Bollywood music composer duo Sajid-Wajid join BJP

Bengaluru, Jul 6: Karnataka government has revised quarantine norms according to which those entering the State from other states, including from Maharashtra, shall be placed in 14-days home quarantine.

Until now, the state government had issued that those returning from Maharashtra are to be placed under 7-day institutional quarantine followed by 7-day home quarantine.

A fresh state government order with the subject line "Regulation of movement of persons from other States to Karnataka" reads: "Whereas the State Government vide Order dated June 30, issued unlock 2 guidelines which permit reopening of more activities in a calibrated manner, in areas outside the Containment Zones, and to extend lockdown in Containment Zone upto July 31. The guidelines also permit unrestricted interstate movement of persons and goods adhering to the SOPs/ Guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Revenue (Disaster Management)".

Whereas, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued revised SOP for the moment of persons from other State to Karnataka vide document dated June 8, this year, further, quarantine norms were modified vide Orders of even number dated June 15 and June 26.

"The quarantine norms are regularly reviewed and calibrated with the prevailing Unlock 2 guidelines and infusion of technology and community involvement to enforce the strict home quarantine. In light of the above, the quarantine norms issued vide Order dated June 26, has been further modified and is follows--Persons coming from other State to Karnataka, including Maharashtra shall be placed in 14-days Home Quarantine," the order read.

"The other conditions as specified in the Order dated June 15 and aforementioned SOP enclosed issued on June 8 by the Department of Health and Family Welfare shall continue to be in force until further orders," it added.

Bengaluru, May 27: A yet incomplete state-wide survey has revealed that there are over 53.99 lakh households vulnerable to the infection in Karnataka. The survey is being conducted by the government to find COVID-19 vulnerable population particularly with comorbidities and cases like SARI and ILI.

The survey, which is 67.16% complete so far, finds 1.37 lakh households across Karnataka have people with comorbid conditions, excluding a further 13,341 households with symptoms of Influenza Like Illness (ILI), Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) and Covid-19.

Over 48 lakh households have senior citizens, who on account of their age are at highest risk of death from the disease.

Munish Moudgil, Director of the State COVID War Room, clarified that households could have multiple types of vulnerable people. According to the survey data (which is dated May 26), Kalaburagi and Bengaluru Urban have the highest cases of SARI, ILI with 1,902 households and 1,703 households respectively, although these numbers are likely to rise, as the survey is still incomplete in these districts. 

A BBMP source said that 68% of the survey has been completed in the city, but the data has not been logged yet. The number of SARI/ILI cases is next highest in Shivamogga with 1,217 households, Mysuru with 1,200 and Davangere with 1,178.

The government regards SARI and ILI as indicators of coronavirus and on April 17, had passed an order instructing healthcare workers to test people with these conditions for the coronavirus. Consequently, 51 COVID-19 cases were discovered by testing people with these symptoms.

Belagavi, meantime, has reported the highest incidents of households with comorbid conditions with 12,427 identified so far, followed by Mandya with 9,289, Kalaburagi with 8,311, Shivamogga with 8,140 and Bengaluru Urban with 7,562. Importantly, 3,45,443 vulnerable people have been identified in Bengaluru Urban within 28.26% of data logged in so far.

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.