Facebook post helps stranded Kalladka youth in Saudi Arabia return home safe

Bengaluru, June 10: A court in Bengaluru has ejected the bail plea of Amulya Leona Noronha, a college student who has been accused of sedition for saying “Pakistan Zindabad” at the beginning of a speech during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in the city on February 20.

The court claimed that if granted bail, the 19-year-old student of journalism and English at a Bengaluru college “may involve (herself) in similar offence which affects peace at large”.

Rejecting her bail plea, 60th additional city civil and sessions judge Vidyadhar Shirahatti said in his order, “If the petitioner is granted bail, she may abscond. Therefore, the bail petition of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.”

The police had booked Amulya under charges of sedition and promoting enmity between groups, although her friends claimed she was trying to convey a message of universal humanity by chanting zindabad in the name of all nations, including Pakistan and India.

Amulya, known for her oratory, and often invited at protests against the CAA, NRC and NPR, was arrested on the evening of February 20.

Video clips of the speech showed her chanting “Hindustan Zindabad” soon after saying “Pakistan Zindabad” and trying to tell the audience — her microphone had been taken away by then — that all nations are one in the end. She could not complete the speech; the protest was being held at Bengaluru’s Freedom Park.

Amulya’s bail plea was delayed on account of the lockdown, which came into force on March 25 — around the time hearings were due to begin in a lower court. Bengaluru police did not file a chargesheet against the student during the lockdown.

In the course of bail hearings, which began after lockdown restrictions were eased, the public prosecutor argued that Amulya was trying to incite people to create a law and order problem. The prosecutor also argued that she had earlier been accused of causing hatred and disaffection towards religion and the government established by law in India by holding a placard that stated “F##k Hindutva” during a student protest.

The prosecution argued that the student, if released, may commit similar offences since cases were already registered against her.

Defending Amulya, a friend who was part of the February 20 protest said, “Before she could complete what she wanted to say they surrounded her and grabbed the microphone. She was later placed under arrest on charges of sedition. What she was trying to say was, if we love one country it does not mean we should hate another.” Another friend said, “Please see her Facebook post of February 16, around 8 pm. Loving another country does not mean you are going against your own — this is exactly what she was trying to say (at the protest). She is promoting unity among nations…”

Mangaluru, May 3: Dakshina Kannada in-charge minister Kota Srinivas Poojary today announced that there will be partial lockdown relaxations in the district from tomorrow (May 4) from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m.

The district falls under orange zone as per the classification done by the union government to contain the spread of coronavirus.

Mr Poojary said that shops can remain open for 12 hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m.). However, this relaxation will not apply for malls, restaurants, beauty parlors, saloons and dental clinics. 

Even though bars can remain open, they can only sell liquor. People will not be allowed to consume anything inside the bar. 

In auto-rickshaws only one passenger will be allowed to travel apart from driver and in car two passengers will be allowed apart from driver. 

The relaxations come with strict protocols, which the people need to follow, he said, adding that the relief had been provided to make life easier and not for people to come out unnecessarily.

Chennai, Feb 5: In order to ensure housing for all, the Madras High Court has proposed ban on non-resident Indians from purchasing houses in India, prohibit speculative sale, and impose 100 per cent extra stamp duty on purchase of second house.

The court on its own impleaded the Union housing and finance ministries as party respondents.

It has directed them to answer a series of questions including as to how many families have basic amenity of housing in India as well as in Tamil Nadu, population and housing ratio in the country and in the state, when 'Housing for All' mission of the central government would be achieved.

"Why the government does not consider imposing such restrictions to control escalation of house prices and to provide a house to every family in the country, a division bench of Justice N Kirubakaran and Justice Abdul Quddhose wondered.

Directing the authorities to inform as to whether the central and state have got special schemes to provide housing for the marginalized and economically weaker sections including SC/ST communities, the bench has also sought the details of the number of families that possess more than one house.

"Why the governments do not restrict families/individuals from purchasing/possessing more than one housing unit/flat/plot till "Housing for all" is achieved?

Why not the government charge 100 per cent more or extra stamp duty to discourage buying more than one house by a family while purchasing second house?

Why not the government conditionally allow the families to purchase more than one house provided the said family pays 100 per cent extra statutory dues like property tax, electricity charges, water and sewerage charges on the second property?" the bench said.

This apart, the court also wanted the authorities to know as to why it should not prohibit the NRIs from purchasing houses in India to bring down the cost of housing.

Justifying its directions, the court said "Lakhs and lakhs of people are living on platforms, roads, and cement pipes, slums, under the trees and on banks of water bodies without proper shelter and basic amenities and safety."

It is true that the Centre had taken a policy decision to provide housing unit to every family.

It should be achieved at the earliest, the court said, adding it could become fruitful when restrictions are put on persons who hold more than one housing units.

The court passed the order while hearing an appeal moved by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board challenging a single judge order against acquisition of about 369 acres of private land in Thudiyalur and Vellakinar areas of Coimbatore for a housing scheme.