Ace Kannada actor Chandrashekhar passes away in Canada

Udupi, Jun 9: A Mesolithic site has been discovered at Iduru-Kunjadi in Kundapura taluk of Udupi district of Karnataka by Prof T Murugeshi, Associate Professor of Ancient History and Archaeology at MSRS College, Shirva.

Prof Murugeshi said on Tuesday that the site is near a rock art site of the Mesolithic period that was unearthed. It is located in the Mookambika Wildlife Reserve Forest. At Iduru-Kunjadi, the finds of Mesolithic tools are characterised by blades, scrapers, burine, fluted cores, arrow-heads and flakes of the non-geometric pattern.

He said that though the site was found two years back, it took time to study and identify them. They resembled the tools found in a stratified context at Uppinangady on the Netravati basin, he added.

Chikkamagaluru, Jan 10: At least 15 RSS activists protesting against the 16th Chikkamagaluru District Kannada Sahitya Sammelan at Sringeri were detained, Police said here on Friday.

The Sangh Parivar activists gathered near the entrance of the hall where the event was being held and started sloganeering against the election of the leftist Kalkuli Vittal Hegde as the president of the literary gathering. The police then interfered and detained several protesters to bring situation under control.

Despite protests from the right wing organisations, the event went ahead and began as per the schedule.

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.