Cops thwart cattle smuggling bid; four arrested; animals rescued

Kasaragod, May 25: An autorickshaw driver from Belur in Kasaragod was admitted for surgery to a hospital after being hit on the head by a falling jackfruit. He was tested positive for the coronavirus. It is not clear how he contracted the viral infection.

“While he was trying to pluck a jackfruit off a tree, one of them fell on him, injuring his spine. His hands and legs were weakened too. His condition required surgery. Our protocol dictates that we subject everyone who require immediate surgery to the covid test, just to be sure. That’s when he tested positive,” said Dr K Sudeep, superintendent of the Pariyaram Medical College in Kannur.

“He had symptoms of Covid-19. But he has no recent travel history or contact with any infected person. We’re not sure if he got it through one of his passengers in the rickshaw. He had visited the district hospital once so he could have got it from there. Anyway, we are examining it and preparing the route maps,” he added.

His family will be quarantined and health workers have begun to trace his immediate primary contacts.

Though there have been a number of cases in Kerala where a person’s source of infection could not be correctly ascertained, such people have gone on to recover without spreading the infection to others.

The Kerala government is conducting testing of high-risk persons on the frontlines, such as police officials, grocery vendors and health workers, as part of its sentinel surveillance programme, but maintains that there’s little evidence of a community spread in the state.

Bengaluru, Jan 12: Karnataka’s ranking in Niti Aayog’s sustainable development goals (SDG) index rose by one place to No. 6 in 2019, compared to the year before.

Of the 17 SDGs that are used to compute the overall index, Karnataka topped in two – ‘climate action’ and ‘life on water’. The former is a measure of how well a state integrates climate action into policies and strategies and promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change planning and management. The latter focuses on preventing marine pollution, ending illegal and destructive fishing practices, and sustainably managing and protecting marine and coastal ecosystems.

It also did well in ‘decent work and economic growth’ and ‘peace, justice and strong institutions’. But it fared poorly, slipping 16 places – from No. 5 in 2018 to No. 21 in 2019 – in ‘industry, innovation and infrastructure’. Rankings in ‘quality education’ and ‘zero hunger’ have also fallen. While in education it is now ranked 7, a drop of three places, in ‘zero hunger’, it has dropped to No. 17 from 13. SDG is a United Nations initiative. Niti Aayog has customised it for India, and 36 states and union territories are ranked. The organisation admits there is an issue of data availability in India, indicating the numbers may not exactly reflect the ground situation.

In ‘industry, innovation and infrastructure, Karnataka scored just 40 out of a target of 100. The country average was 65. It failed to achieve targets in all the four parameters for the category, except in the number of mobile connections, where it has 100 connections per 100 population. The biggest dip was in manufacturing industry jobs and in providing allweather roads under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana to targeted habitats. Niti Ayog has given a score of 0 for the latter. Speaking on the dismal performance in the ‘industry and infrastructure’ category, state planning commission vice-chairman BJ Puttaswamy said he was yet to look into this parameter. “I have asked the departments concerned to meet me by Monday,” he 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.