Man, who was locked up and tortured by in-laws for 2 months, rescued

Tumakuru, Jan 8: RSS leader Kalladka Prabhakar Bhat stoked controversy on Wednesday by stating that 'Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) is full of traitors'.

He was addressing the media after taking part in a pro-CAA rally organised by National Citizens Forum near the office of the deputy commissioner of the district here.

Bhat said, “JNU is full of traitors. Congress and communist parties have been generating anti-nationals there. But there is no need to close the university down. Modi government will handle it.”

“Nationalism should be infused among the students there through love and trust. They should be made to realize what the truth is,” he said.

Davanagere, Jul 4: Referring to allegations made by former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's charge about corruption while purchasing COVID-19 equipment, Health Minister B Sriramulu said the state government is ready for any kind of probe in this regard.

Speaking to media persons here on Saturday, he said the government has maintained accounts for each purchase of equipment related to Covid-19. 

"So, Congress leader's allegations are far from the truth. Siddaramaiah has vast political experience. It is unbecoming of such a leader to make ridiculous allegations. The government is ready to release white paper on purchase of equipment related to Covid-19," he said.

He said Karnataka stands third in the country in collection of throat swabs and examination of people related to Covid-19. The entire country has hailed Karnataka's role in containing Covid-19, Sriramulu he added.

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.