Is Balochistan more important for you than Karnataka: UTK asks Modi

Bengaluru, May 26: The Karnataka government has decided cancel summer vacation for undergraduate and post-graduate students and universities during the 2020-21 academic year in the wake of severe academic loss due to COVID-19 lockdown.

Keeping in mind the loss of academic days due to the lockdown to contain the pandemic, the Higher Education Department has decided to go in for ‘Zero Vacation’. 

The state government decided to cancel all holidays particularly the summer holidays after holding a series of meetings with the Vice Chancellors and other academicians from various parts of the state.

The decision was also communicated during the review meeting of the Higher Education Department held by CM Yediyurappa on Tuesday in Bengaluru.

Bengaluru, Apr 22: Former Chief Minister and the Opposition Leader in the Karnataka Assembly Siddaramaiah appealed the state government not to discriminate the poor on political lines while distributing relief package to the COVID-19 affected people in the state.

He was speaking to newsmen after attending a grocery kits distribution programme, organised in Jayanagar Assembly constituency, which was represented by the Congress MLA and former minister Ramalinga Reddy.

Charging that there are complaints about the state government in discriminating the Congress MLAs represented constituencies in providing relief kits to distribute among the poorer sections in the society, he said that “there should not be no room for politics, while fighting the COVID-19 disease”.

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.