DK Muslim Association' launched to help bereaved Muslim families

Bengaluru, Jan 14: The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday issued a notice to the government of Karnataka while hearing the plea for ordering Judicial probe into the December 19, violence and police action in Mangaluru.

On December 19, the local police while taking action against anti-CAA and NRC protesters had fired at them which had killed two citizens. The police action was then followed by curfew in the region for over 48 hours.

The High Court bench hearing the plea of JD(s) leader Iqbal and Sullia Pattan Panchayat member Iqbal seeking its intervention to order judicial probe into the matter has issued the notice to the government.

Bengaluru, Apr 13: Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) President and former Minister D K Shivakumar has demanded resignation of Minister In-Charge of COVID-19 for his alleged irresponsible comment, despite holding a responsible post.

Mr Shivakumar's comments came after Dr Sudhakar on Sunday shared a picture of him and his children in a swimming pool, on Twitter with a caption, ''After a long time joined my children for swimming hope maintaining social distance here as well…hahaha.''

However, Dr Sudhakar deleted the tweet from his account, soon after he was criticised for sharing such a picture, when the country is facing a health crisis.

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.