4 wives & 40 children' concept led to population explosion: Sakshi Maharaj

Mangaluru, Jan 16: Following the widespread protests against the National Register of Citizens (NRC) and Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), former minister and MLA UT Khader on Thursday urged the Centre and State government to address the concerns of the people.

Speaking to reporters here on Thursday, he said there is widespread confusion among the public with regard to the implementation of the Act. People are reluctant to open their doors to Asha workers, out of fear that the NRC exercise is being implemented, said Khader.

He urged the chief minister and home minister to gain the trust of the people on the CAA issue.

Udupi, May 19: Within minutes after health and family welfare department announced four fresh covid-19 cases in Udupi district, a girl who had come from central part of Karnataka tested positive for the coronavirus thereby taking the count of cases detected after last evening to five. 

With this the total number of confirmed covid-19 cases in the district rose to 16. Three among them have recovered. One patient died last week. There are 12 active cases. 

According to sources, the 17-year-old girl from Chitradurga had visited KMC hospital in Manipal for cancer treatment on May 16. 

Her throat swabs were sent for corona testing on the following day. Today she obtained a positive report. Hence, she was shifted to Dr TMA Pai Covid hospital.

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.