Anger is Modi’s problem; he attacks me and my mom as he sees threat in me: Rahul

Shivamogga, Jun 30: The organic farmers' market in Shivamogga in Karnataka has seen a rise in the demand for organic fruits and vegetables in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Residents of nearby areas frequently visit the market to get fresh produce.

According to Sridhar, a farmer who sells his produce in the market, the demand for organic fruits and vegetables was very low before the coronavirus outbreak.

"I have been involved in organic farming for the last two decades but there was no real market. Since these days everyone is trying to boost their immunity, we are getting a lot of positive response from the locals," he told news agency.

Sridhar and other farmers come from villages near the city. They are authentic organic farmers under the Vikas Trust and Savayava Krishi Parivar, a federation of organic farmer's families based in Karnataka, and they promote pesticide and fertiliser free agriculture.

Gurumel Singh, who often comes to the local market said, "My family has started eating more organic fruits and vegetable now because of the pandemic. We have been told it is important to take care of our health and organic fruits and vegetables are good immunity boosters. The fruits I buy from the organic market are also much sweeter than the ones I get elsewhere."

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.