Rahul Gandhi personally spoke to me; there are better opportunities in Congress: Mithun Rai

Thiruvananthapuram, Feb 11: In a unique form of protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a bridegroom in Kerala, Haja Hussain, came for his wedding ceremony riding on a camel holding an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) poster in his hands, on the outskirts of the capital city on Monday.

Accompanied by a large crowd mostly comprising his friends and relatives, Hussain carried a placard which read "Reject CAA, Boycott NRC and NPR" as he arrived at the wedding hall in Vazhimukku, about 20 km from Thiruvananthapuram, on a camel back.

Haja Hussain said that he chose to do this to express his protest against the CAA.

"Along with the ' mahr' (the custom where the groom hands over gold or money to the bride), I also gave a copy of the Constitution. CAA should be rejected," said Haja Hussain, who is a local businessman.

Newsroom, Feb 21: Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa has claimed that Amulya Leona, who raised pro-Pakistan slogans at a pro-India event in Bengaluru, had links with Naxalites.

The 19-year-old B.A. student was arrested on sedition charge after she raised pro-Pakistan slogans at a peaceful protest against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act in Bengaluru yesterday.

"Bail should not be given to Amulya. Her father has also said he won't protect her. It’s proved now that she had contacts with Naxals. Proper punishment should be given," Yediyurappa said in Mysuru today.

All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) chief Asaduddin Owaisi, who snatched mike from Amulya’s hand, said that her slogans only helped Bharatiya Janata Party and those who are trying to suppress people’s movement against racism and communalism.

Interestingly, Amulya hails from a family which has close association with Sangh Parivar. Her father Wazi Noronha was a leader of minority of wing of BJP in Koppa taluk of Chikkamagaluru district.

He had worked in support of hardline BJP leader and Udupi-Chickmagaluru MP Shobha Karandlaje, and D N Jeevaraj, who had represented Sringeri constituency last time.

Meanwhile, a group of people attacked the house of Wazi at Gullagadde near Koppa last night. A group of Bajrang Dal activists also compelled him to shout ‘Bharat Mata ki Jai’.

Also Read: Mangaluru: VHP stages protest against ex-BJP leader’s daughter who raised pro-Pak slogans

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.