Mangaluru: Engineering student jumps to death from building

Mangaluru, July 23: Lavanya Ballal, national co-coordinator for social media department of Indian National Congress, has accused the Bharatiya Janata Party of destroying the nation by misleading the youth.

In an interview with a regional Kannada news paper, the Dakshina Kannada based activist, lamented that instead of using social media for the welfare of the nation, BJP leaders used it to spread lies for their political gains. 

On one hand BJP fooled people through false promises and colourful dialogues, while on the other hand it misled crores of youth by spreading fake news, twisted facts and false information, she said.

Ms Ballal went on to accuse BJP of following the footsteps of the British. “BJP is following all the methods employed by the British invaders to divide the people of India and make them hate each other,” she said.

She said that Congress always used the social media for the benefit of the country. If the new generation realises this fact, the country will once again turn its direction towards development, she asserted.

Yadgir, Jan 21: A bag was found abandoned at the Yadgir Bus Stand on Tuesday morning that left the commuters in panic.

After receiving the information, a police team, along with a sniffer dog, rushed to the spot. When the bag was checked, the police found clothes and cash in it.

It is stated that a passenger might have left the bag in a hurry to catch the bus.

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.