No Acche Din: Unable to bear costs, 25-year-old mother kills 6-yr-old son

Bengaluru, Apr 2: A health worker, who was part of a team fighting against the Coronavirus disease in the city, was allegedly attacked by a mob and duped of her belongings at the Sadiq Layout in the Shivajinagar area on Thursday.

According to police sources, the health worker came under attack by a mob of youths when she was collecting data from those who were sick in the locality.

New Delhi, Jun 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought response from Prajwal Revanna, the grandson of former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda, on a plea challenging his election in 2019 from Hassan Lok Sabha constituency as a joint candidate of the Janata Dal Secular and the Congress.

A bench of Chief Justice SA Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishiksh Roy issued notice to the returned candidate from the high-profile constituency on an appeal challenging the Karnataka High Court's order by which an election petition against his win was dismissed.

In the proceedings held through video-conferencing, the top court issued notice and tagged the appeal filed by G Devarajegowda for hearing with other similar pending plea filed by the BJP candidate on the issue.

Mr Devarajegowda in the plea said that his election petition was dismissed by the High Court on "procedural irregularities". The plea said that Mr Prajwal had resorted to unfair and corrupt practices and his election should be set aside.

It said the High Court did not consider the fact that by dismissing the election petition, it was running a risk of having a representative in parliament who has not got the maximum number of valid votes.

The petitioner, an advocate by profession, sought a declaration of rival BJP candidate, A Manju, as the winner for having secured the maximum number of valid votes.

A separate appeal was earlier filed by Mr Manju against the High Court order and the top court had already issued notice to the retuned candidate on that.

Mr Manju had challenged the 2019 election of Mr Prajwal on the ground that there was allegedly non-disclosure of assets held by him in his election affidavit.

Mr Prajwal was declared winner with 6,76,606 votes. Mr Manju came first runner-up with 5,35,282 votes.

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.