AB Ibrahim cautions against withdrawal of cases against Pramod Muthalik

Lucknow, Apr 13: Muslims in Uttar Pradesh are now worried that the intense communal profiling of the Corona patients by the official agencies could lead to lynching incidents once the lockdown is lifted.

Muslim scholar and former SP spokesman, Abdul Hafiz Gandhi, on Monday said, "The manner in which the government agencies are identifying persons belonging to Tablighi Jamaat in the list of Covid-19 patients is now translating into intense communal profiling which has been prohibited by the World Health Organization and the central government. A very small percentage of Muslims subscribe to the Tablighi Jamaat ideology but the impression going around is that the Muslim community, in general, is spreading coronavirus."

He said that there was a strong possibility of Muslims, in general, being attacked after the lockdown is lifted.

"This is exactly what happened on the cow slaughter issue. Even a small rumour led to people being lynched by mobs across the country. Corona is a pandemic and should be treated like one. We should fight against the virus together instead of creating a communal divide. Every day, the government spokesman lays down the number of Corona positive cases and then goes on to say how many of them are from Tablighi Jamaat," he explained.

Amir Haider, a social activist and also a veteran Congress leader, echoed similar sentiments when he said, "We strongly condemn the Tablighi Jamaat for ignoring the protocols and holding the congregation but why is the state government repeatedly harping on the religious angle. Shia and Sunni clerics are repeatedly asking the people to adhere to government guidelines and follow safety protocols.

He said that efforts to create a communal divide on the corona issue could have dangerous ramification after the lockdown is lifted."

A retired IAS officer, who did not wish to be named, said, that people have already started objecting to taking home deliveries from Muslim employees.

"My neighbours refused to take delivery of groceries from a Muslim boy. This is just the beginning of the narrative that is being drilled into the minds. We must check this before it explodes into something very dangerous," he said.

Mangaluru, Feb 5: ‘Forum for the justice of December 19 Mangaluru firing victims’ has demanded that the policemen who are responsible for the death of two innocent men in Mangaluru one-and-a-half months ago should be booked for homicide. 

49-year-old Abdul Jaleel Kandak, a father of two, and 23-year-old Nausheen Kudroli, were killed in an arbitrary and unwarranted police firing during a disturbance occurred due to police baton charge in the city on December 2019. 

Addressing a press conference, Forum’s convenor Abdul Jaleel Krishnapur said that a judicial inquiry commission should be set up to probe into the police firing which claimed two lives and injured many other innocent civilians.  

“Already a murder case should have been filed against the policemen who opened fire on the people.  Instead, false cases have been booked against many innocent people including the victims. This is a blot on the society,” he said. 

He urged the government to direct the police department to drop false charges registered against the victims and take necessary action against the culprits in khaki. 

He said that the Form demands Rs 25 lakh each compensation for the kin of the two men murdered by the police and Rs 15 lakh compensation for those who injured in police firing on December 19.

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.