VHP leader in burqa caught molesting women at religious event

Bengaluru, Mar 22: The Karnataka government on Sunday afternoon announced that 9 districts in the State will be under lock down till March 31, barring essential services. It also announced imposition of Section 144 across the state for 3 hours - between 9 p.m. (when the "Janata curfew" will end) to 12 midnight.

The nine COVID-19-affected districts are Bengaluru, Bengaluru Rural, Mysuru, Kodagu, Dakshina Kannada (Mangaluru), Dharwad, Belagavi, Kalaburgi and Chikkablapur.

Announcing these measures after attending a meeting chaired by Chief Minister B. S Yeddyurappa, Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai said that there will be no commercial activity in these districts till March 31.

Inter-district movement, including public transport will be restricted. "Public transport will not work across the state tomorrow too. Air conditioned buses will be stopped till March 31," he added. He also clarified that while public transport, including KSRTC, BMTC and Namma Metro, will be withdrawn, private transport services such as cabs and autos will continue to ply.

According to Mr. Bommai, the State government will put in place further measures next week depending on how the situation will unfold in the State and the neighbouring States.

"Government offices will be operational in the State, including in the nine COVID 19-affected districts. As per the current schedule, the legislature sessions will also continue. Pourakarmikas will be working at 50% strength," he added.

Riyadh, Apr 22: In an extraordinary initiative, the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has decided to facilitate the travel of expatriates who have an exit and reentry visa or final exit visa to return to their countries.

This is in line with the order of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman, according to the Saudi Press Agency.

According to the initiative, called “Auda” (return), expatriates can apply seeking permission for travel to their countries through the Absher portal of the ministry.

Announcing this, Saudi's Ministry of Interior said that the initiative will be implemented in cooperation with a number of relevant government agencies.

Requests for travel from expatriates will be received and approved in coordination with the relevant authorities to complete their travel procedures on board international flights.

As per the initiative, a text message will be sent to the beneficiary stating the travel date, ticket number and reservation details, and by which the beneficiary can obtain his travel ticket and complete the travel procedures.

Clarifying the procedures for the travel, the ministry said that the applicant shall select the icon (Auda) after visiting the Absher portal and fill the following fields: iqama (residency permit) number, date of birth, mobile number, departure city and airport of arrival.

It is not mandatory for the expatriate to have his own Absher account for availing of the service, the ministry said, adding that this facility is to enable expatriates to benefit from this initiative.

The departure will be through the following airports: King Khalid International Airport in Riyadh, King Abdulaziz International Airport in Jeddah, Prince Muhammad International Airport in Madinah, and King Fahd International Airport in Dammam.

Those expatriates who are outside these cities can benefit from the service through entering airport of departure after completion of their travel procedures in sufficient period of time.

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.