Suresh Gopi's anti-violence speech in Mangaluru irks Sangh Parivar

Bengaluru, Mar 27: Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) on Friday formed a task force to monitor the spread of COVID-19 disease in the state and provide guidelines and suggestions to contain its proliferation in the state.

In a press release, the KPCC has stated that the 15 member committee will be headed by the senior Congress leader and former Health minister K R Rameshkumar also included two other former health ministers, Shivanand Patil and U T Khader as the members of the committee.

Bengaluru, Jul 23: The Siddi community in Karnataka got its first lawmaker as Governor Vajubhai Vala nominated five persons, including Shantharama Budna Siddi, to the Karnataka Legislative Council on Wednesday.

Shantharama Siddi had been working as a social worker and was a post holder at the Vanavasi Kalyan Prakalpa, a tribal welfare initiative of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The Siddis, an ethnic group in India, are said to have descended from the people of the East African region. They are included in the list of Scheduled Tribes (ST) in Karnataka.

Apart from the Shantharama, the inclusion of CP Yogishwar, who had left Congress to join BJP in 2017 but failed to retain his seat in the 2018 Assembly polls, is also considered as a big decision.

Adagur H Vishwanath, another former JDS leader, who had quit his party and joined BJP but failed to retain his seat has also caught the attention of the people.

Further, Governor Vala has nominated Talwar Sabanna and Bharathi Shetty to the Upper House in the state.

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.