BSY takes charge as state BJP chief, sets 150 seat target

Bengaluru, Jul 22: Yellow alert has been issued for Karnataka's Shivamogga, Chikmagalur, Hassan, and Kodagu for July 23 and 24.

Some areas of Bengaluru may receive light rainfall today, said CS Patil, Director, IMD Centre, Bengaluru.

He added that coastal areas of the state are very likely to experience rainfall from on July 23 and July 24, and that rainfall may increase July 24 onwards. Widespread rainfall is predicted for July 24th, 25th, and 26th.

Mysuru, Jan 28: The Second Additional District and Sessions Court on Monday granted anticipatory bail to B Nalini, who displayed the ‘Free Kashmir’ placard during a protest, and also to Maridevaiah, the organiser of the protest.

Nalini and Maridevaiah had applied for bail as Jayalakshmipuram police had booked them under sedition charges. Nalini had displayed the placard during a protest at Manasagangotri, the University of Mysore campus, recently. The court, which took up the case on January 24, had kept the order pending.

The court directed the accused to submit their passport to the court and a bond for a sum of Rs 50,000. The court also directed them to be present before the police, whenever needed.

Meanwhile, the Mysuru Bar Association has decided to take measures against the association members who are in favour of Nalini. Seventy-five members, seeking to represent Nalini, have withdrawn their support, the association secretary B Shivanna said. The association has suspended advocates Manjula Manasa and P P Baburaj.

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.