Coastaldigest.com fans take to the streets to celebrate MPL win

Mumbai, Apr 15: A 35-year-old man, who worked as a priest in suburban Kandivali, allegedly committed suicide on Tuesday afternoon, hours after learning that lockdown to contain coronavirus has been extended.

The deceased was identified as Krishna Pujari, native of Udupi in Karnataka, who was attached to Durga Mata temple in Iraniwadi area of Sanjay Nagar.

Pujari, who lived with three other priests, was waiting for the lockdown to end as he wanted to go back to his hometown, a police official said.

When he learnt that the lockdown has been extended till May 3, he was terribly depressed and allegedly hanged himself in kitchen, the official added.

No suicide note has been found, he said.

Bengaluru, May 14: Michael Madhu was one of the popular actors in Sandalwood. He was widely known for portraying comedy roles. The news of his demise has come as a shock to all the members in the Kannada film industry and also his fans. Michael Madhu died on May 13 after suffering from a heart attack. As per a report in Zoom, the actor was rushed to the KIMS Hospital in Bengaluru after he suddenly collapsed at his home.

Michael Madhu, in his career spanning of almost two decades, has acted in more than 300 films. Some of his notable works include Bhajarangi, Shhh! and Ashwamedha. Besides being an impeccable actor, especially his perfect comic timings, Michael was also passionate about dancing and was huge fan of Michael Jackson. This was one of the major reasons why he added Michael to his name. He had entered the film industry with an aim to become a popular choreographer, but destiny had something else in store for him. Michael Madhu is survived by his wife and two daughters.

Fans of Michael Madhu have been sharing condolences on social media ever since the news of his death hit the internet. As per a report in media, the actor’s last rites will take place today.

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.