10-month-old girl swallows LED bulb when were busy in celebrating Diwali

Bengaluru, Feb 10: The Rashtriya Swyamsevak Sangh (RSS) on Sunday conducted a route march (Pathsanchalan) in Ramanagara to express solidarity with the anti-Christian forces protesting against a project to install 114-feet tall Jesus Christ statue atop Kapalabetta in Harobele town in Kanakapura taluk in Ramanagara district.

Hindutva ideologue Kalladka Prabhakara Bhat, who had led a rally in Kanakapura last month against the project, also led the Sunday’s route march and addressed a public meeting following the march.

“The district name is Ramanagara, but they have not nurtured the culture of Ram here. They have developed a strong culture of Ravana, which we pledged to dislodge,” Bhat told the gathering.

He said the Sangh Parivar will never allow the statue to come up as he said it would foment religious conversion that is rampant in Harobele.

“The so called Kapalabetta is of stones, which are revered as Lord Muneswara by the Hindus. This hillock must be named as Muneswara Betta,” he added.

Referring to the ongoing protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), Bhat said the law was brought in to protect the Hindu minority in Pakistan and Bangla Desh.

“The Muslims living in India hail Pakistan. But when we ask them to go to Pakistan, they will never go,” he took a jibe at the minority community.

Reacting to the RSS route march, senior Congress functionary DK Shivakunar, who represents Kanakapura assembly seat, said the Sangah Parivar is trying to disturb the communal harmony in the district and they will never succeed in it.

“The BJP is operating through the Sangh Parivar in the Ramanagara district. The party has won as may as 26 Lok Sabha seats in Karnataka, still they are doing all these things to keep their support base. People of Ramanagara will never back them,” said Shivakumar.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In a major embarrassment to the police, the Karnataka High Court has termed as illegal the prohibitory orders imposed under Section 144 of CrPC by the City Police Commissioner in December 2019 in the light of the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protests in Bengaluru.

The orders were passed “without application of mind” and without following due procedures, the court noted. Giving reasons for upholding the arguments of the petitioners that there was no application of mind by the Police Commissioner (Bhaskar Rao) before imposing restrictions, a division bench of the High Court said he had not recorded the reasons, except reproducing the contents of letters addressed to him by the Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs). 

The state government had contended that prohibitory orders were passed based on reports submitted by the DCPs who expressed apprehension about anti-social elements creating law and order problems and damaging public property by taking advantage of the anti-CAA protests.  

The High Court bench said the Police Commissioner should have conducted inquiry as stated by the Supreme Court to check the reasons cited by the DCPs who submitted identical reports. Except for this, there were no facts laid out by the Police Commissioner, the court said.

“There is complete absence of reasons. If the order indicated that the Police Commissioner was satisfied by the apprehension of DCPs, it would have been another matter,” it said.  

“The apex court has held that it must record the reasons for imposition of restrictions and there has to be a formation of opinion by the district magistrate. Only then can  the extraordinary powers conferred on the district magistrate can be exercised. This procedure was not followed. Hence, exercise of power under Section 144 by the commissioner, as district magistrate, was not at all legal”, the bench said. 

“We hold that the order dated December 18, 2019 is illegal and cannot stand judicial scrutiny in terms of the apex court’s orders in the Ramlila Maidan case and Anuradha Bhasin case,” the HC bench said while upholding the arguments of Prof Ravivarma Kumar, who appeared for some of the petitioners.   

Partly allowing a batch of public interest petitions questioning the imposition of prohibitory orders and cancelling the permission granted for protesters in the city, the bench of Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar observed that, unfortunately, in the present case, there was no indication of application of mind in passing prohibitory orders.

The bench said the observation was confined to this order only and it cannot be applicable in general. If there is a similar situation (necessitating imposition of restrictions), the state is not helpless, the court said.