Under-19 and Under-16 cricketers selected for KSCA Academy coaching

Bengaluru, Mar 25 : Karnataka recorded its highest single-day tally to date, as 10 people tested positive, taking the total number of cases to 51 in the state.

“Till date 51 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed in the state which includes one death and three discharged," the health department said in a statement on Wednesday.

The rise in cases adding to the growing national tally of people who have tested positive for COVID-19.

The daughter of a former union minister from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from Karnataka has also tested positive.

Bengaluru accounts for 32 of the total 51 cases recorded in the state so far,including three who have fully recovered and released.

Dakshina Kannada has five confirmed cases, Chikkaballapura and Kalaburagi has three cases each, Mysuru has and Uttara Kannada has two cases each and four other districts have one case each.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced a 21-day lockdown of the country to keep people indoors and contain the spread of the virus in the community.

The government has also been trying to scale up testing.

Medical education minister K.Sudhakar on Wednesday told Mint that Karnataka will scale up testing by 10-fold with the help of government and private labs approved by the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).

A total of 2,438 people have been tested in Karnataka and 2242 have tested negative, according to state health department. 214 people are lodged in medical hospitals.

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.