Forget the past, now I am a completely changed person: Yeddyurappa

Thrissur, Feb 11: The latest test result of the woman medical student, who arrived here from China's Wuhan region and was the first positive case from India for the novel Coronavirus (nCoV), has come out negative, health officials said on Monday.

Her condition was "stable", they said.

According to the state health department as of now, 31 people are in isolation wards across various hospitals in the state.

"The blood test result of the first patient from Thrissur, from the National Institute of Virology (NIV) testing centre at Alappuzha, shows a negative result.

But we need confirmation from the NIV at Pune," a senior medical officer told news agency.

After the first positive case was reported from Thrissur, two other Keralite students from Wuhan, the epicentre of the virus, had tested positive in Alappuzha and Kasaragod districts.

The health department had earlier said those in isolation wards of various hospitals in the state have come down to 34.

"A total of 3,367 are under observation across the state, of which 3,336 are under home quarantine," a release issued by the health department said.

The department has already sent at least 364 samples for testing at the NIV at Pune and so far 337 results have returned negative.

The ''state calamity'' alert, which was declared on February 3, was withdrawn on Friday after no new positive cases of infection were detected.

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.