Mangaluru: Vigilantes attack Muslim man for speaking to a female colleague

Bengaluru, Jan 12: Janata Dal (Secular) chief and former prime minister H D Deve Gowda on Sunday refuted reports of him contesting in the Rajya Sabha elections and added that he is more concerned about strengthening his party in Karnataka.

"I am not interested in going to Rajya Sabha. My concern is to build and strengthen the party in the region to the best of my ability. I had declared earlier that I will not contest elections anymore," Deve Gowda told ANI here.

"My party MP D Kupendra Reddy is there in the Rajya Sabha as of now and further decisions will be taken by the party. In March 2019, towards the end of the 16th Lok Sabha I had declared that I will not contest any more elections," Deve Gowda added.

Four Rajya Sabha seats in Karnataka are about to fall vacant in June this year as two of Congress, one of BJP and JD(S) MPs retire.

Bengaluru, Jul 25: Former Karnataka Chief Minister Siddaramaiah on Friday said that the ministers of the BJP-led government in the state avoiding a judicial enquiry into the alleged corruption in procurement of medical essentials "is their height of arrogance".

In a series of tweets, Siddaramaiah said, "Why is the government afraid of judicial enquiry on corruption in procurement of medical essentials? If the ministers are so clean, what is holding them back from initiating investigation? This is their heights of arrogance!!"

He said that there should be a judicial enquiry by a sitting High Court Judge to let people know the facts.

"We will submit our documents and let the government submit their documents. If they are confident, why are they reluctant to initiate an investigation?" Siddaramaiah asked.

"Statment from the PMO says 50,000 ventilators are procured at a rate of Rs 4 lakhs per unit. Is this not true? Will Karnataka BJP ministers say that ventilators under PM CARES are sub-standard and lack quality?" he said.

"There will be both basic and premium models in everything. Even the PMO could have bought Rs. 18 lakh worth ventilator. Why did they buy a Rs 4 lakh worth ventilator? What is the justification from ministers for this?" he questioned.

Siddaramaiah asked that if the Medical Education Department sent a proposal worth Rs 815 crores which is not recomended by experts.
"It is true that Medical Education department has sent a proposal worth Rs 815 crores. It is also true that there is a note on the proposal which says that these are not recommended by experts. What is the significance of this note?" he tweeted.

The former Chief Minister said that if the state government is saying that if ventilators were procured during the tenure of Congress-JD(S) government, they must produce the proof.

"They are accusing us for the ventilators procured during the coalition government. I was not in the government then. If they have documents, let them investigate about that also. Let the truth be revealed," he said.

The Congress leader said that the opposition is not interested in playing politics during the time of COVID-19 pandemic.

"We are not interested in doing politics during COVID-19 pandemic, which is why we have not taken up many other pressing issues. But how can we be quiet when hundreds of people are succumbing due COVID-19 mismanagement?" he asked.

Karnataka on Friday reported 5,007 more COVID-19 cases and 110 deaths. The total number of cases in the state stands at 85,870, including 52,791 active cases and 1,724 fatalities, said the state government's bulletin.

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.