Cops thwart cattle smuggling bid; four arrested; animals rescued

Bengaluru, May 4: A total of 37 new COVID-19 cases have been reported in the last 24 hours in Karnataka taking the total number to 651, State Health Department said on Monday.

"Thirty seven new coronavirus positive cases have been confirmed in Karnataka from 5 pm yesterday to 5 pm today. The total number of cases in the state stands at 651," the department said.

The total number of cases includes 27 deaths and 321 persons who have been discharged. Of the remaining 302 cases, 296 patients are in isolation in designated hospitals and six patients are in ICU.

India has registered 2,553 new COVID-19 cases in the last 24 hours and the total number of cases now stands at 44,532.

Kasaragod, Apr 3: Kerala reported nine new cases of coronavirus on Friday, with seven from the worst affected Kasaragod district, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said.

With this, the total number of coronavirus positive cases in the coastal district alone mounted to 136.

Besides, Kasaragod, one case each was detected from Thrissur and Idukki, he told reporters after a COVID-19 review meeting this evening.

Currently, 251 people are under treatment for the virus in the state and 14 were cured today, Vijayan said.

A total of 1.69 lakh people are under surveillence in the state and 706 are in various hospitals.

Two fatalities have been reported from the state so far.

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.