BJP women's wing leader Jamila Khan shot dead in Bhopal

Bengaluru, Feb 25: Infosys is all set to announce a cyber defence centre in Indianapolis to complement its technology and innovation centre inaugurated early last year.

This will be Infosys' seventh global cyber defence centre. According to its recent cybersecurity report titled 'Assuring Digital Trust,' 83 per cent of executives view cybersecurity as critical, yet 67 per cent are still struggling to have security embedded.

The cyber defence centre will provide end-to-end, real-time, 24x7 cyber security monitoring and protection services to support and guide American businesses in their digital transformation journey, it said.

The facility is dedicated and organised to prevent, detect, assess and respond to cybersecurity threats and breaches.

Client environment will be monitored round the clock, adopting a follow-the-sun model to deliver services like 24x7 security monitoring, management and remediation, threat hunting, security analytics, incident discovery and response, compliance reporting and malware analysis.

Vishal Salvi, Chief Information Security Officer and Head of Cyber Security Practice at Infosys, said the cyber defence centre is staffed with expert security analysts with niche skills around threat research and intelligence gathering to deliver best-in-class services to customers.

"Additionally, advanced data analytics and machine learning models are deployed to detect zero-day threats by unknown threat actors. This supports our commitment to helping our customers build a resilient cybersecurity programme that operates at scale while increasing operational efficiency and reducing costs," he said in a statement.

Bengaluru, Mar 20: The high court on Thursday directed the government to notify on its official website the penal provisions to be enforced against private schools violating norms relating to fees and safety of students, among other things. A division bench of chief justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka granted six weeks to the authorities to comply while disposing of a PIL filed by advocate NP Amrutesh.

Earlier, the state government submitted a memo stating that necessary amendments have been brought to Karnataka Education Act in 2017. It said any breach of students' safety entails a minimum jail term of six months and Rs 1 lakh fine for a convicted employee or member of the management. Any institution found guilty by the District Education Regulatory Authority will face disaffiliation and must pay a fine of Rs 10 lakh, the memo said.

Schools collecting donations and other fees beyond what is prescribed can be fined up to Rs 10 lakh and they must refund the excess fee.

In relation to schools charging for applications and brochures, the state capped their prices at Rs 5 and Rs 20 respectively, by issuing a gazzette notification last year.

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.