Mangaluru: Electric fire chamber installed at Boloor Hindu crematorium

Kalaburagi, Apr 17: Hundreds of people participated in the Siddhalingeswara temple chariot festival in Chitapur village on Thursday, violating the lockdown orders.

"Today at 6.30 am, around 100-150 people had come near Siddalingeshwara temple for about 20 mintues and took part in chariot pulling procession," Superintendent of Police Lada Martin said.

A case has been registered against 20 people and further investigation is going to ascertain more details related to the religious gathering.
Meanwhile, a sub-inspector has been suspended.

Thirty-six cases of coronavirus were reported in Karnataka on Thursday, taking the state's tally to 315.

Feb 28: The Supreme Court on Friday granted more time to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to file a counter affidavit on a petition filed by Karnataka BJP leader and mining baron Gali Janardhana Reddy seeking permanent relaxation on his bail condition to allow him to visit Karnataka's Bellari and Kadapa in Andhra Pradesh.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee listed the matter for further hearing on March 16 after the CBI sought more time to do file the counter affidavit.

Earlier, the apex court had issued a notice to the CBI and sought its response on the plea.

Last year, the Court had allowed Reddy to visit the Ballari district for a period of two weeks to meet his father-in-law, who the petitioner claimed had suffered a stroke and also allowed him to move a bail modification application seeking permanent relaxation of his bail condition.

In January 2015, the Supreme Court had granted bail to Reddy in an illegal mining case involving Obulapuram Mining Company (OMC) on the condition that he will not visit any of the mining zones in Karnataka or Andhra Pradesh.

By the time he was granted bail, Reddy had already spent over three years in prison.

Reddy and his brother-in-law BV Srinivas Reddy, who was the Managing Director of OMC, were arrested by the CBI on September 5, 2011.

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.