Dhanyashree suicide case: Police targeting innocents, says BJP MP Shobha

Mysuru, May 19: Union Housing and Urban Affairs Minister Hardeep Singh Puri on Tuesday announced the results of garbage free-star rating for Indian cities.

He said that Ambikapur in Chhattisgarh, Rajkot in Gujarat, Mysuru in Karnataka, Indore in Madhya Pradesh and Navi Mumbai in Maharashtra have got a five-star rating.

Puri extended the wishes to the cities who got a five-star rating and said it came at a time when the entire world, including India, are reeling under the impact of COVID-19 pandemic.

"It was the intention of my senior colleagues and others to declare the result of star rating of garbage-free cities much earlier but we decided to postpone because we wanted at least some degree of opening to take place and we thought the timing is correct," Puri said.

The minister said that of all the flagship programmes Prime Minister Narendra Modi has announced, Swachta Mission is the most important programme for him.

"I have often shared with you my assessment that of all the flagship programmes that the Prime Minister had announced after the 2014 election results. But my personal view, a view I have had a citizen and certainly a view that is fortified by my experience as Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs, that the Swachta Mission by far is the most important programme of all the missions," Puri said

Bengaluru, Jun 8: Karnataka recorded 308 new COVID-19 cases in the past 24 hours, with the majority of patients being domestic returnees, raising the state's tally to 5,760 an official said, here on Monday. "Over 308 new cases were reported from Sunday 5 pm to Monday 5 pm," said the health official.

Like everyday Maharashtra returnees accounted for 96 per cent (267 cases) of the 277 new cases. Majority infections in Karnataka nowadays are returnees, mostly from the state's northern neighbour.

A few returnees also came from Tamil Nadu, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. There was one international returnee, a 23-year-old man from Dakshina Kannada, who came from the UAE. Only 24 new infections were contacts of earlier cases.

On Monday, cases spiked in Kalaburagi, Yadgir, Bidar, Udupi, Bengaluru Urban, Ballari and Gadag.

Among the new cases, Kalaburagi contributed (99), followed by Yadgir (66), Bidar (48), Udupi (45), Bengaluru Urban (18), Ballari (8), Gadag (6), Shivamogga and Dharwad (4 each), Hassan and Dakshina Kannada (3 each), Bagalkote (2) and Koppal and Ramnagar (1 each). Four patients are suffering from Influenza-Like Illness (ILI).

Meanwhile, record 387 patients got discharged in the past 24 hours. On Monday, three persons - A 67-year-old man, a 48-year-old woman and another 65-year-old woman, all from Bengaluru Urban, succumbed to coronavirus.

Of all the cases, 3,175 are active, 2,519 discharged, 64 dead and 14 in the ICU.

In the past 24 hours, Karnataka tested 8,779 people. Of this, 8,231 reports returned negative. A number of tests were lower than other days. In total, 3.93 lac samples have been tested so far, of which 3.8 lac have returned negative.

Currently, Udupi is leading the state's COVID-19 burden with 628 active cases, followed by Kalaburagi (539), Yadgir (488), Raichur (276) and Bengaluru Urban (176) among others.

Bengaluru Urban has accounted for 18 deaths, followed by Kalaburagi (7), Bidar, Vijayapura, Davangere and Dakshina Kannada (6 each) and Chikkaballapur (3 each), among others.

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.