Meet Zubair from Puttur who fought off Lashkar-e-Taiba militants in Kashmir

Mangaluru Mar 30: The Mangaluru South Police has registered a criminal case against a man over a 'derogatory post' against the district administration. According to DC Sindhu B Rupesh, the man identified as Melwyn Pinto had sent a derogatory message on WhatsApp.

She warned on taking stringent action against miscreants who are spreading false information and rumours about district administration under DM Act provisions.

Meanwhile, City Commissioner of Police Dr P S Harsha said, "We have noticed people going around on merry rides without purpose either on two-wheelers or in cars during the lockdown period."

Chikkamagaluru, May 9: Karnataka Minister for Tourism C T Ravi on Friday said that Indians who are stranded abroad are being repatriated into the country on the pre-condition of quarantine.

“The Centre is repatriating Indians who are stranded in around 37 countries, amid the lock-down, of which people from Saudi Arabia and Dubai will be brought via ship for free. These people will have to undergo the mandatory quarantine period once they land in the country,” Ravi told media here.

The government has accorded priority to the elderly and pregnant women during the repatriation process. The state government has held due discussions with the Centre in this regard, 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.