Demonetisation: Banks to use indelible ink while exchanging notes

Bengaluru, Mar 1: A Bengaluru Court has extended the judicial custody of Amulya Leona, who raised 'Pakistan Zindabad' slogan at an anti-CAA rally in Bengaluru's Freedom Park on Feb 20, till March 5.

Amulya was sent to 14-day judicial custody for her actions in the presence of All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen chief Asaduddin Owaisi.

A sedition case has been registered against Amulya.

According to the police, a suo moto case under Section 124A (sedition), 153A and B (promoting enmity between different groups and imputations, assertions prejudicial to national integration) have been registered against the girl.

Bengaluru, July 25:  Karnataka reported 5,072 new COVID-19 positive cases and 72 deaths on Saturday, taking the total number of cases in the state to 90,942.

The total count includes 55,388 active cases and 1,796 deaths, the state health department said.

Meanwhile, a 100-year-old woman resident of Huvina Hadagali town in Bellary district here recovered from COVID-19 after testing positive for the virus earlier this month.

"Doctors treated me well. Along with regular food, I was eating an apple a day. The doctors are giving me tablets and injection, and I am healthy now. COVID-19 is like a common cold," said Hallamma while speaking to news agency.

The woman's son, daughter-in-law, and grandson had also tested positive for the virus, and the family was treated at their home.

India reported a spike of 48,916 coronavirus cases on Saturday, taking the total number of reported COVID-19 cases to 13,36,861, according to the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

The total count include 4,56,071 active cases, 8,49,431 cured/discharged/migrated. With 757 deaths in the last 24 hours, the cumulative toll reached 31,358.

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.