Demonetisation resulted in financial discipline, GDP growth: DVS

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Karnataka Forest Minister Anand Singh on Wednesday said that there was no criminal case filed directly against him.

When asked about PIL filed in the Karnataka High Court against him, Singh told media: "Some lawyer has filed a PIL against me in the High Court. I cannot stop anyone from filing the PIL."

"I have given my criminal record. There is no criminal case directly filed against me. My name is there in some cases but in 'others category'. We will see what happens," he said.

When asked about Congress leader Siddaramaiah's comments criticising him for being given the forest portfolio, Singh said: "I cannot comment on what he said against me as he is a former chief minister and very senior leader."

"Also the opposition always tries to make allegations against me. That is why he criticised me," he said.

Leader of Opposition in Karnataka Assembly Siddaramaiah on Monday demanded that Forest Minister Anand Singh should either be expelled from the ministry or assigned a different portfolio.

A number of cases are pending against Singh including those registered under the Karnataka Forest Act.

Bengaluru, Apr 25: With 26 new COVID-19 cases confirmed in the past 24 hours, the total number of positive cases in Karnataka reached 500 on Saturday.

This includes 158 patients who have been cured and discharged following treatment while 18 deaths have been reported so far due to the infection in the State, according to a media bulletin issued by the Department of Health and Family Welfare on Saturday evening.

A total of 324 COVID-19 cases are currently active in the State as of Saturday evening 5 pm.
According to the bulletin, Bengaluru Urban with 133 positive cases, including 49 discharged and four deaths, is the worst-affected district in the State, followed by Mysuru and Belagavi, with 89 and 54 confirmed cases, respectively.

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.