Two college students held for supporting Pak cricket team on WhatsApp

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.

Udupi, Apr 8: Six patients were admitted to isolation wards in the hospitals in the district on Tuesday.

While four people were suffering from symptoms of COVID-19, two were suffering from SARI (Severe Acute Respiratory Infection).

As many as 19 samples were collected and sent for Covid-19 testing to a laboratory in Shivamogga.

Bengaluru, Mar 27: A software engineer has been arrested for giving a "call" to the people to sneeze in the open and spread coronavirus, police said on Friday.
The person identified as Mujeeb Mohammad had made this call in a Facebook post.
"Let's join hands, go out and sneeze with open mouth in public. Spread the virus," he wrote.

"The person who put this post saying people should go out and sneeze and spread the virus has been detained. His name is Mujeeb. He works in a software company," Bengaluru Joint Commissioner of Police Sandeep Patil said in a statement.

40 migrant labourers working in Mumbai caught while trying to flee to UP in truck, booked
Meanwhile, Infosys tweeted: "We are deeply concerned with an inappropriate post being attributed to an Infosys employee. We strongly reaffirm our commitment to responsible social-sharing.

The company also said, "Our preliminary enquiry, and discussions with our employees suggest that this could be a case of a mistaken identity."
"However, given the seriousness with which we take such matters, we are investigating this further and will also assist with any independent investigation. The company would take appropriate action based on its investigation," it added