Banks turn to temples, liquor shops for small-value notes

New Delhi, June 27: The Prime Minister Narendra Modi-led union government of India is not ready to stop all imports from aggressive China in spite of mount calls to boycott Chinese products in India.

The Centre is reportedly considering to stop only non-essential imports from the neighbouring country.

However, the Inward shipment in sectors such as automobiles, pharmaceuticals, certain electronics and others will continue until a domestic alternative is found.

“India will gradually move towards import substitution. It will not happen overnight. In the meantime, attention has to be paid on production and job creation. We cannot throttle our industry. There are certain absolutely essential imports. Needless to say, those will keep going,” official sources said.

Sources said that both the government and the industry are in the process of identifying products that can be domestically manufactured in the medium term. There are certain chemicals, automotive components, handicrafts, cosmetics, agriculture items and certain consumer electronics, which can be manufactured domestically in the short to medium term. The government is doing all it can to raise the capacity of domestic industries.

However, there are certain other imports in the automobile and the pharmaceutical sectors which cannot be done away within the short to medium term. Their domestic production at the moment may not be that cost-effective.

The six-crore strong traders’ body CAIT has been at the forefront of such a demand and has launched a campaign to celebrate Indian Diwali this year with a total absence of Chinese goods.

“Ease of doing business, capital availability at lower rates and globally competitive logistics and energy costs are some of the prerequisites that the government should look into to ensure the growth of the domestic auto component industry,” according to Automotive Component Manufacturers Association of India (ACMA) Director General Vinnie Mehta.

Maruti Suzuki Chairman R C Bhargava said, “People who are boycotting Chinese goods have to remember that in some cases it may lead to their being asked to pay more for the same product."

Meanwhile, domestic rating agency Acuite Ratings & Research has analysed the current import portfolio from China and found 40 sub-sectors have the potential to lower their import dependency on China. These sectors contribute to $33.6 billion worth of imports from China and about 25% of these imports can be substituted by local manufacturing without any significant additional investments.

Bengalur, May 2: Two people died of COVID-19 in Karnataka on Saturday taking the toll in the state to 25, whereas nine more tested positive for the virus, pushing the tally to 598, the health department said. Two deaths were reported in Bidar and Bengaluru urban, the health department said in a statement.

An 82-year-old person with a history of Severe Acute Respiratory Illness died in Bidar. While the second fatality was a 62-year-old man with a history of diabetes, hyper-tension, renal failture and was on multiple myeloma on chemotherapy, in Bengaluru. He too had complained of breathlessness on April 30 and died on Saturday at the designated hospital.

Among the nine new cases, two each are from Tumakuru, Vijayapura, one each from Bidar, Chikkaballapura, Belagavi, Bagalkot and Bengaluru urban. Cumulatively, 598 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state and it includes 25 deaths.

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.