19-year-old shot dead by JDU leader's son for overtaking his SUV

Bengaluru, Jan 24: After Honnalli legislator MP Renukacharya, Ballari City MLA Somashekara Reddy and deputy chief minister Govind Karjol, it appeared the turn of revenue minister R Ashoka to show the BJP in poor light with controversial and provocative comments against a minority community. This, despite a gag order issued by state BJP president Nalin Kumar Kateel.

Responding to questions on the Mangaluru International Airport bomb scare incident and how the main accused would have been treated had he been a Muslim, Ashoka on Thursday said "all anti-nationals must be shot dead". Meanwhile, Renukacharya, also a political secretary to chief minister BS Yediyurappa, continued his tirade against Muslims, insisting the government will not extend any "special package" to the community.

Soon after garlanding the statue of Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose on the birth anniversary of the freedom fighter, at Vidhana Soudha on Thursday, Ashoka said: "All those who are singing the tune of Pakistan and indulging in anti-national activities, be they Hindu, Christian or Muslim, must be shot dead."

Asked to respond to former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy’s accusation that the entire Mangaluru bomb incident was stage-managed by the BJP government to divert attention, Ashoka said the JD(S) functionary "must measure his words" and not speak "like a film director who can project the police as villainous all the time".

"Kumaraswamy is a former CM. When in power, police were his closest friends, but now that he is not in government, the same police are villains," Ashoka said.

The minister reiterated the government’s stand — first floated by home minister Basavaraj Bommai —

that Aditya Rao, the main accused in the Mangaluru bomb incident, is "mentally unstable" and needs to be medically examined.

Renukacharya, meanwhile, justified comments made on Wednesday that the government will not offer Muslims "a special package".

"When they [Muslims] need development funds, they come to us and seek special packages. Once they get funds, they then vote for Congress or JD(S) in elections," Renukacharya said on Thursday. "We do not need people with such double standards. I will apply pressure on all ministers in the cabinet and even the chief minister to ensure they do not allocate any special package for the community."

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.