Coronavirus forces Modi govt to defer NPR, first phase of Census

Jan 29: Karnataka Tourism Minister, CT Ravi came up in support of BJP leader Anurag Thakur, and made a controversial statement in the process.

Ravi recently took to Twitter to express his views on Thakur facing probe for allegedly making provocative statements. In his tweet, Ravi said that "anti-nationals should get bullet not biryani".

"Those attacking Union MoS @ianuragthakur for his statement against traitors are the ones who - opposed death to terrorirts Ajmal Kasab and Yakub Memon, supported tukde tukde gang, spread lies against CAA. Anti-nationals should get bullet not biryani," Ravi tweeted.

 @ianuragthakur

 #CAA

#IStandWithAnuragThakur

 January 28, 2020

Earlier, Thakur had allegedly made slogans like "Desh ke gaddaro ko, goli maaro saalo ko (shoot the traitors)" multiple times during a public meeting in Delhi. He had also faced a show-cause notice from the Electon Commission, asking a response from him on January 30.

Bengaluru, May 3: Karnataka Education Minister S Suresh Kumar on Saturday said that those who want to travel from other states to Karnataka and vice-versa must register on 'Sevasindhu' website.

"Those who want to travel from other states to Karnataka and from Karnataka to other states must register on 'Sevasindhu' website, then all intimation will be shared from the government side," Kumar said.

Karnataka Health Department on Saturday said that three deaths and 12 new COVID-19 cases were reported in last 24 hours in the state.

According to the Health Department, the total number of coronavirus positive cases in the state is now 601. 271 patients have either been cured or discharged. The virus has killed 25 people so far in the state.

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.