Mangaluru: Cops nab 6 near beach, thwart murder and robbery plots

Bengaluru, May 3: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa requested his Maharashtra counterpart Uddhav Thackeray to release six TMC water from his state's reservoirs to rivers in Karnataka to meet acute drinking water shortage in North Karnataka.

Yediyurappa pointed out that the North Karnataka districts, namely Belagavi, Vijayapura, Bagalkot, Kalaburagi, Yadagiri and Raichur are facing acute shortage of drinking water due to onset of summer during early days of March this year.

"I request you to kindly direct the concerned authorities to release 3 TMC of water from Warna/Koyna reservoirs to Krishna river and 3 TMC of water from Ujjaini reservoir to Bhima river on humanitarian grounds for drinking purpose," Yediyurappa said in his letter.

He reminded Thackeray that even in the past the Maharashtra government had released water from its reservoirs to meet the drinking water needs of both human beings and livestock in drought-affected areas of Karnataka.

Bengaluru, Apr 15: Karnataka government will explore Ayurveda for fighting the deadly COVID-19, Ayurveda practitioner Dr Giridhar Kaje said here on Wednesday.

After meeting the Chief Minister, Dr Kaje informed media that on a trial basis, ten Coronavirus patients will be administered Ayurvedic treatment in a designated hospital.

Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa has consulted senior doctors on the issue, he said.

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.