SDPI and PFI have terror ties; Congress govt in Karnataka protecting them: Lekhi

Bengaluru, Jul 9: The M Chinnaswamy cricket stadium and the Bengaluru Palace in Karnataka will be converted into a COVID-19 care centre, informed the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) on Thursday.

The Bangalore International Exhibition Centre was also recently converted into a COVID-19 care facility by the state government amid the rising number of COVID-19 cases.

R Ashoka, the state's COVID management in charge said, "People of Bangalore need not panic. All necessary equipment and preparation are being arranged by the state. We have over 600 ambulances ready to take care of COVID patients."

As per the data from the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Karnataka now has a total of 28,877 COVID-19 cases, including 16,531 active cases and 11,876 recoveries.

470 people have died of the infectious virus in the state so far.

Bengaluru, Mar 3: Senior Congress leader and Leader of Opposition in Karnataka Assembly Siddaramaiah on Tuesday said that the party's protest will continue until the Speaker will allow them to discuss BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yathnal's recent comments on freedom fighter HS Doreswamy.

"Our protest in the well of state assembly will continue until Speaker allows us to discuss about Basanagouda Patil Yatnal," Siddaramaiah said.

Congress MLAs staged a protest in the Karnataka Assembly and entered the well demanding BJP MLA Basanagouda Patil Yathnal's apology for his 'Pakistani agent' remark.

Earlier, Congress leaders on February 26 staged a protest on the same issue in front of Mahatma Gandhi's statue at Vidhana Soudha.

Yathnal, on February 25, called Doreswamy a fake freedom fighter and a Pakistani agent while addressing the media. His comments triggered a controversy drawing sharp remarks from Congress and other parties.

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.