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

Mangaluru/ Udupi, June 19: As many as 13 fresh coronavirus positive cases were reported in Dakshina Kannada on June 19, taking the total number of cases in the coastal district to 414. In Udupi, the total number of covid cases mounted to 1,050 with 11 new cases.

Four among the 13 patients in Dakshina Kannada had returned from Saudi Arabia and seven had returned from Sharjah recently. Two others were suffering from an influenza-like illness (ILI). All the 13 patients have been shifted to the designated COVID hospital in Mangaluru.

In Udupi, three among the 11 new covid patients are children. Four are Maharashtra returnees and two had come from Tamil Nadu. Five others have contracted infection from other positive patients. 

Only 98 cases are currently active in Udupi among 1,050. As many as 950 patients have been discharged from hospital. Two deaths have occurred in the district including one on Friday.

Bengaluru, Feb 14: In order to bring down the accident rates, Karnataka government is planning to increase the penalty for road offences, state Transport Minister Laxman Savadi announced here on Thursday.

Addressing media persons here, he said, ''The Centre had brought an amendment to increase the penalty amount. We too have a similar proposal, which we will discuss, post the budget session.

''Before bringing in the amendment, we will create awareness among the road users. By increasing the penalty amount, the number of offences and accidents will come down,'' Mr Savadi added.

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.