Meenakshi elected Udupi CMC president, Sandhya vice-president

Bengaluru, Jun 20: Former Chief Minister and Congress Legislative Party leader Siddaramaiah has slammed BJP leader and former Congress MP and MLA H Vishwanath for blaming him for not getting MLC ticket.

Siddaramaiah said, "H Vishwanath is neither a fool nor intelligent, that's why he's blaming me for not getting ticket. He is in BJP and I'm in congress how will I influence his ticket."

He also slammed Chief Minister B. S. Yediyurappa, "Yediyurappa is toothless to speak to PM and asking for funds which need to be allotted to Karnataka including 5,049 crores, which 15th finance Commission suggested."

"No pro-people schemes must be stopped including Indira canteen, Yediyurappa thinks Indira canteen will bring good name to me that's why this government is trying to stop it," he added.

He was speaking after a protest organised at Mysuru against the hike in fuel prices.

Udupi, Mar 8: The 75-year old man who was admitted to Udupi District Hospital over suspected Corona Virus infection has tested negative on Saturday.

The reports from Bengaluru Medical College’s laboratory where the samples of the person were sent, confirmed that the aged person was not infected with Corona Virus.

The report was submitted to the District Administration by the laboratory that confirmed that the person was not infected by the viral Corona Virus.

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.