Mangalore gets new interest-free Islamic bank

Mangaluru, Mar 21: The management of Ibrahim Khaleel mosque here on Saturday has decided to temporarily suspend all the prayers inside the mosque premises as a precautionary measure in view of Corona Virus which is spreading like wildfire in the State.

In an official note, the management urged people to remain safe and to pray at home adding that Jumuah, daily prayers and all the other events at the mosques were cancelled temporarily until further notice.

“This is an unavoidable move to save the lives from the infections of deadly Coronavirus” the note added on Saturday.

Mangaluru, Jun 2: Even as the mosques in Karnataka recieved green signal from state government to reopen for congregational prayers from June 8, a senior Islamic scholar in coastal Karnataka has encouraged Muslims to prefer to offer prayers at homes during covid times. 

Twaqa Ahmed Al-Azhari, the Qadhi of Mangaluru, has welcomed the state government's decision to allow Muslims to offer congregational prayers including Jum'a prayers with certain precautions and conditions.

"Government has upheld our religions sentiments. All the mosques where congregational prayers will be held from June 8 should strictly follow all the guidelines issued by the government," he said. 

He also suggested that if any mosque is not in a position to follow all the guidelines issued by the government then it should refrain from holding congregational prayers. "Muslims can continue offer Fard and Jumá prayers at homes as the cornavirus pandemic is still spreading in the region and across the world," 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.