Don’t send me to Mumbai; I will be killed there: Ravi Poojary to cops

Mangaluru, Feb 12: Mangaluru City Corporation’s (MCC) mayoral elections will be held on February 28, Urban Development Department has announced.

Yashwanth V, Regional Commissioner of Mysuru will be conducting the election in the city.

The election will be held as per the 21st term reservation roster according to which the mayoral candidate has to be a BCM ‘A’ candidate and the deputy mayoral candidate must be a woman from the general category.
 

Bengaluru, Jun 28: Karnataka Minister for Medical Education Dr K Sudhakar faced criticism by netizens after he shared a TikTok video sent by his daughter and wife, who are currently undergoing treatment in a COVID-19 facility.

TikTok is a Chinese video-sharing social networking service owned by ByteDance, a Beijing-based internet technology company founded in 2012 by Zhang Yiming.

Dr Sudhakar’s father, his wife and daughter who tested positive for Covid-19 has been admitted to a designated facility and in order to make his birthday memorable, his daughter sent him greetings through TikTok video.

When the minister shared the TikTok video, people pointed out that the minister should know better and that he should urge his family to boycott the Chinese video-sharing platform and lead by example.

Many were miffed that a BJP leader put up a TikTok video at a time when tensions are running high between India and China along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in eastern Ladakh.

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.