Smriti Irani resorted to blatant lies' in Parliament, says Rohith Vemula's mom

New Delhi, Feb 24: A book on the history of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) will become a part of a course in the Islamic University of Indonesia, as the party’s two consecutive victories in India’s general elections has evoked interest among academicians, a faculty member said.

The book, titled Bhartiya Janata Party — Past, Present & Future, Story of World’s Largest Political Party and written by Shantanu Gupta, will become a part of the syllabus for undergraduate students of South Asian studies in the Department of International Relations.

Hadza Min Fadhli, a faculty member at the university, said there was a rising interest in the BJP’s rise among academicians in Indonesia, especially after the party won two general elections in India.

He said the book would be part of the syllabus for undergraduate courses in South Asian studies in the Department of International Relations.

Mr. Hadza said he got to know about the book during a recent visit to India as part of the Kautilya Fellowship programme, organised by the India Foundation. “We in Indonesia intend to further strengthen our relations with India. Therefore, it is important to understand its ruling party. We expect the BJP would also intend to do the same,” Mr. Hadza said.

When asked about the book being selected to be a part of a course in an Indonesian university, Mr. Gupta said global recognition of his work is immensely satisfying.

This book chronicles the history of the BJP which, Mr. Gupta said, described the saffron party as the latest political manifestation of the various nationalist movements that the country has seen.

Mr. Gupta has authored five other books, including a biography of Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and a book on football in India.

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.