Tour de Difference-2011' flagged off in city

Mumbai, Jun 14: Bollywood actor Sushant Singh Rajput committed suicide on Sunday, leaving all his fans and the industry in shock. While the reason behind him taking up the extreme step is still not clear, a look into Sushant’s social media feed suggests that things were not well for him for quite some time.

Sushant had been inactive on Twitter since months. His last tweet was on December 27, 2019. Since then, he did not even reply to any one on Twitter. Same is the case with his Facebook account as the last post on his timeline was on the same date. Interestingly, Sushant's Twitter cover picture is the popular painting - 'Starry Night', by Van Gogh, who had also reportedly committed suicide in 1890.

On Instagram, the young actor had last posted on June 3. It was a collage picture of him and his mother along with a cryptic caption that read, “Blurred past evaporating from teardrops Unending dreams carving an arc of smile And a fleeting life, negotiating between the two...#माँ”.

Was Sushant’s inactivity on Twitter, Facebook and his last cryptic post on Instagram a signal that the actor was having a tough time? Well, may be it will remain a mystery forever.

Mysuru, Feb 23: A Quarantine station for rescued wild animals for rehabilitation will soon come up at Chamundi Animal Conservation, Rescue and Rehabilitation Centre at Koorgalli, an independent facility developed by the Mysuru Zoo on the outskirts of the City of Palaces and it complies with the recommended quarantine procedures followed globally by Zoological gardens.

The work on the construction was expected to start soon as the tender process had been under progress.

The Zoo was using its own funds to develop the facility for multiple animal species and to ensure that no infections from the wild animals were spread to the healthy animals already in captivity since many years.

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.