Bengaluru abattoir raid: What’s the truth behind attack on Nandini?

Bengaluru, Mar 10: Congress leader NA Haris on Tuesday said that keeping Jammu and Kashmir leaders under house arrest is not democratic.

Speaking to media persons he said, "It is not done. Keeping the leaders under house arrest in Jammu and Kashmir is not democratic."

Haris said that nobody is talking about it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not talking about it and nothing is happing.

"About Kashmir, it is better to say less as nobody is talking about it. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is not talking about it and nothing is happening. It does not look good," he told media.

"I think leaders should be brought to the table and discussion on issues should take place. Do whatever has to be done for the country," he added.

The Jammu and Kashmir Administration had on February 5 invoked the Public Safety Act (PSA) against former Chief Ministers Mehbooba Mufti and Omar Abdullah. The duo was detained after the Central government abrogated Article 370 last year.

Bengaluru, Jan 28: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Tuesday warned the officials that strict action will be taken against the officials, who demand bribe from beneficiaries in various schemes.

Speaking after distributing the regularising letters to around 1000 people belonging to the Backward class in government lands, Mr Yediyurappa said the government was itself coming to the doorsteps of people.

“Officials will visit door to door to distribute the regularization letters and if any officials demand bribe bring to the notice of the government which will take action against such persons,” 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.