Dr Safwan Ahmed receives 'Best Post-Graduate Resident in Neurology Award' at NIMHANS convocation

Bhopal, Mar 18: Congress leader Digvijay Singh's detention by police in Bengaluru is display of "dictatorship and Hitlarshahi" by the BJP, Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Kamal Nath said here on Wednesday.

Singh staged a protest near a Bengaluru resort this morning where rebel MLAs of Madhya Pradesh Congress are staying, and demanded that he be allowed to meet them.

Singh, who has been detained by the police, accused the BJP of holding the MLAs captive and said that he would go on a "hunger strike".

Reacting to this, Nath said if the need arises he would also go to the Karnataka capital.

"Preventing Congress Rajya Sabha candidate and other ministers from meeting MLAs, misbehave with them, forcibly taken them into custody is totally a dictatorship and hitlershahi (sic)," Nath said in a tweet.

"Entire country is watching how an elected government is being made unstable and how BJP is murdering democratic values," Nath said.

"Why they are not allowing them to meet MLAs. What BJP is afraid of. BJP is playing a dirty political game in the state," the chief minister tweeted.

Demanding immediate release of detained Congress leaders, Nath said that democratic norms and Constitutional values are being stifled.

Later speaking to reporters, the CM said, "Why the BJP is afraid of presenting 16 MLAs here (Bhopal)? What is the problem in one person (Singh) meeting with 16 legislators?"

Nath reiterated that his government had proven majority on floor of the House in the last 15 months since coming to power.

Amid political uncertainty in Madhya Pradesh, the state Congress Legislature Party on Tuesday moved the Supreme Court seeking direction to the Centre and the BJP-led Karnataka government to grant it access to communicate with its rebel MLAs staying in Bengaluru.

The apex court had also directed the Kamal Nath government to respond by Wednesday to a plea by senior BJP leader Shivraj Singh Chouhan seeking immediate floor test in the Assembly.

Marriages will have to shed decadence as the state government, in an advisory, has restricted the number of guests to 50 and barred consumption of liquor at such events. 

The advisory was issued in anticipation that the COVID-19 lockdown will be eased in a phased manner. 

The advisory, issued by the Department of Health & Family Welfare, states that events can be held in a “suitable public place with good natural ventilation (no air condition).”

For latest updates on coronavirus outbreak, click here
All guests must have the Arogya Setu app on their phones and the contact details all marriage attendees should be maintained. 

No person from a containment zone will be allowed to attend the event, and persons aged above 65 years, pregnant women and children below 10 years are not permitted. 

Sanitizers are to be provided at the entry and at “appropriate” places. Thermal screening is a must at the entry point of the venue. The scanner should be held 3-15 cm away from a person’s forehead. “Anyone found having a fever (37.5 degree centigrade or 99.5 farenheit), cold, cough, difficulty in breathing shall not be permitted to attend the event and immediately referred to seek medical advice,” the advisory said. 

Besides prohibition on consumption of alcohol, the advisory said paan, gutka and tobacco will not be allowed. 

Face masks are compulsory and all persons should maintain a physical distance of more than one metre. The venue shall be clean and hygienic, with a prohibition on spitting in public places.

A nodal person should be identified to oversee the arrangements, the advisory said.

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.