Karnataka govt mulls ban on cow slaughter, beef consumption

Mysuru, Jun 18: The Karnataka government's proposal announced on Thursday to hold online classes for students amid concerns over COVID-19 has not gone down well with thousands of tribal students residing in villages across the state.

A team from Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (KSCPCR) visited a few tribal hamlets in Mysuru and Kodagu recently and found that the students, unlike their urban counterparts, lack accessibility to not just smartphones and computers, but basic necessities like power supply.

''When such is the situation in the tribal hamlets, how can you expect students to catch up on their studies if classes are held online?'' wondered M L Parashurama Member, KSCPCR, who toured villages like Thithimathi, Beematagere, Devamachchi and Gaddadi in Kodagu's Virajpet taluk, besides Bavali, Balyadi, Machchuru, and Anemone in Mysuru's HD Kote taluk along with Chairperson Antony Sebastian.

Bengaluru, Apr 18: Hours after announcing that two-wheelers will be allowed to ply and that IT/BT companies can resume operations with 33 per cent strength, Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Saturday took a u-turn and rolled them back, citing “public opinion” as the reason. 

Earlier in the day, Yediyurappa announced that, after April 20, there will not be any restriction on the movement of two-wheelers in areas that are not COVID-19 containment zones. Yediyurappa also said that a third of IT/BT employees will be allowed to go to the office after April 20. 

“In the backdrop of public opinion and after discussions with senior officials, it has been decided that the prohibition on two-wheelers will continue throughout the lockdown period,” a statement from the Chief Minister’s Office said. “And in the IT/BT sector, only essential services will be allowed and the work-from-home policy will continue.” 

According to sources, the u-turn came following opposition from Yediyurappa’s Cabinet colleagues. “If I was in the meeting, I’d not have allowed it,” a minister said. Only Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai and Revenue Minister R Ashoka were in the meeting Yediyurappa held earlier in the day. The Opposition also stemmed from the fact that there was no need to make decisions on the lockdown when the Cabinet was scheduled to meet on April 20, sources said. 

The incoordination was apparent on Friday when Deputy Chief Minister CN Ashwath Narayan, the IT/BT minister, said 50 per cent of employees in the sector will be permitted to work while Yediyurappa said this would depend on the number of cases reported in the coming days. 

Other announcements made by Yediyurappa remain unchanged.

“Places, where COVID-19 cases are reported, will be identified as containment zones. In such containment zones, an incident commander will be appointed and given magisterial power. Teams comprising the police and health department officials will oversee the lockdown,” Yediyurappa said. “Lockdown will be much more stringent in these areas and no one will be allowed to step out. Essential supplies will be delivered home.”

According to Bommai, there were 32 containment zones in Bengaluru and ‘hotspots’ have been identified in eight districts.

With an eye on restarting economic activities, the government will allow construction work and industries. “In urban areas, construction work will be allowed to start wherever construction workers have the facility to stay on site,” Yediyurappa said. “The manufacturing sector in rural areas and industrial units located in the special economic zones (SEZ) and townships in urban areas will be allowed to function,” he said.

Stating that inter-state travel will be prohibited, Yediyurappa said the districts of Bengaluru Urban, Bengaluru Rural and Ramnagara will be considered as one only for the movement of industrial workers.

Asked about liquor sale, Yediyurappa said a decision will be taken after May 3. The government has already prohibited liquor sale till April 20 midnight.

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.