BSY appeals HC to prevent media, Cong leaders from talking about his ‘past’

Bengaluru, July 14: Ahead of the week-long lockdown in Bengaluru starting from Tuesday night, around 35,000 people have left the city and grocery stores and liquor shops are witnessing a rush with customers thronging to stock up on for the shutdown.

According to transport department officials, labourers from other parts of the state migrated in good numbers from Bengaluru ahead of the lockdown fearing that they would have to face similar challenges as they had to confront during the previous shuttering. 

"Yesterday 35,000 passengers left Bengaluru. The number is big given the fact that we are allowing a limited number of passengers in the buses to maintain social distancing," a KSRTC official said.

Tipplers made a beeline for liquor shops and a senior State Excise official said liquor worth Rs 230 crore was sold on Monday alone.

"There was apparently a mad rush yesterday.India Made Foreign Liquor worth Rs 215.55 crore and 14.83 crore worth beer was sold...," the officer said.

In view of the rising coronavirus cases in the city at an alarming proportion, the government decided to impose lockdown from Tuesday 8 pm till 5 am on July 22.

Later, Dharwad and Dakshina Kannada districts too decided to impose a lockdown for nine days and seven days respectively from Wednesday.

"For the past two days there is an unusual rush of customers in our store," an executive of the Metro Cash and Carry said.

According to him, people are buying grocery items and vegetables with long shelf life such as onion, potato, radish, carrot and beetroot.

A salesperson at the Star Bazaar too said people were thronging the store for the past two to three days.

During the Sunday curfew, Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai said the week-long lockdown will be stringent one and government has made all arrangements to address all concerns ahead of the shutdown.

As many as 19,702 people in Bengaluru have tested positive, of which there are 15,052 active cases, while 4,328 have been discharged.

The number of fatalities as of Monday is 321.

Across Karnataka, 41,581 people have tested positive for coronavirus including 24,572 active cases, 16,248 discharges and 757 deaths since the outbreak of the pandemic in the state.
 

Bengaluru, May 23: It was a stampede-like situation near Palace Grounds in Bengaluru on Saturday afternoon. The incident took place after hundreds of migrants gathered and jostled to gain entry. The situation raises concerns as no social distancing norms were followed.

According to Chetan Singh Rathore, DCP Central, the reason behind the stampede-like situation was an en masse message. "What we heard was that an en masse message has been conveyed to the people of Manipur and Odisha that they would be able to go home on trains on Saturday. The message did not consider the capacity of the train which is only 1500 seating capacity for Manipur train and 1500 for Odisha train," he told media.

Singh further added, "But the people gathered were around 3000 in number for the Manipur train and 5000 for the Odisha train. Passengers with tickets and requisites were allowed to travel while others were asked to return home and wait for their turn to travel back home."

The state of Karnataka has eased lockdown restrictions across, allowing state transport services to run. Lately, the government has been running special Shramik trains from Karnataka to ferry migrant workers back to their hometowns.

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.