Mangaluru: Police gets nod to prosecute Kalladka Bhat in hate speech case

Kasaragod, Feb 3: The third novel coronavirus case has been reported in India, with another Keralite student who returned from Wuhan University on Monday testing positive for the infection.

The medical student is in an isolation ward at Kanhangad government hospital in Kasaragod, Health Minister K K Shailaja informed the state assembly.

The condition of the student is "stable", she said.

Out of the 104 samples tested till Sunday, three have tested positive.

This is the third positive case reported from Kerala.

Two earlier positive cases, also of students who came back from Wuhan, the epicentre of the virus, were reported from Thrissur and Alapuzha districts.

The minister made the statement in the assembly under Rule 300 in the wake of three positive cases reported from the state.

A total of 1,999 people, who have a travel history from China and other affected countries, are under observation in Kerala, of whom 75 are in isolation wards of various hospitals.

The remaining 1,924 are under home quarantine as per a medical bulletin issued on Sunday night.

The minister has made it clear that those under observation at home should keep away from public functions and should not participate in any events or go out of their homes during the 28 day incubation period.

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.