25 eloquent points from PM Modi’s I-Day speech 

Bengaluru, Apr 16: A 66-year old man from the city, became the thirteenth COVID-19 related fatality in Karnataka, Health Department officials said on Thursday.

The elderly patient from Bengaluru, who was coronavirus positive died on April 15 at Victoria Hospital in the city, officials said.

"He was referred from a private hospital and was admitted in Victoria Hospital and was on ventilator support since April 10," they added.

A 80-year old woman in Belagavi and a 65-year old man from Chikkaballapura had also died on Wednesday.

Bengaluru, Feb 15: The Karnataka Legislative Assembly has decided to set aside two days - March 2 and 3 - for a special discussion over the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act continues across the country.

Assembly Speaker Vishweshwara Hegde Kageri told media persons here today that the Assembly would act as a platform for legislators to speak about the relevance of the Constitution and its contributions for the last seven decades. He had already held a round of discussions with senior legislators and all have expressed their willingness to participate in the debate. More details of the discussion would be worked out in the next few days after a meeting of the Business Advisory Committee of the House on February 18.

Asked whether it would be possible to have discussions rising above partisan politics in the present scenario, Mr. Kageri said “I have appealed to members to discuss the Constitution beyond the political prism.” Each member would be asked to speak on a specific topic of the Constitution.

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.