Cloth-like plastic bags also banned in Karnataka, says official

Belagavi, Apr 12: Karnataka police have filed cases against seven people for hiding their visit to Delhi for attending a religious congregation at Nizamuddin Mosque, last month, police said on Sunday.

The Commissioner office here, in a statement said that Hirebagewadi police filed cases against seven persons including one participant and his family members and Tablighi leader for hiding information regarding participation in the religious meeting 'Tablighi Jamaat ' at Nizamuddin in New Delhi in March.

A youth from the Hirebagewadi village had visited New Delhi and hidden information about his visit and misguiding the Task Force officials when they visited his house. COVID-19 Task Force and Model officials informed the matter to Hirebagewadi police.

Davanagere, Jun 15: Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu was on Monday seen without face mask at an event in Davanagere amid COVID-19 crisis in the country.

The Minister was attending the wedding ceremony of son of former minister Parameshwar Naik at Hagaribommanahalli in Davanagere.

This is not the first time that Sriramulu has flouted the norms for preventing the spread of COVID-19. He took part in a procession in Chitradurga on June 2 and flouted social distancing norms. He was seen surrounded by several supporters while a big garland was being offered to him.

The state has reported 6,245 COVID-19 cases including 2,977 cured, 3,196 active cases and 72 deaths.

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.