Bengaluru citizens' group moves SC to intervene in Cauvery case

Mangaluru, Feb 7: To stop the NRC and CAA from being implemented everyone has to fight unitedly highlighting the failures of the ruling party, said National President of Priyadarshini squad, All India National Women’s Congress Kavya Narasimha Murthy.

Addressing the workshop for the protection of Citizenship against CAA, NRC and NPR for the party workers at the Cordel Hall, Kulshekar here Thursday by district Congress party, she said, “Protests are being held everywhere against the CAA, NRC and NPR but if we only go on protesting, the ruling party will implementing divisive policies and new laws every day.

Many think that they may not be affected by the CAA, NRC or NPR and keep away from protesting against it. The congress should fight against the CAA concentrating on three approaches. We cannot fight against divisive politics by fighting only against the CAA and NRC. We need to expose the government’s failures, their divisive politics and continue our protests against the CAA, NCR and NPR.”

Udupi, Apr 20: Patients from outside the district visiting Udupi for emergency treatment should be in possession of a certificate, issued by the district health officer or taluk health officer, that they do not have any symptoms of Covid-19.

The decision was taken during an expert committee meeting chaired by Udupi Deputy Commissioner Jagadeesha on Sunday.

The Deputy Commissioner said he will send a letter to all Deputy Commissioners in this regard. The patients from other districts will be treated in various hospitals in Udupi, only in case of emergency.

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.