'Satyamvea Jayathe, I stand vindicated,' says Yeddyurappa after acquittal

Bengaluru, Feb 14: After the swearing-in of ten former JDS and Congress MLAs, political boundaries seem to have become more fluid, with little clarity on who is on whose side. When Honnali BJP MLA Renukacharya visited senior Congressman DK Shivakumar at the latter’s residence, many eyebrows were raised over the reason behind the meeting. There was speculation over why Renukacharya would be meeting a man who is, in all likelihood, slated to be the next KPCC president.

Renukacharya reacted to the rumours by making the meet sound purely professional. He said, “We have a three-day Krushi Sammlan in Honnali, and I went to invite him (DKS) for it.’’   Shivakumar also remained tight-lipped over the real reason behind the meeting, and corroborated Renukacharya’s story. However, insiders claim that the two discussed other issues too. It may be recalled that Renukacharya had openly rebelled against Yediyurappa in 2009.

Hassan, Feb 9: Accusing the Centre for treating Karnataka as its enemy Former Minister and Congress leader UT Khader on Saturday said that the state did not get support from the Centre on the Mahadayi issue and flood relief and even the Union Budget.

Speaking to the media here, he said that the state has elected 25 BJP Lok Sabha members. Three from the state were Ministers in the Union Cabinet and another MP has been appointed president of the party’s state unit.

'None of them have spoken about the injustice done to the state in the budget. The budget document announced Rs 18,600 crore for the suburban railway in Bengaluru. But, ultimately the amount earmarked for the project is only Rs 1 crore. How can any BJP leader justify this?', the Congress leader wondered.

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.