Mangaluru: Engineering student jumps to death from building

Bengaluru, Apr 28: Providing respite, Karnataka has decided to ‘conditionally’ allow economic activities to restart in green zones.

The green zones of Chamarajanagar, Koppal, Chikkamagaluru, Raichur, Chitradurga, Ramanagara, Hassan, Shivamogga, Haveri, Yadgir, Kolar, Davangere, Udupi and Kodagu will now see shops and industrial activities starting operations, according to an order issued by Chief Secretary TM Vijay Bhaskar on Tuesday.

Lockdown restrictions in the wake of COVID-19 will continue in Bengaluru Urban, Belagavi, Mysuru, Vijayapura, Bagalkot, Kalaburagi, Bidar and Dakshina Kannada. Here, only essential services and supplies will be allowed.

In green zones, all shops that include neighbourhood shops, standalone shops, shops in residential complexes within the limits of municipal corporations and municipalities can open with 50 per cent manpower but with masks and social distancing mandatory.

Shops in residential and marketing complexes are allowed to open in areas located outside municipal limits, the order states.

Multi-brand and single-brand malls will remain shut across Karnataka.

Industries operating in rural areas of these green zones (except Ramanagara) have been allowed to start. Also, manufacturing and other industrial establishments with access control in special economic zones and export-oriented units, industrial estates and industrial townships will be allowed to operate.

“These establishments shall make arrangements for stay of workers within their premises as far as possible and/ or adjacent buildings. The transportation of workers to workplace shall be arranged by the employers in dedicated transport by ensuring social distancing (sic),” Bhaskar said in the order.

This order comes a day after Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa participated in a video conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and with all deputy commissioners.

No decision on relaxing lockdown restrictions has been taken for Ballari, Mandya, Bengaluru Rural, Gadag, Tumakuru, Chikkaballapur, Uttara Kannada and Dharwad. “The decision regarding opening of shops and industries in taluks where there are no active COVID-19 cases will be taken by the concerned district in-charge minister,” Bhaskar said.

Bengaluru, Apr 17: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on Thursday served a show cause notice to a Kannada news channel for broadcasting a programme in which it purportedly said that the Centre would 'air drop money' to the poor, owing to the COVID-19 lockdown.

The notice said that the channel was "spreading false information, creating panic and social unrest.

" The channel had allegedly aired a show titled, "Helicopter Money" on Wednesday which claimed that the Centre would drop money from helicopters during the lockdown period.

A Twitter user took a serious note of it and complained to the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Prakash Javadekar.

The fact check team of the Press Information Bureau, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, refuted the claim.

In its notice to the channel, PIB said, "You are hereby directed to show cause why your channel should not be taken out of air immediately. You are instructed to send your reply in this regard within 10 days of receipt of this notice."

Reacting to the notice, the management of the news channels said, "A programme which has been seen in bits and pieces and those who have not even seen the programme appears to have complained. Notice will be replied accordingly."

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.