Indian culture, Ayurveda bring this Russian actress to Udupi

Bengaluru, May 1: Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa on Thursday announced Rs 30 lakhs compensation for corona warriors, in case they lose lives while carrying out their duties.

"Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa has announced Rs 30 lakhs compensation for Anganwadi workers & assistants, civil workers, and police personnel who die after getting infected by COVID-19 while carrying out their duties," State Chief Minister's Office said in a statement.

According to Union Health Ministry website, a total of 557 cases of coronavirus have been reported in the state so far including 223 cured and 21 deaths.

Meanwhile, With 1,823 new cases of COVID-19 reported in the last 24 hours and 67 deaths, India's total count of coronavirus cases has gone up to 33,610, said the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Thursday.

Bengaluru, Apr 5: An elderly couple from Bengaluru

with a travel history to Dubai joined the list of coronavirus patients in the state, taking the total number of cases to 146, the health department said on Sunday.

The list includes four deaths and 11 discharges.

The 68-year old man and his 62-year old wife, hailing from Madiwala in the city, had returned from Dubai on March 22.

They were quarantined at a private hospital and have been asymptomatic.

Meanwhile, the government appealed to people who had attended the Tablighi Jamaat Congregation in New Delhi to contact 080-29711171 Arogya Sahayavani, the medical helpline number.

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.