Karnataka govt exempts ICU beds from luxury tax after outcry

Bengaluru, Jun 11: A love triangle took a violent turn when a final-year engineering student was assaulted by both her current and former lovers. She's now battling for her life in the ICU, police said. 

For the 22-year-old woman, who lives in Sidedahalli, it was a case of fast-changing relationships. She broke up with a fellow student Babith, 21, a few months ago after having dated him for four years. Four months ago, she started seeing another collegemate named Rahul, 22, and everything seemed fine. 

On June 7, she went to Rahul's house, ostensibly for his birthday party, after informing her parents. Babith got wind of it and barged into Rahul's house. The trio got into an argument, and Rahul abused and assaulted her. 

The woman decided to leave him, and went with Babith to his house in Chikkabanavara, North Bengaluru. But things didn't end there. Babith picked an argument with her. Things became so bad that he attacked her with a helmet. 

He then panicked and called her parents, asking them to take her home. When her parents arrived, they found only Babith, his mother and sister in the house. Babith's family directed them to a bedroom where she was lying motionless, with her face being badly wounded. 

When her parents demanded to know what had happened, nobody responded. They took her to a hospital where her condition remains serious. A while later, Babith came to the hospital and gave her parents the key of her scooter. He told them what had happened and allegedly warned them against filing a police complaint. 

Her mother, however, filed a complaint with the jurisdictional Soladevanahalli police. According to her, Babith had fought with her daughter at their house for not taking his phone calls six months ago. 

Shashikumar N, Deputy Commissioner of Police (North), said both the men had been arrested and that further investigations are underway. 

Bengaluru, Feb 13: UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer Sajid Javid quit the Boris Johnson government as part of a cabinet reshuffle unfolding on Thursday and has been replaced by Rishi Sunak, reports said.

Indian-descent Sunak, 39, who is married to Akshata, the daughter of Infosys co-founder N.R. Narayana Murthy, was Chief Secretary to the Treasury since July 2019.

An analyst with Goldman Sachs before joining politics in 2014, Sunak, whose grandparents were from Punjab and emigrated to the UK from east Africa, is MP from Richmond (Yorkshire). He was Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Local Government in the Theresa May government.

Pakistani-descent Javid, who became the first Asian to become a Cabinet Minister when he was made Secretary of State of culture, Media and Sports in the David Cameron government in 2014 after stints as Economic Secretary to the Treasury (2012-13) and Financial Secretary (2013-14), was earlier the Home Secretary in the the Theresa May government.

He had then cleared absconding businessman Vijay Mallya's extradition to India in February last year following the decision by the Westminister Magistrates Court in December 2018.

Javid, who ran for Conservative Party leadership after May quit but lost to Boris Johnson, was made Chancellor by the later. In the reshuffle on Thursday, he was offered to retain his post if he fired all his advisors but declined and quit, the BBC reported.

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.