Dalit research scholar, suspended after ABVP’s complaint, kills self

Bengaluru, May 23: SSLC and PUC students residing in containment zones will not be able to write the exams scheduled to be held in June and July, respectively, but will be given opportunity to write the supplementary examination and treated as fresh candidates.

Primary and Secondary Education Minister S. Suresh Kumar announced this at a press conference on Friday.

In turn, officials in the Department of Primary and Secondary Education will start collecting the list of students in containment zones. However, they are worried since the list of containment zones is dynamic and a particular locality can be declared a containment zone even the night before the examination.

“If any examination centre is located in the containment zone, then we can change the centre and move it to a non-containment zone. However, if a student resides in a zone that is declared containment zone just before the exam, there is no option but for the person to skip the exam,” an official said.

Officials of the department are worried about another scenario as well. “There is a chance that midway through the examination, an area is becomes a containment zone. Then some students may write a few papers and give the rest a miss. Implementation at the district- and block-levels will be a challenge,” said an official.

Sources said that the department is working out several situations that may arise and trying to work on providing practical solutions to the students.

Around 5.98 lakh students have registered for the second pre-university English examination that is scheduled to be held on June 18. As many as 8.48 lakh students have registered for the SSLC examination scheduled to be held between June 25 and 4 July. Currently, there are 261 containment zones in Karnataka that have 5.49 lakh people residing in these zones.

Meanwhile, the Karnataka Secondary Education and Examination Board has decided to ensure that only 18 students are seated in a classroom to write the SSLC examination. This is to ensure that social distancing is maintained in the exam hall.

Bengaluru, Jan 11: India’s second-biggest IT company, Infosys Ltd, said it found no evidence of financial misconduct by its executives following a investigation into whistleblower complaints.

Bengaluru-headquartered Infosys, which earlier on Friday raised its revenue forecasts due to upbeat demand from Western clients, said an audit committee report exonerated Chief Executive Officer Salil Parekh and Chief Financial Officer Nilanjan Roy of all allegations, including accusations that the duo prevented employees from presenting data on large deals.

“I’m very happy that CEO Salil Parekh and CFO Nilanjan Roy have emerged from this stronger,” Infosys Chairman Nandan Nilekani told reporters. “The last two years since Salil has been here the company has changed dramatically for the better.”

Parekh took over as Infosys CEO in January 2018, after his predecessor Vishal Sikka quit following a public row with the company’s founder executives amid whistleblower allegations of wrongdoing.

The company earlier said it expected revenue to grow between 10 per cent and 10.5 per cent on a constant currency basis in the year ending March 2020, compared with its previous forecast of between 9 per cent and 10 per cent.

“We continue to see momentum in the market and we have an extremely robust pipeline driven by segment leaders,” CEO Parekh told a news conference.

“With the strength of large deal wins and digital momentum, we were able to clearly see that we have support to raise our guidance.”

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.