Amit Shah has come to unseat Siddaramaiah; let DKS become CM: Poojary

Bengaluru, Jul 6: With a record 1,925 new cases across the state during the last 24 hours, Karnataka's Covid-19 tally rose to 23,474 including 13,251 active after 9,847 were discharged till date, an official said on Sunday.

"Of the total cases across the state on a single day, Bengaluru accounted for 1,235, taking its positive tally to 9,580, including 8,167 active," said the health official in a statement.

With 37 succumbing to the disease in the state, including 16 from Bengaluru, the state's death toll increased to 372, with 145 from this tech city since March 9.

Of the 603 discharged from across the state during the day, 302 were from Bengaluru, taking its total number of cured to 1,267 so far.

Of the 243 cases in the intensive care unit (ICU) across the state, 132 are in Bengaluru, 15 at Dharwad, 12 at Kalaburagi and 10 each at Ballari and Raichur.

Of the 16,899 samples tested in the day, 14,649 were negative and 1,925 positive. Of the total 7,06,425 samples tested so far, 6,65,525 were negative and 23,474 positive.

After Bengaluru, Dakshina Kannada reported 142 positive cases followed by Ballari 90, Vijayapura 57, Kalaburagi 49 and Udupi and Dharwad 45 each.

Of the total 603 discharged, 52 were from Kalaburagi, 37 from Ballari, 36 from Dakshina Kannada and 22 each from Udupi and Dharwad.

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.