DKMA hands over Rs 2 lakh to Ullal attack victim's kin

Udupi, June 30: A girl who appeared for SSLC exams in three subjects tested positive for COVID-19 in Kundapur taluk of Udupi district today.

Sheshashayana Karinja, Deputy Director of Public Instruction (DDPI) said that the 15-year-old girl had a headache and her parents took her for testing and she had tested positive for COVID-19.

She will appear for the remaining three subjects during the supplementary exams in August.

The room where the girl appeared for the exam had been sanitised. But exams would not be held in that room. All precautions have been taken in that exam centre in Kundapur taluk, Mr. Karinja said.

The other 19 students will be allowed to write their exams as there was a distance of one metre between them and there was no contact between the students during the exams, Mr. Karinja added.

It is learned that a couple of months ago, a Mumbai returnee who recovered from COVID-19 had visited the girl’s house. However, it is not clear that she got an infection from the Mumbai returnee.

It could be recalled here that a student from Hejamadi in Udupi district who was preparing for the Science exam had tested positive two days back and she is currently being treated at a hospital.

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.