Couple who trafficked 5000 girls in 26 yrs arrested with Rs 100-cr in assets

Bengaluru, Jul 6: Karnataka government has revised quarantine norms according to which those entering the State from other states, including from Maharashtra, shall be placed in 14-days home quarantine.

Until now, the state government had issued that those returning from Maharashtra are to be placed under 7-day institutional quarantine followed by 7-day home quarantine.

A fresh state government order with the subject line "Regulation of movement of persons from other States to Karnataka" reads: "Whereas the State Government vide Order dated June 30, issued unlock 2 guidelines which permit reopening of more activities in a calibrated manner, in areas outside the Containment Zones, and to extend lockdown in Containment Zone upto July 31. The guidelines also permit unrestricted interstate movement of persons and goods adhering to the SOPs/ Guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare and Department of Revenue (Disaster Management)".

Whereas, the Department of Health and Family Welfare issued revised SOP for the moment of persons from other State to Karnataka vide document dated June 8, this year, further, quarantine norms were modified vide Orders of even number dated June 15 and June 26.

"The quarantine norms are regularly reviewed and calibrated with the prevailing Unlock 2 guidelines and infusion of technology and community involvement to enforce the strict home quarantine. In light of the above, the quarantine norms issued vide Order dated June 26, has been further modified and is follows--Persons coming from other State to Karnataka, including Maharashtra shall be placed in 14-days Home Quarantine," the order read.

"The other conditions as specified in the Order dated June 15 and aforementioned SOP enclosed issued on June 8 by the Department of Health and Family Welfare shall continue to be in force until further orders," it added.

Jan 14: A day after it moved the Supreme Court against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Kerala government on Tuesday said it would continue its fight against the legislation as it "destroys" the secularism and democracy in the country.

The CPI(M)-led government had on Monday moved the apex court challenging the CAA and sought to declare it as 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. State Industries Minister E P Jayarajan told reporters here that the state has moved the apex court and will explore all options to fight the Act.

"The state government will to go to any extent and continue its fight against CAA. This Act destroys democracy in the country. This will only help in implementing the RSS agenda, to drive the nation through a fascist regime, and destroying the secularism and democracy in the country. The RSS and the Sangh Parivar cannot implement this law just by using muscle power," Jayarajan said.

Tourism Minister Kadakampally Surendran tweeted that the state became the first in the country to approach the top court against the Act. "Kerala government files lawsuit against the unconstitutional CAA. Kerala becomes the first state in the country to go to the Supreme Court against CAA.

"Kerala leads the way," he said in the tweet. In a suit filed in the apex court, the Kerala government has sought to declare that the CAA 2019 was "violative" of Article 14 (Equality before law), 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) and 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) of the Constitution.

It also claimed that the law was violative of the basic principle of secularism enshrined in it. The state Assembly had on December 31, 2019, passed a unanimous resolution against the CAA and became the first state to do it.

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.