53-year-old disabled coolie runs 6km to avert major train mishap in Udupi

Kozhikode, Jun 9: Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan's daughter Veena T is all set to marry DYFI National President and CPM state committee member PA Muhammad Riyas on June 15. Interestingly, it's the second marriage for both. 

Veena, the elder daughter of Pinarayi Vijayan and Kamala Vijayan, is an IT entrepreneur based in Bengaluru.

According to sources, the marriage will be a simple function in Thiruvananthapuram where only close relatives will participate. The marriage registration has already been done. 

"It's only a private affair of two individuals," Riyas told media persons, reluctant to divulge more details. 

The 44-year-old Muhammad Riyas started his political career with the Students Federation of India (SFI) and climbed up the rungs through DYFI. He had unsuccessfully contested against UDF's M K Raghavan from Kozhikode parliament constituency in 2009. 

The son of retired IPS officer P M Abdul Khadar, Riyas is the familiar face of the left in primetime TV discussions, strongly articulating the CPM stance. 

A law graduate, he had begun at the grassroots level and gradually worked his way up the ladder. 

His marriage to Dr Sameeha Saithalavi, a former syndicate member of Calicut University, happened in 2002. The couple separated in 2015 and they have two sons aged 10 and 13. 

The 40-plus Veena is MD of the IT firm Exalogic Solutions since 2014. 

Prior to that, she was the CEO of RT Technosoft, a Thiruvananthapuram-based company owned by NRI industrialist Ravi Pillai. Before that, she had a six-year stint with Oracle. She has a son from her first marriage. 

"They both were divorced for more than five years. They knew each other and the marriage decision was taken by them only. It's completely a private affair," said a DYFI leader.

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.