CPI office attacked in Bantwal by alleged saffron workers

Bengaluru, Jul 22: Karnataka Governor Vajubhai Vala, had appointed five persons to the Karnataka Legislative Council, which remained vacant, including former ministers H Vishwanath and C P Yogeshwar, here on Wednesday.

In a Raj Bhavan communique issued here on Wednesday, it was stated that the Governor had accepted the names suggested by the Chief minister B S Yediyurappa, to fill the vacancies in the Upper House.

Apart from H Vishwanath, and Yogeshwar, the others who were nominated to the Council, were former MLA Bharathi Shetty, Shantharama Budna Siddi, and Talwar Sabanna.

Udupi, Feb 10: The throat swabs of three suspected coronavirus patients in Udupi that was sent for tests have come back as negative.

Throat swabs of three persons who got admitted at a district government hospital in Udupi with symptoms of fever on Friday was sent to Bangalore medical college and research institute for test to know whether the admitted persons who returned from China 15 days back had contracted coronavirus.

The 30-year-old man from Kaup taluk had been China on personal work and had returned to Udupi 15 days back. Upon showing the symptoms of fever, throat pain and cold, he was suggested to get admitted.

He was admitted in the isolation ward and was directed to remain under quarantine till the observation period ends and till the test report is obtained.

Another family from Mandarthi, a man and his wife, who had returned after a tour from China 15 days back were also kept under observation at the isolation ward in the district government hospital, Udupi.

Udupi DC G Jagadish has said that there are no coronavirus case reported in Udupi and people need not panic. Sources said that the three tested negatives for coronavirus in Udupi will be discharged from the hospital on Monday.

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.