BJP MP Nalin Kumar Kateel threatens to set Dakshina Kannada district ablaze

Chennai, July 25: A widow living alone in her apartment in Chennai city suburbs has filed a police complaint against ABVP national president Dr Subbiah Shanmugam, accusing him of harassment, including urinating and throwing used surgical masks at her doorstep.

Shockingly, no action has been taken so far by the police, even though the complaint against Dr Shanmugam, who is in government service, was filed on July 11 at the Adambakkam Police Station here by the widow’s relative Balaji Vijayaraghavan. 

Dr Shanmugam and the 62-year-old widow were living in the same apartment complex in Nanganallur and an argument broke between them over a parking slot. “He wanted to use our parking lot. We agreed but demanded a nominal charge for using it. He was outraged by our demand and even broke our signboard at the parking lot,” Vijayaraghavan wrote in his complaint.

He also alleged that Dr Shanmugam began harassing her by throwing “pieces of chicken” outside her apartment despite knowing she is a vegetarian. Vijayaraghavan also alleged in his two-page written complaint that the ABVP National President had urinated outside the woman’s apartment gate and had been throwing garbage and used masks at her gate.

The 62-year-old woman has been living alone in her apartment for the last year following her husband’s death. In his complaint, Vijayaraghavan also said the family was “concerned about her safety”, while asking police to take action against Dr Shanmugam, who he says, “has a bad track record in maintaining rapport with neighbours.”

CCTV footage corroborates with the allegations of urinating outside the residence of the widow. However, the ABVP claimed the incident as a “malicious and derogatory propaganda” by the Congress’ student wing of NSUI.

Also Read: Finally FIR registered against ABVP national president for allegedly harassing widow

Bengaluru, Jul 16: Amid difficulties being faced by COVID-19 patients in getting beds, the Karnataka government on Wednesday made bed allocation display board mandatory in all hospitals registered under Karnataka Private Medical Establishment (KPME).

"It is made mandatory that all hospitals registered under KPME in Karnataka State should display at the reception counter, a bed allocation display board," a notification issued by the state government read.

"It should display the name of the hospital, the total number of beds (as per of KPME registration) and the total number of beds allocated for COVID-19 patients referred by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)," it said.

The notification further stressed that the data must corroborate with the data of the central bed allocation system of BBMP. The display board should be arranged by July 16.

Non-compliance to the order issued by the state government will attract punishment under relevant sections of the Disaster Management Act 2005 and Indian Penal Code, the order read.

The state government on June 23 issued a notification making it mandatory to reserve 50 per cent of the beds in private hospitals to treat COVID-19 patients referred by public health authorities.

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.