40 injured as tipper lorry rams into KSRTC bus 

Mysuru, Feb 21: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa said Amulya Leona, who raised pro-Pakistan slogans, had links with Naxalites.

Yediyurappa said that Amulya's links with Naxalites have been proved in an investigation. "She must be punished and action will be taken against the people behind it," he said.

"Bail should not be given to Amulya. Her father has also said he won't protect her. Its proved now that she had contacts with Naxals. Proper punishment should be given," he added.

While speaking to reporters at Mysuru Airport, the chief minister said unless actions are taken against the organisations who provoke them to make such comments, it is not possible to control them.

Yediyurappa suspects that the incident was a conspiracy to disturb peace and harmony in the state.

Minister B C Patil said that such incidents should not repeat. "It appears that youths are misused for such anti-national activities, he said.

Mangaluru, Feb 13: Jnandev Kamath, former President of erstwhile Mangalore Stock Exchange Limited died late last night in a private hospital in the city.

He was 65 and is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Jnandev Kamath was an alumnus of SDM College of Law and Business Management. 

He was one the founding members of Mangalore Stock Exchange Limited. He was an avid sportsman, an accomplished cricketer, a champion rallyist and golf coach. 

He often played for Pentlandpet Sports Association (PPSA) in his younger days.

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.