Bengaluru: UAE Defence Minister visits HAL, evinces keen interest in LCA Tejas

Dr Soofi Anwar, Director Academics of University of Stirling RAK, UAE Campus, has achieved the prestigious professional recognition of Senior Fellow of the Higher Education Academy (HEA) UK. He has achieved this milestone through the Stirling Framework for Evidencing Learning and Teaching Enhancement (SFELTE), the Continuing Professional Development Framework (CPD) for learning and teaching at University of Stirling, Scotland, UK. 

He was recognized for this achievement on recently concluded virtual Learning & Teaching Conference-2020 organized by University of Stirling Campus in UK.  He has secured his Ph.D. in Management from University of Azteca, Mexico.

Dr. Soofi Anwar has over 20 years of experience in teaching and academic leadership at higher education level and has worked in leading universities in UAE, Bahrain and India. He was conferred the prestigious Middle East Education Leadership Award, as the Best Professor in Management-2018 in recognition of his academic excellence, exemplary leadership in higher education. Prior to his current role, he has worked on leadership position in Birla Institute of Technology Offshore Campus RAK.

He has completed his MBA from Dept. of Business Administration, Mangalore University in 1999 and his B. Com degree from Canara College Mangaluru.

He has published numerous research papers in management and in the area of teaching and learning in higher education in reputed academic journals and international conferences proceedings. He is a member of editorial board of two leading management journals and engaged in reviewing faculty research publications in the area of management and marketing. 

He is a son of Haji Abdul Khadar Kodijal and Mrs. Mariyamma from Konaje, Mangaluru.

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.