Maulana Muhammad Shafi, father of Abdussalam Puthige, passes away

Bengaluru, Jul 20: The Karnataka Congress on Monday slammed the State government's decision to distribute beds used by COVID-19 patients to Government-run hostels and called it as a "ridiculous" decision.

"It's ridiculous that the Govt plans to distribute beds used by COVID patients to Govt run hostels," read a tweet from the Karnataka Congress president DK Shivkumar.

He further said that the Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa should give these beds to his ministers, MLAs and officials.

He further went on to urge parents and students to speak "against this move" by the State government.

"Let CM @BSYBJP give these beds to his Ministers, MLAs & Officials! We are launching a movement against this Govt & appeal to parents, students & youths to speak against this move," Shivkumar's tweet read further.

Along with the tweet he also shared a video as well.

Karnataka reported 3,648 COVID-19 cases and 72 deaths on Monday, taking active cases to 42,216 and death toll to 1,403. Bengaluru recorded the highest number of cases and deaths today at 1,452 & 31, respectively, said the State Health Department.

Udupi, May 18: As many as eight fresh coronavirus positive cases have been reported in coastal districts of Udupi and Uttara Kannada. 

No fresh positive case was reported in Dakshina Kannada since yesterday.

According to Health and Family Welfare Department, two men aged 38 and 24 years, an 8-year-old boy and a 24-year-old woman tested positive for coronavirus in Udupi district today. 

All of them were under quarantine after returning from Maharashtra recently. They were shifted to covid-19 hospital for treatment. With this the number of covid-19 positive cases in Udupi district mounted to 15.

Meanwhile, Uttara Kannada district also received a jolt with four more cases. Yesterday it had reported eight cases.

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.