Bus driver Abdul Rasheed suffers heart attack, but saves all before dying

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Congress MLA UT Khader on Wednesday slammed the Central government over the enactment of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and said it violates the Constitution.

"The new citizenship amendment bill is unconstitutional. The citizenship cannot be given on cast and creed basis. Because of these things we are fighting against it," he said while speaking to media in Bengaluru.

Opposition along with several non-BJP state governments, including Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala, Punjab and Rajasthan have refused to implement the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and the proposed NRC in their respective states.

The CAA grants citizenship to Hindu, Sikh, Jain, Parsi, Buddhist and Christian refugees from Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh, who came to India on or before December 31, 2014.

New Delhi, Mar 20: An official of South Western Railway has been suspended for "hiding" her son, who returned from Germany and later tested positive for coronavirus.

The youth has been hiding at a railway guest house in Bengaluru, officials said on Friday.

"She (the railway official) not only failed to inform authorities about her son's return from Germany, but also endangered the lives of others by lodging him in a railway rest house near the main Bangalore railway station," railway spokesperson E Vijaya said.

The Assistant Personnel Officer (Traffic) has been suspended, Vijaya said.

The 25-year-old man, who came from Germany via Spain and was instructed to be in home quarantine after he landed at the Kempegowda International Airport in Bengaluru on March 13, later tested positive for Covid-19 on March 18.

"She virtually hid her son to protect her family but endangered all of us," a South Western Railway official 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.