Employees of Expertise, Al-Muzain all set to fly from Saudi Arabia to Mangaluru through charter flights

Bengaluru, Feb 1: The police have arrested two miscreants belonging to a saffron outfit after they threatened students in the city who were protesting the firing incident near Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia, telling them they would meet the same fate as the injured student.

Saffron extremist Gopal Sharma had opened fire at students protesting the Citizenship (Amendment) Act near the Delhi varsity on Thursday, injuring one.

The Bengaluru incident took place at Maurya Circle, where the nightlong demonstration against the Jamia firing and CAA began around 7.30pm. By 11pm, the number of protesters reduced to 30 but the group decided to stay back after getting the news of another alleged attack on women and Jamia students by Delhi police.

According to Adrian, a student who was at the scene, the small group of protesters stayed within a barricaded area on the road, chanting slogans, singing patriotic songs and playing music. “While we were raising anti-CAA slogans, two men from among us began shouting pro-CAA slogans. The duo was unknown and when we looked at them, they quietly moved away,” said Adrian, adding they were drunk and returned after a few minutes.

Saqib Idrees, another student protester, said the duo began to issue verbal threats. “They threatened us in Kannada that they would repeat the Jamia incident in Bengaluru,” said Saqib, adding the duo also taunted them saying ‘it’s not CAA down down, but you all will be brought down’.

When the students questioned the miscreants, cops stationed at the spot detained the duo. “Police were very cooperative. Almost 20 personnel were with us till 5am,” said Saqib.

Meanwhile, a friend of the duo watched the drama from a distance and approached the protesters to apologise on their behalf. “He said they belonged to the working class and FIRs would destroy their lives. He apologised to us and we decided to let the matter go. After all, we are Gandhians,” added Saqib.

Adrian said though the two men were drunk, their threats exposed their ideology. After the duo was detained, the students continued their protest till 5am and dispersed after singing the national anthem.

According to High Grounds police, the men are bank employees and were detained for disturbing the protesters at Maurya Junction. “They are from Andhra Pradesh and work in a PSU bank in the city. One of them is set to get married in February. He had thrown a party for his other friends for the same reason. The duo was drunk when confronted by the protesters. We booked a case of public nuisance and let them off after a warning,” police said.

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.