A day before Red brigade’s ‘harmony rally’, Mangaluru streets turn Saffron

Newsroom, Jul 15: At least three students have committed suicide in different parts of Karnataka after failing in II PUC examinations, the results of which were announced yesterday. 

Bhumika, an 18-year-old girl hailing from Mallipattene near Arakalagud town in Hassan district killed herself within hours after the announcement of results. 

Depressed over her failure in the examination, she consumed poison, the police sources said. 

In a separate incident, 18-year-old Chitra, who failed the II PUC examinations, committed suicide at her native Chikkamarasa village in Shivamogga district. 

She was studying in Government PU College in Kumsi and after knowing about her result in the final PU exam, she hanged herself to death at her house.

Similarly, an 18-year-old boy from Harihar taluk in Davanagere district committed suicide in his house after the announcement of the PUC results.

Mangaluru, Jun 23: An elderly person, who was undergoing treatment for covid-19 in Mangaluru, breathed his last on today. 

The victim, identified by number P-6282, was a 70-year-old man. He had returned from Bengaluru on June 7. 

He was suffering asthma and pneumonia. He had Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI) symptoms and was hence admitted to the designated covid-19 hospital in Mangaluru on June 12. 

His condition continued to worsen and today he breathed his last, sources said.

With this the total number the deaths of covid-19 patients in Dakshina Kannada district mounted to 9.

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.