7.5 lakh Muslims, Christians converted to Hinduism in 10 years: Togadia

Bengaluru, Feb 4: Karnataka High Court on Monday reserved order on plea, seeking cancellation of bail granted to Nithyananda for skipping the trial and fleeing the country.

After hearing the arguments, the court has reserved the matter for further orders which will be pronounced on February 5.

The plea, which was filed in the high court on January 23, was heard by Justice John Michael Cunha.

The counsel for the complainant Lenin put forth arguments that the self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda had fled the country to escape the trial. "Nityananda has been claiming to be in India in his exemption petitions filed before the trial court but during that time he sought asylum in Ecuador and is having a second passport," said Lenin.

The prosecutor informed the court that they do not need his presence for the trial at this time.

Nithyananda, accused of rape and child abuse, has been absconding since November 2018.

In December 2019, the Ministry of External Affairs said that the passport of Nithyananda was cancelled and a fresh application of the same was denied as he did not get the requisite clearance from police and several criminal cases have been lodged against him.

Police in Ahmedabad had arrested two woman administrators of the ashram, allegedly owned by Nithyananda, and freed two boys who were held captive there.

Two of his disciples, Pranpriya and Priyatattva, were arrested on the basis of a complaint filed by one Janardhan Sharma who alleged that his daughter was held captive in Nithyananda's ashram.

The police took the two women to Nithyananda's ashram in Hathiajan for an investigation and seized laptops, mobile phones among other things.

Bengaluru, May 17: Karnataka Government on Sunday decided to appoint Administrative Committees, to over 6000 Panchayat Bodies, in the state, who’s five-year term would comes to an end this month.

Speaking to the media here, the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Minister, K S Eshwarappa informed that the state cabinet met recently had favored to appoint committees which would replace the elected bodies.

Informing that there is provision in the Panchayath Raj Act to appoint the committees, he said that the concerned Deputy Commissioners of the district, would appoint the members, to the committee, who were eligible to be nominated to the committees.

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.