DK SP warns communal forces after attack on Muslim rickshaw drivers

New Delhi: The Ministry of Home Affairs of Government of India today clarified to the Lok Sabha in a written reply that the so called “Love Jihad” is not defined under the extant laws and no such cases have been reported by any central agency.

It was ministry’s formal response to questions about whether the central government is aware of the observation of Kerala High Court that there is no case of Love Jihad in Kerala.

“The term ‘Love Jihad’ is not defined under the extant laws. No such case of ‘Love Jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies. However, two cases from Kerala involving interfaith marriages have been investigated by the NIA,” said the reply.

Communal and anti-Muslim political outfits backed by a section of media often use the term “Love Jihad” to accuse Muslims of marrying Hindu and Christian girls and then forcing them to change religion. Dr Hadiya’s conversion was also termed ‘love jihad’ by the BJP and media. The Supreme Court finally ruled that it wasn’t.

In January 2020, an influential Catholic Church in Kerala had said that “love jihad is a reality” and alleged that scores of women from Christian community from the southern state were being lured into the trap of Islamic State and used in terror activities.

The Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had welcomed the Church statement and called for a united fight against ‘Love Jihad’ in Kerala Society.

The response comes weeks after the MHA, responding to an RTI query, said it has "no information" concerning the 'Tukde Tukde Gang' -- a term that has been used a number of times by PM Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah to attack opponents.

The RTI application was filed by activist Saket Gokhle on December 26 last year. In his RTI application, Saket Gokhle said Home Minister "Amit Shah addressed a public event in New Delhi, and in his address said, 'The Tukde Tukde Gang of Delhi needs to be taught a lesson and punished'." Gokhle's RTI asked for details of the 'Tukde Tukde Gang'.

The home ministry, in its reply to Saket Gokhle's RTI application, said, "Ministry of Home Affairs has no information concerning tukde-tukde gang."

Bengaluru, Jul 10: Karnataka health minister B Sriramulu on Thursday said that the government is planning to increase number of COVID-19 testing labs and technicians in the state.

Speaking to news agency, Sriramulu said, "We have 72 labs where COVID-19 tests are conducted. They are under pressure with increased number of tests. When lab technicians are quarantined, it gets difficult to complete work. So we are considering to increase number of labs and technicians."

Speaking on the community transmission of COVID-19 in Bengaluru, he said, "The experts are already deliberating over the issue of community transmission. According to me the community spread has not taken place yet."

Meanwhile, Cabinet Minister Madhu Swamy said that the government is calling for foreign investment for which Boston Consulting Group (BCG) has been hired by the state government.

Speaking to the reporters after the Cabinet meeting, Swamy said, "We call for foreign investment in Karnataka for which we need an agency who has to coordinate, who has to bring outsiders in Karnataka to invest in the state. For that we have hired a company by name Boston consulting Group(BCG) we will be paying them Rs 1 crore for twelve months."

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.