After supporting Muslim-Hindu couple, Sushma Swaraj tastes the hatred of Hindutva bigots

Bengaluru/Kodagu, Feb 24: Three days after the sloganeering by 19-year-old college student Amulya Leona Norohna at an anti-CAA rally and her subsequent arrest on charges of sedition kicked up a storm, Karnataka minister BC Patil on Sunday advocated central legislation that enables authorities “to shoot at sight” those chanting pro-Pakistan slogans.

Responding to reporters’ queries on the ongoing fracas over the chants, Patil said he would appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to bring in a law so that anti-national elements are “killed on the spot”.

“The Centre must promulgate a law that enables authorities to shoot those who do anything that is seen as anti-national and chant pro-Pakistan slogans,” Patil said. “These elements must be killed on the spot. I am appealing to the PM, through the media now, to bring in such a law. I will also write to the PM.”

In Kodagu, Union minister for chemicals and fertilizer, DV Sadananda Gowda, echoed state home minister home minister Basavaraj Bommai’s line that stringent action will be taken against those indulging in anti-national activity, saying there will be “no mercy” for those taking a pro-Pakistan stance.

“The Union government will assist in the police investigation in Amulya,” he said. Gowda went on to claim that many anti-national organizations have been using CAA protests for political gain.

“We will curb such incidents forever. We will not allow such incidents to happen in future. Organisers of such rallies should be thoroughly questioned,” Gowda said.

Bommai on Saturday had also claimed the government will initiate action against educational institutions and hostels it they fail to act against students indulging in such activity.

“The government will discuss ways to prevent such incidents in colleges and hostels. We will instruct heads of educational institutions and hostel wardens to initiate action against such students. If they fail, the government will take action against them,” Bommai said, without defining what constitutes anti-national activity.

However, despite Congress saying there is no room for anti-national activity and stringent action must be taken against those indulging in such activity, former minister and senior functionary DK Shivakumar suggested he found nothing in Amulya’s background to suggest she is anti-national.

“Let me make it absolutely clear that the Congress party will not support any person or persons who hail another country and bring shame to India,” Shivakumar said. “However, I have seen the girl’s [Amulya’s] previous posts on social media and read her statements on various forums. She has been making statements on an ideological ground. Let us not jump the gun, but investigate exactly what she meant to say.”

Bengaluru, Jun 18: Real estate continues to be a preferred asset class for investors amid the uncertainty emerging out of the pandemic, according to a report by National Real Estate Development Council (NAREDCO) and Housing.com.

Titled 'Concerned yet positive - The Indian Real Estate Consumer (April-May 2020)', the report showed that the real estate consumer remains positive with regard to the economic scenario and income stability for the coming six months.

"Real estate (35 per cent) is still perceived as the preferred mode of investment, followed by gold (28 per cent), fixed deposits (22 per cent), stocks (16 per cent) and homebuyers are likely to slowly return to the market in the coming six months," it said.

Price-points of residential realty have remained muted for the past few years, but are still a key deterrent, with the perception of being still unaffordable, according to nearly half of the potential homebuyers surveyed, who are currently staying in rented accommodation.

A majority of respondents surveyed (73%) comprise 'first time homebuyers', who are looking to buy a 'ready-to-move-in-house' for end-use and are from the age group of 25-45 years. While 60% of respondents opined that for the next six months, they would prefer a ready-to-move-in property, 21% said they were okay with a property with a delivery timeline of maximum one year.

The survey was conducted in April and May 2020, through a random sampling technique for a fair representation across regions. The insights presented in the survey represent the view of more than 3,000 potential homebuyers.

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.