Another jolt to coalition govt as Congress MLA Anand Singh announces resignation

Ballari, Mar 6: Ballari Deputy Commissioner S S Nakul on Friday said that two persons who had shown symptoms of COVID-19 had been admitted to the district government hospital here.

Informing this to the presspersons here, Mr Nakul said that the cases were reported from Jindal village of K R Hospital taluk and another one from Hospet town in Ballari taluk.

He said a suspect returned from Dubai to Hospet last week and showed symptoms of COVID-19. Both suspected patients were admitted to special isolated ward in Ballari government hospital and their throat swab tests taken on Thursday had been sent to lab in Bangalore to check for COVID-19.

Bengaluru, Apr 7: The Karnataka Government indicated today that it is too early to take a call now on lifting the nation-wide lockdown but said it’s in favour of its extension in COVID-19 hotspots in the country by at least an additional two weeks.

“We need to see for another few days before taking final call,” Medical Education Minister Sudhakar K, who is in-charge of all matters related to COVID-19, told news agency Press Trust of India when asked if the State is in favour of the rollback after the 21-day period ends on April 14.

The minister opined that the decision on its withdrawal should be based on the COVID-19 pandemic situation at the time in terms of number of cases and response to the outbreak.

When the lockdown is lifted, it has to be in a staggered and phased manner, and not at one go, Mr Sudhakar stressed.

“Where there are red alerts and zones, those zones, in my opinion, should continue to be in a lockdown situation at least for two weeks…till this month-end, I will request them (the Centre) to do this,” he said.

The Telananga Chief Minister K Chandrasekhar Rao on Monday appealed to the Prime Minister Narendra Modi to extend the 21-day national lockdown imposed to contain COVID-19 outbreak beyond April 14, saying it was essential to save lives.

Mr Sudhakar said the Karnataka government is facing financial challenges because of drastic fall in revenues due to the lockdown, adding, it would take “tough decisions” to cut expenditure.

The Finance Department is in the process of evaluating the state’s fiscal position.

“Finance department is gathering information…what is the need now, what should be the overall expenditure, how much we can save; financial support for unorganised and organised sector, along with stimulus to other sectors, we have to see where we stand financially,” the minister said.

“Based on that, we have to take certain steps for sure because after all the government runs on the exchequer money. Once the exchequer is stopped because of lockdown, we are not getting GST, no motor vehicle tax. No tax money is coming.”

Government also has to run right? he said.

He said commitment and obligations with regard to paying interest on loans taken at the national and international level would have to be met.

“So, there are some financial constraints, and financial challenges before the government. The Government will take tough decisions only after studying the entire finance (position of the State).”

The Telangana government last week announced pay cut for government employees.

The Union Cabinet on Monday approved a 30 per cent cut in salaries of all Members of Parliament and a two-year suspension of the MP Local Area Development (MPLAD) scheme.

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.