Ullal is hub of ganja mafia and communal gangs; govt doing nothing: SDPI

Bellary, Jan 4: A BJP MLA has apparently threatened 'minority' Muslims against participating in anti-CAA protests, saying that opposing the new Citizenship Act will not be good for them and they will have to face serious repercussions.

"It's just a caution for those who are protesting against the CAA (Citizenship Amendment Act). We are 80 per cent and you (Muslims) are 18 per cent. Imagine what will happen if we take charge," MLA Somashekar Reddy told a gathering here on Friday.

"Beware of the majority when you live in this country. This is our country. If you want to live here, you will have to, like the Australian Prime Minister said, follow the country's traditions," he added.

He said: "So, I warn you that CAA and NRC are made by Modi and Amith Shah. If you will go against these acts, it won't be good."

Continuing to spew venom, the MLA further said, "If you wish, you can go to Pakistan. We don't have any issues. Intentionally, we would not send you."

He said that the community should live in harmony with Hindus. "If you will act as enemies, we should also react like enemies," he said.

Earlier, Bengaluru BJP MP Tejaswi Surya reportedly called CAA opposers as "puncturewalas".

The nation has been witnessing massive protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC). But Prime Minister Narendra Modi has specifically stated that the NRC was never discussed.

Chikkamagaluru, Feb 21: Alleged Bharatiya Janata Party supporters threw stones at Amulya Leona’s father’s house at Gullagadde near Koppa on Thursday night, after she was charged for making objectionable remarks at a public programme in Bengaluru.

Amulya Leona’s father Wazi said that the incident, which left window panes and doors damaged, took place at around 7.30 p.m. “They are all BJP supporters. They were in a group. I have complained to the police with the names of a few who led the group,” he said.

Three policemen have been deployed at his house since Thursday night.

Amulya Leona, a B.A. student, was charged with sedition after she raised pro-Pakistan slogans at a protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Bengaluru.

Mr. Wazi, who owns a two-acre areca plantation and runs a poultry farm, said he condemned the statement made by his daughter and he would not make any attempts to get her bail. “Let the law take its course. I cannot approve of her statement,” he said.

He said he had cautioned his daughter against getting involved in protests. “I told her to complete studies first and later she could fight for poor people. But what she said yesterday is not acceptable. I don’t know what made her so. I hope a probe would bring out who prompted her to make such statements,” he said.

Mr. Wazi said he has been politically active for several years, and had earlier worked for former education minister H.G. Govinde Gowda. He then shifted to the BJP and worked in support of D.N. Jeevaraj, who represented Sringeri constituency last time, and current Udupi-Chickmagaluru MP Shobha Karandlaje. “I have worked for the BJP in the past. As Govinde Gowda’s son contested on JD(S) ticket for Sringeri seat, I supported him”, he said.

Meanwhile, a video clip that went viral on Thursday night showed a group of Bajrang Dal activists compelling Mr. Wazi to shout ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’. “I have no hesitation in raising ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’ slogans,” said Mr. Wazi, adding that his statement was taken forcibly. “I am a patriot. Many writers, activists and politicians have come to my place over the years,” he said.

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.