Caste, income, residence certificates to be issued instantly in Karnataka

Mangaluru, Jan 11: Reacting to the recent video clippings provided to the media by former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy in connection with the December 19 unrest in Mangaluru, city Police Commissioner Dr PS Harsha on Saturday said that the video has to be seen in a proper sequence to come to a conclusion on the happenings of that day.

Releasing videos in bits and pieces on social media or any platform will not help disclose the truth, said Harsha.

Mumbai, Jul 1: The Maharashtra government will set up a Marathi medium college in Kolhapur for the Marathi- speaking people residing in the border areas of Karnataka, a minister said on Tuesday.

Higher and technical education minister Uday Samant, in a statement here, said the decision has been taken with a view to cater to the educational needs of the Marathi-speaking population residing in the neighbouring state.

He said the new state-run college will be a sub-centre of the Shivaji University at Kolhapur.

The Kolhapur district collector will provide a five- acre plot for the proposed college following which all necessary official permissions will be given, Samant said.

The college will start functioning from the next academic year, the release said.

Acommittee headed by Shivaji University vice- chancellor Nitin Karmalkarwill work out the modalities for establishing the educational institute, it added.

The border areas of Karnataka have a sizeable Marathi- speaking population.

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.