Graveyard politics: Sakshi overtakes Modi, says Muslims should be cremated

Bengaluru, Mar 23: Karnataka government today decided to go for complete lockdown. This includes the closure of all non essential government offices, suspension of all public transport services and banning of mass prayers in places of worships across the state.

Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa had expressed the need for a complete lockdown like the Janta Curfew on Sunday. Going by this, there will be no government transport services at least till March 31 and as many as 19,000 government buses will be off the road.

The government also decided to cancel the famous Karaga festival. The CM said that all celebrations and functions will be called off along with mass prayers in mosques and churches.

The CM said that they have decided to procure 1,000 ventilators and 10 lakh face masks in addition to other health equipments.

Private hospitals have come forward to spare their doctors and nursing staff to attend to Covid-19 patients in government hospitals, the CM said.

Yediyurappa also said that he has directed the health department to paste notification on the houses of residents who are infected with coronavirus. This is being done after people with indelible seals and home quarantined are reported to be roaming freely. The notifications will help neighbours to keep an eye on them.

The CM said the government-run Indira Canteen will serve free food to the poor until the lockdown continues. He also said that action will be initiated against non essential shops that are open despite a directive to shut down.

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.