20-yr-old man beheads father, walks into police station with severed head

New Delhi, Feb 7: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Central government on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and effective implementation of the Assam Accord.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde also sought Centre's response on the plea filed by Assam Social Justice Forum.

The petition sought appropriate directions for taking effective steps for the implementation of Assam Accord, 1985 in letter and spirit and for conservation and preservation of the of a distinct culture, heritage and traditions of the indigenous people of Assam.

The Assam Accord, 1985, had fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of their religion.

The Bench also sought Centre's response on another fresh batch of pleas challenging CAA and tagged them along with other petitions pending in the matter.

One of the petitions, filed by the Association of Advocates from Maharashtra among others, sought to declare the Citizenship Amendment Act as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal and consequently set aside the impugned act as ultra-vires the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, over a hundred petitions have been filed in the apex court, for and against the amended citizenship law, which is facing opposition and protests across the country.

CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.

Udupi, Jan 14: The Udupi district police on Tuesday arrested two suspected terrorists at the Indrali railway station in Udupi.

The two, who had reportedly arrived from Kerala at around 6 ap.m., were standing at the Indrali railway station platform.

Suspicious of their behaviour, the police took them to custody and subjected them to interrogation.

According to reports the duo had involved in the murder of Tamil Nadu police Special Sub-Inspector Wilson.

However, top cop of the district has refused to comment regarding the arrest of the youths.

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.