Social boycott ban bill passed, police can act suo motu | Bengaluru News

Belagavi: The assembly Thursday unanimously passed a bill prohibiting social boycott of individuals or groups based on caste or class, with members across party lines backing the move to criminalise the practice and strengthen enforcement by empowering police to act suo motu. The House approved The Karnataka Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Bill, 2025, piloted by social welfare minister HC Mahadevappa, after a detailed discussion. Mahadevappa said incidents of social boycott continued to persist as sections of privileged communities still treated the underprivileged as second-class citizens and exploited them. “It appears that existing laws have proven ineffective,” Mahadevappa said. Under the proposed law, those who commit, aid or abet social boycott face up to three years in jail, or a fine of up to Rs 1 lakh, or both. It defines social boycott as acts such as refusing to deal with, employ, hire or conduct business with a person. While the bill initially allowed victims or their family members to file complaints with the police or directly before a first-class judicial magistrate, former law minister TB Jayachandra of Congress flagged the need for stronger implementation. He pointed out that Clause 12 limited complaints to victims or family members and said police must be empowered to act on their own whenever instances of social boycott came to light. Mahadevappa accepted the suggestion, and the House unanimously passed the bill with an amendment granting police the power to register complaints suo motu. Highlighting the inclusion of mental health institutions within the regulatory framework, the assembly approved the Private Medical Institutions (Amendment) Bill, aimed at widening oversight and simplifying registration procedures for private healthcare facilities. Health and family welfare minister Dinesh Gundu Rao introduced the bill to amend the Karnataka Private Medical Institutions Act, 2007, noting that several private medical institutions, including mental health establishments, were earlier outside the purview of the law, resulting in regulatory gaps. The amendment seeks to streamline processes such as issuing and renewing provisional registration certificates for private medical institutions, which had faced delays under the existing registration and licensing mechanism. It also provides for nominations to the Private Medical Institutions Registration and Grievance Redressal Authority.