Dalits warned against misuse of atrocity law, false complaints

New Delhi, May 8: After deadly styrene gas leak in Visakhapatnam, Union Chemicals and Fertilisers Minister D V Sadananda Gowda urged all public and private chemical makers to exercise caution and care while reopening their plants.

Union Environment Ministry and State Pollution Control Boards have also issued separate directives to all companies to take extreme precaution while restarting their units that remained suspended due to the lockdown imposed to contain the spread of COVID-19 in the country, he said.

There was a gas leak from LG Polymers plant at Visakhapatnam in the early hours on Thursday, causing 10 deaths and hundreds of people getting hospitalised.

"LG Polymers does not come under direct control of our ministry. However, we have asked all public and private chemicals manufacturers to exercise caution and care while reopening their plants," Gowda told PTI.

The minister said his officers are coordinating with the Andhra Pradesh government.

He further said LG Polymers, a multinational chemical company, had kept its unit ready for reopening after one and half month of lockdown. The unit started leaking at around 3.40 am on Thursday due to pressure.

"The toxic gas leak has affected both people and animals. Around 850 people have been hospitalised," Gowda said, adding that measures have been taken to control the situation at the plant site and final updates are awaited.

At present, Indian chemicals market size is about USD 163 billion, which is only three per cent of the global chemical industry of USD 5 trillion, as per the official data.

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.