AIMIM leader Waris Pathan to appear before Kalaburagi police on Mar 8 for controversial remark

Bengaluru, Apr 21: The group who had attacked police and healthcare workers at the minority-dominated Padarayanapura in the city on Sunday night had raised slogans ''kill police'' when the team went to quarantine some people, the police alleged in an FIR.

Around 100 to 120 people rushed out onto the road targeting the police and health workers who wanted to pick up primary and secondary contacts of coronavirus patients.

Cases have been registered against the miscreants based on the complaint of police officers.

In one of the FIRs, police sub-inspector Raman Gowda complained that when he went to quarantine 43 people with the healthcare officers, around 120 people rushed out and attacked them.

"The group of people holding sticks and stones rushed from Arafat Nagar," Mr Gowda said.

When he was trying to stop them from destroying a CCTV camera, the mob attacked him shouting slogans ''Kill the police. Don't spare them," he alleged in the FIR.

"They wanted to kill us with stones and sticks and some of our staff sustained injuries," the officer said.

According to police, 59 people have been arrested including A woman who had allegedly masterminded the attack.

Bengaluru, Apr 19: Former Karnataka Chief Minister H D Kumaraswamy on Sunday thanked Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa for backing his family regarding his son Nikhil s wedding, which drew flak for allegedly violating lockdown norms.

Asserting that social distancing was maintained during the wedding, the JD(S) leader in a series of tweets hit out at those accusing his family of violating lockdown norms, by stating that they were doing it out of "political hate".

"Despite maintaining social distancing and following rules during Nikhil's marriage, there are discussion that norms were not followed.

Because of political hate, poisonous comments are being made about an auspicious event, but Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa by rejecting all this is standing by the truth," Kumaraswamy said in a tweet in Kannada.

He said, "heartfelt thanks to Yediyurappa for his statement that a big political family in the state has conducted the marriage ceremony in a simple way."

Nikhil, the grandson of former prime minister H D Deve Gowda, entered wedlock on Friday at a Bidadi farmhouse with Revathi, the grandniece of former Congress minister M Krishnappa.

On the day of the marriage several posts on social media, also media reports had criticised the Gowda family for violating locdown norms and social distancing during the event.

Coming to the defence of Gowda family, Yediyurappa in response to a question on Saturday told reporters "They (family) had all the permissions and the event was held in a simple fashion. There's no need to discuss this.

"Despite having many relatives, they stuck to the limitations. For this, I congratulate them," he had said.

Stating that lockdown rules were followed during Nikhil's marriage, Kumaraswamy said, "By looking for politics in Nikhil's marriage, certain faulty minds on social media are spewing venom that is in their mind."

Gowda family had scaled down Nikhil's wedding, which was earlier planned in a 95-acre land near Ramanagara with a lavish set, with lakhs of party workers and well-wishers in attendance, followed by a grand reception in Bengaluru.

Nikhil has acted in couple of Kannada films in the lead role.

He had contested the 2019 Lok Sabha polls from the party bastion of Mandya and had lost against multilingual actress Sumalatha Ambareesh, an independent candidate supported by BJP, in a bitterly contested polls.

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.