Stop harassing Muslims, Latinos, black people: Trump tells Americans

Bengaluru, Mar 4: With details of the Bengaluru links of the Covid-19-positive patient from Hyderabad emerging, state health authorities on Tuesday got down to tracking any infection trail he may have left behind before heading home.

Schools from southeast Bengaluru asked parents to send students with masks and hand sanitizers or keep them at home if they had fever. Medical shops in Bengaluru reported panic buying of masks and hand sanitizers.

Two persons with no symptoms — the Hyderabad man’s flatmate in city, and a colleague — reported at Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases and put under watch at the isolation ward. Their test results are expected on Wednesday.

The authorities tracked down 71 people who had come in contact with the Hyderabad man and put them under surveillance. The 24-year-old techie had travelled to Dubai for work on February 15 and returned to Bengaluru on February 20. He attended work on February 20 and 21 before taking a bus to Hyderabad. His flat has been sealed for sanitizing.

According to Telangana officials, at least 36 of the 88 people who came in contact with the techie are showing some symptoms of Covid-19.

Contrary to reports, the infected person was not tested at the KIA since guidelines don’t say flyers from Dubai must be screened. WHO guidelines say identification of the infected person should not be revealed. However, WhatsApp groups were flooded with messages on where the infected person lived and details of his flatmate.

Bengaluru, Jan 16: Senior Congress leader K J George on Thursday appeared before the Enforcement Directorate officials here in connection with a FEMA case.

The former minister is being investigated by the ED for probable violation of provisions of the Foreign Exchange Management Act.

The ED had recently issued summons to George.

Speaking to reporters after appearing before the ED, George said he has answered to the officials' queries and will cooperate further also.

"ED had issued me summons, as a law abiding citizen, I have answered and gave documents to whatever they asked.

Further also if they call me...I will cooperate and provide necessary documents," he said, without divulging any details.

George clarified that no summons has been issued by the ED to members of his family.

"If required they (ED officials) will call me again, and I'm ready to cooperate," the congress leader added.

Last year, the president of the Karnataka Rashtra Samithi Ravi Krishna Reddy had complained to the ED seeking a probe into the alleged money laundering and properties held by George and his family members in the United States.

Responding to a question about a defamation case filed by him against those who have levelled the allegations, George said "Just because ED has called me for questioning, I'm not proved guilty."

"Anyone can complain to agencies like the Income Tax or ED or Lokayukta, but my only objection is with going to the press to project someone as guilty," he said.

"...going to the press with an intention to do a propaganda against me..someone who is in public life-- to project me as guilty is wrong, so I have filed defamation case stating the allegations are false," he added.

George is the third senior Congress leader from Karnataka to face an ED probe after D K Shivakumar and B Z Zameer Ahmed Khan.

Shivakumar was arrested by the agency in a money laundering case and was kept in Tihar Jail, until he got bail in October, while Khan was summoned in connection with the multi-crore IMA group Ponzi scam case.

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.