Udupi limps back to normalcy; eight cases registered; Annamalai returns to Chikkamagaluru

Bengaluru, Jul 3: Over 35 acres of land in nine villages on the outskirts of Bengaluru have been earmarked for burial and cremation of bodies of COVID-19 victims after concerns were raised over the safety of funerals being held in burial grounds located in residential areas.

Deputy Commissioner of Bengaluru Urban District GN Shivamurthy issued an order setting apart about 35.5 acres in the villages under four Taluks of Bengaluru North, Bengaluru South, Anekal and Yelahanka.

The order directed the respective Tahsildars to register these chunks of land as reserved for burial grounds and not to use for any purpose.

According to the sources in the district administration, Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu and Revenue Minister R Ashoka had directed the officials to identify places on the city outskirts to dispose of the bodies of COVID-19 victims.

Mr Sriramulu had on Wednesday said COVID-19 victims will not be laid to rest in burial grounds in the city and separate places will be earmarked on the outskirts in the backdrop of safety concerns raised by public.

He had also warned against unscientific disposal of used Personal Protection Equipment kits worn by the families of the victim for the final rites, referring to reports about such instances.

In some places, people have also expressed concern over bodies of those who died of the coronavirus being buried in their neighbourhood.

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.