Ayodhya settlement draft to be ready by Dec 6: UP Shia Waqf Board

Chamrajnagar, May 30: Karnataka Cabinet Minister Ramesh Jarakiholi said on Friday that over22 Congress MLAs were in touch with him and he can bring five of them.

"More than 22 Congress MLAs are in contact with me and if the high commands wants, I can bring five of them tomorrow," Jarakiholi told reporters.

Replying on speculation that some MLAs in BJP are not happy and want to join the Congress, he said, "Congress is a sinking boat and nobody wants to go to Congress now."

Meanwhile, sources in BJP have said that some party leaders are not happy including Basangouda Ramangouda Patil Yatnal.

Basvanagowda Patil said earlier this week that "BS Yediyurappa is not his CM, he is the CM of Karnataka. My leaders are Narendra Modi and JP Nadda."

The sources also said that other close aides of Yeddyurappa like Umesh Katti and Murugesh Nirani are no longer happy with him as they are yet to be included in the state cabinet.

The sources said Nirani has stood with Yeddyurappa but has not been included in the cabinet. There is speculation that several MLAs are in touch with Nirani.

Sources said Nirani, Umesh Katti, Basvanagowda Patil and several other leaders held a meeting in an undisclosed location.

Congress leader DK Suresh said the Congress has no role in the developments in BJP. "Yeddyurappa government will be brought down by their own MLAs. Congress has no role in it," he said.

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.