All 5 arrested in Muslim League activist Safeer murder case are CPI workers

Bengaluru, Apr 17: Nikhil Kumaraswamy, son of former Karnataka Chief Minister HD Kumaraswamy, married Revathi, grand-niece of former Congress Minister for Housing, M Krishnappa, on Friday.

According to sources, more than 100 people participated in the marriage ceremony held at Kumaraswamy's farmhouse in Kethaganahally, Ramanagara.

There were around 50-60 members from former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda's family and more than 30 people participated from Revathi's family, sources added.

This comes in the middle of a nationwide lockdown which has been imposed to deal with the coronavirus threat.

Earlier, HD Kumaraswamy had said that the marriage ceremony would be held behind closed doors in the presence of family members.

Nikhil Kumaraswamy, who contested the Lok Sabha election from Mandya, is also the national youth wing president of Janata Dal-Secular.

Mangaluru, Mar 25: Fishing boats returned to the old Port in Mangaluru after the government prohibited deep-sea fishing till further orders on Wednesday to prevent the assembly of a large gathering here in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic. 

According to officials, deep-sea fishing activities result in the gathering of a large number of people and is much against the government's direction on maintaining social distancing. 

According to the Department, the 42-Km coastline in Dakshina Kannada hass 57 purse seine boats, 1,270 trawl boats, 1,483 gillnet boats, 549 other mechanised boats.

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.