) Act, despite the submission that earlier seven-judge benches had heard the second and the third judges cases that had brought the collegium system of appointment into force.

The hearing in the sensitive case began in the afternoon with an unusually unpleasant exchange of words between Dhavan and Additional Solicitor Generals (ASGs) Maninder Singh and Tushar Mehta. It started just after the bench assembled at 2 PM after ASG Singh apparently asked Dhavan, who was standing to advance his submissions, to move a bit.

“Sit down, Mr Maninder Singh,” Dhavan said at top of his voice, leading the ASG to retort by saying “behave yourself, Mr Dhavan”. Later during the day, Dhavan also made some uncharitable remarks against Parasaran, which led one of the lawyers to lodge a strong protest.

At the outset, Dhavan, who appeared for the legal representatives of the late Siddiq, referred to a recent apex court order by which the pleas, challenging the practice of polygamy and ‘Nikah Halala’ among Muslims, were sent to a five-judge constitution bench.

“A constitutional explanation was required…this (Ayodhya case) is far more important matter than the polygamy,” he said, adding that he was not required to advance the submissions for referring the case to a larger bench and it should be sent immediately.

“What is more important…The press is here, I am here, please say which is more important for you,” he asked, adding was it necessary to argue if the matter was going to be referred to a larger bench. “Why address the press in your arguments,” the bench asked.

“Because it is their right to know. I want the people of India to know. Press has the right to attend the hearing unless court makes it in-camera,” the senior lawyer replied, adding “the nation wants to know it”. Dhavan then referred to the 1994 verdict in the case of M Ismail Faruqui and assailed certain findings and observations like a mosque is not integral to the prayers offered by the followers of Islam.

The Faruqui verdict had dealt with the constitutional validity of the Acquisition of Certain Area at Ayodhya Act, 1993 by which the Centre had then taken over the disputed site and the adjoining land. The senior lawyer said, “the shadow of Ismail Faruqui has fallen on the minds of the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court (which decided the Ayodhya title case).”

He said the Faruqui judgement was needed to be referred to a larger bench as it had said that mosques are not integral to Islam under the Muslim Law and hence, this will have a bearing on the present case as well. He also referred to some other verdicts in support of the arguments that this case should be sent to a larger bench.

Two ‘rath-yatras’ were taken out by BJP leaders that had led to the destruction of the mosque, he said, adding that the land, where the mosque is situated, belongs to the ‘Allah’ even after the demolition of the mosque. He also referred to the judgements that had said that some miscreants had demolished the mosque on December 6, 1992. The advancing of arguments remained inconclusive and would resume on April 27.

Earlier, the apex court had said it would decide on whether to refer to a larger bench the issue of reconsideration of the entire 1994 verdict dealing with the acquisition of the disputed land in Ayodhya or parts of it. The special bench of the apex court is seized of a total of 14 appeals filed against the high court judgement delivered in four civil suits.

A three-judge bench of the Allahabad High Court, in a 2:1 majority ruling, had in 2010 ordered that the land be partitioned equally among three parties — the Sunni Waqf Board, the Nirmohi Akhara and Ram Lalla.

In the Karnataka Legislative Assembly there are 68 MLAs who have pending criminal cases against them. Out of this 35 MLAs have declared that they have serious criminal cases pending against them. Association for Democratic Reforms analysed the affidavits of 207 out of the 224 MLAs. The affidavits of 17 members were not analysed since they are not longer sitting members or due to badly scanned affidavits.

Party wise MLAs with Criminal Cases:
36(32%) out of 114 MLAs from Indian National Congress (INC),
13 (33%) out of 40 MLAs from Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP),
11 (31%) out of 35 MLAs from JD(S),
1(25%) out of 4 MLAs from KJP,
1(33%) out of 3 MLAs from BSRC,
1(100%) out of 1 MLA from SP,
1(100%) out of 1 MLA from KMP and 4(44%) out of 9 Independents MLAs had declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits. Party wise MLAs with Serious

Criminal Cases:
17(15%) out of 114 MLAs from Indian National Congress (INC),
8 (20%) out of 40 MLAs from Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP),
5(14%) out of 35 MLAs from JD(S),
1(100%) MLA each from SP and KMP and 3(33%) out of 9 Independents MLAs had declared serious criminal cases including cases related to attempt to murder, dacoity and kidnapping etc.

Crorepati MLAs:
Out of the 207 MLAs analysed, 193 (93%) are crorepatis.

Party wise Crorepati MLAs:
109 (96%) out of 114 from INC,
36(90%) out of 40 MLAs from BJP,
33 (94%) out of 35 MLAs from JD(S),
4 (100%) out of 4 MLAs from KJP,
2 (67%) out of 3 MLAs from BSRC,
1(100%) out of 1 MLA from KMP,
1(100%) out of 1 MLA from SP and 7(78%) out of 9 Independent MLAs had declared assets worth more than Rs. 1 crore.

Richest MLAs:
Priyakrishna of the Congress is the richest with assets worth Rs 910 crore.
Nagaraju N of Congress is second with Rs 470 crore worth assets.
Anil H Lad of the Congress has assets worth Rs 288 crore.
D K Shivakumar of Congress comes fourth with assets worth Rs 250 crore.
Santhosh Lad of Congress is fifth with assets worth Rs 186 crore.

Lowest assets:
H Rajesh of Congress has assets worth Rs 7 lakh.
D Ramakrishna of Congress has assets worth Rs 40 lakh.
G Ram Krishna of Congress comes third with assets worth Rs 50 lakh.
B B Ningaiah of JD(S) is fourth on this list with assets worth Rs 52 lakh.
Varthur Prakash an independent has assets worth Rs 66 lakh.

Party wise average assets:
Among major parties, the average assets per MLA for 114 INC MLAs was Rs.32.60 Crores, 40 BJP MLAs had average assets of Rs.13.23 Crores, 35 JD(S) MLAs had average assets of Rs.12.80 Crores, 4 KJP MLAs had average assets of Rs.2.99 Crores, 3 BSRC MLAs had average assets of Rs.2.92 Crores, 1 KMP MLA had average assets of Rs.145.21 Crores, 1 SP MLA had average assets of Rs.13.08 Crores and 9 Independents MLAs had an average assets of Rs.23.04 crores.

Age details of MLAs: 19 (9%) MLAs had declared their age to be between 25 and 40 years while 140 (68%) MLAs had declared their age to be between 41 and 60 years. 46(22%) MLAs had declared their age to be between 61 and 80 years and two MLAs had declared their age above 80 years. Gender details of MLAs: There are 6 (3%) women MLAs out of 207 MLAs analysed.

Karnataka Chief Minister, Siddaramaiah is yet to take a call on whether to contest from two constituencies or not. While it is certain that he would be contesting from the Chamundeshwari constituency, a call on whether to represent Badami in North Karnataka is yet to be taken.

Siddaramaiah said that party leaders had invited him to contest from Badami or any other constituency in North Karnataka. “However I am yet to decide on this”, he also said.
While expressing confidence of a win from Chamundeshwari, he also accused the BJP and JD(S) of joining hands to try and defeat him. He said that they have tried this in the past as well, but failed.
He further refuted allegations that he was using the state machinery to win the elections. “I have not done it in the past and will not do it now”, he also said.
On his meeting with the actor, Sudeep, Siddaramaiah said that he had come to invite him to inaugurate a cricket tournament. “I have not invited him for the campaign”, Siddaramaiah also said.