BJP to promotes Hindu unity; aims at reaching out to Dalits ahead of polls

Dubai, Apr 26: Families were shattered as the three dead bodies of UAE-based Indian expats were returned to the country from New Delhi, India.

Family members waited outside the Indira Gandhi International Airport for hours, but they were later told to go back home as the remains of expats Jagsir Singh, Sanjeev Kumar and Kamlesh Bhatt were flown back to Abu Dhabi, following a new order implemented by India's Ministry of Home Affairs.

Inderjeet, brother-in-law of Sanjeev based in Al Ain, said their family in Punjab was devastated.

"This is a non-coronavirus death. We had a death certificate as proof and all necessary documents from Indian Embassy. But the body was returned while our family members waited outside the airport. This is very shocking," Inderjeet said.

"The body shouldn't have been returned. It's difficult to travel across states due to Covid-19 restrictions and also to arrange the ambulance," he added.

"Now the embassy has told me to come on Sunday. They said hopefully things will be sorted out in a day or two."

Meanwhile, the family of Kamlesh resides in the Indian state of Uttarakhand. This means, with existing travel restrictions, they had to secure permits from different states to reach New Delhi.

Dubai-based social worker Girish Pant, who is in touch with the family, said they are all depressed with the unfortunate turn of events.

"His brother Vimlesh had to return home without the remains. They are all clueless and in pain. With the new order from the Ministry of Home Affairs, I have informed the family that the body will reach them within 48 hours. I am also coordinating with the Indian Embassy," Pant 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.