Hindutva leader in police net for Gauri murder; Mangaluru man involved: TV report

Bengaluru, May 6: Karnataka has reported 20 new cases of coronavirus taking total number of cases in the state to 693.

The state health department said in a bulletin on Wednesday that 20 new cases have been confirmed for COVID-19 in the state. "The total number of cases in the state is 693," it said.

The count includes 354 patients who have been discharged and 29 patients who succumbed to the disease.

Out of the remaining cases, 303 patients are in isolation at designated hospitals while six patients are in ICU. The bulletin has also reported one death due to non-COVID cause.

The number of COVID-19 cases in the country reached 49,391, according to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Wednesday morning.

This includes 33,514 active cases and 1,694 deaths due to infection so far.

A total of 14,182 persons have been cured and discharged so far, according to the Health Ministry. One patient has migrated.

Mangaluru, May 31: Eminent social worker, former Principal of School of Social Work Dr Olinda Pereira, passed away on Sunday.

She was 95.

Mahatma Gandhi Peace awardee Pereira promoted Women’s Education and Development in several States. She has left an indelible mark in the state of Karnataka, India and overseas.

Dr Olinda Pereira publications include: Understanding Children – 1,2,3, Sallak Publications – 1974; Adjustment and its Correlates among Pre-adolescents – Preeti Publications – 1977; Domestic Workers Struggle For Life-A.T.C Publications – 1985.

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.