Sehwag replies to Kargil martyr’s daughter's anti-ABVP post

Bengaluru, Jan 14: Days after the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) capped to Rs 35,000 the withdrawal limit of Sri Guru Raghavendra Co-operative Bank, BJP MP Tejasvi Surya on Monday reassured account holders and said Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman was personally monitoring the issue.

Taking to Twitter, Surya said, "I want to assure all depositors of Sri Guru Raghavendra Co-operative Bank to not panic. Hon'ble Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is appraised of matter and is personally monitoring the issue. She has assured the government will protect interests of depositors. Grateful for her concern."

The Bengaluru South MP also attached a letter in his tweet where he had appraised Sitharaman of the situation.

"Finance Minister, after speaking with the RBI governor and other authorities concerned, assured Surya that the government will do everything in its capacity to protect the interests of the depositors and the long term interests of the bank," the letter read.

It said that Surya also reached out to Sitharaman "three times on January 13" after which she reassured him that the "depositors need not panic".

RBI had, on January 10, imposed certain restrictions on Sri Gururaghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha.

"In particular, a sum not exceeding Rs 35,000 of the total balance in every savings bank or current account or any other deposit account may be allowed to be withdrawn subject to conditions stated in the above RBI directions," the notification said.

The regulatory body said that the bank will continue to undertake banking business with restrictions until its financial position improves.

"These directions shall remain in force for a period of six months from the close of business of January 10 and are subject to review," it said.

The bank has been restricted from granting or renewing any loans and advances, make any investment, incur any liability including borrowal of funds and acceptance of fresh deposits, disburse or agree to disburse any payment whether in discharge of its liabilities and obligations or otherwise, enter into any compromise or arrangement and sell, transfer or otherwise dispose of any of its properties or assets except.

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.