‘A corrupt deal’: Probe sought into handing over of 5 airports including Mangaluru to Adani

Bengaluru, Jan 13: Though he submitted his resignation as leader of the opposition over a month ago, former chief minister Siddaramaiah continues as the face of the Congress in Karnataka.

However, this may change as All India Congress Committee (AICC) interim president Sonia Gandhi has summoned Siddaramaiah to Delhi for a final consultation over change of guard. Over the past month, there has been speculation over the possibility of Congress persisting with Siddaramaiah as opposition leader and either party troubleshooter DK Shivakumar or former ministers MB Patil, HK Patil or Eshwar Khandre replacing incumbent president Dinesh Gundu Rao. Both tendered resignations owing moral responsibility for the party's dismal performance in the 15 bypolls held last month.

In the past 24 hours, there has been talk of Siddaramaiah being asked to be the state unit president and vacating the other post for a young turk or experience legislator including the likes of Shivakumar who could be the face of KPCC by 2023 if he gets a clean chit from the ED in cases of money-laundering, etc. Seniors, including former KPCC president and DyCM G Parameswara and former minister HK Patil, are strong contenders to be leader of the opposition if Siddaramaiah is asked to vacate the post.

However, sources in the Siddaramaiah camp dismissed the possibility of him becoming KPCC president. "He has never aspired for the post and the high command is not inclined to do it," said a member in his camp.

Siddaramaiah may meet Sonia on Tuesday morning. It's still unclear if any other KPCC functionaries have been summoned. Sources said Sonia is scheduled to leave India for medical treatment on January 15 and wanted to complete the consultations about Karnataka. The high command has reportedly gone through reports submitted by party observers Madhusudan Mistry and Parameswara.

Bengaluru, Jan 6: Students and teachers from various colleges in Bengaluru gathered at the Town Hall in the city to protest against the violence which broke out at the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus in New Delhi on January 5.

The students raised slogans against Home Minister Amit Shah and Delhi Police.

Placards that read 'The more you attack, the stronger we become', 'Take off your masks terrorist', 'With JNU' were seen during the protest.

"We are here to protest against the incident that took place at JNU with our brothers and sisters. What Delhi Police did was shameful and they should have taken charge of the situation long before and not waited for three hours. We stand with JNU," Nisha, a protestor told ANI.

Professors present at the protest expressed regret over the incident and said attacks on the universities is a sick situation in the country.

"This is sick, where have we come to -- violence in the universities? I was so safe when I was studying in college; what we are giving to our students is horrible," said Sangeeta, a professor present at the protest.

Politicians, cutting across party lines, have condemned the attack on students in JNU and demanded strict action against those found guilty.

More than 18 students were taken to the AIIMS Trauma Centre after a masked mob entered the JNU campus and attacked them and some professors with sticks and rods.

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.