Murdered neo-convert Anil Faisal’s 13 family members embrace Islam

Bengaluru, May 30: Health Minister B Sriramulu banned the consumption of chewing tobacco in public places on Saturday, which is marked as World Tobacco Day. The ban would include chewing paan masala and spitting in public places.

In June 2013, the state banned the manufacture, storage, sale, or distribution of gutka and paan masala containing tobacco or nicotine as ingredients to reduce the prevalence of tobacco use. On October 26, 2016, the state proscribed all kinds of chewing tobacco, containing tobacco or nicotine or both in accordance with the Supreme Court order.

Karnataka is the second state in India to ban e-cigarettes. The state also prohibited single cigarettes. Until September 2019, the state counselled 15,698 patients in tobacco cessation centres set up in private dental colleges.

Mangaluru, Mar 16: As a precaution against the spread of Covid-19, the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) on Monday decided to cut down its premium, non-AC sleeper, Rajahamsa and express bus services from Mangaluru to Bengaluru and Kasaragod following poor patronage.

The cut down in services is as per the direction of KSRTC's Central office that wants bus services to be operated on priority.

KSRTC Mangaluru Divisional Controller S N Arun said that the corporation has decided to cut down 40 trips to Bengaluru. Concerning Kasaragod, it has reduced the number of trips from 40 to 35. "These include a reduction in services to Mysuru and Dharmasthala also," he added.

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.