Dubai: BWF hosts lectures, picnic to mark UAE National Day

Bengaluru, Mar 26: In a second coronavirus related death in Karnataka, COVID-19 test results of a 75- year-old woman who had died on Wednesday has come out as positive, Medical Education Minister K Sudhakar said.

"I regret to inform that the COVID-19 test result has come out as positive for patient, who had succumbed to death yesterday. The govt stands committed to curb the spread of Corona Virus in the state. Please stay home, stay safe," Sudhakar tweeted on Thursday.

Health and Family Welfare Minister B Sriramulu too said the lab reports regarding the death on Wednesday have come and it has come out as positive, and death was due to COVID-19.

The exact cause of her death would be known only after the final report comes, both Minister had said on Wednesday.

The woman from Gauribidanur in Chikkaballapura district, had returned from Mecca in Saudi Arabia recently.

Sharing details about the woman, Sriramulu in a tweet on Wednesday had said, she died at Bowring hospital here at 1 am, and was suffering from diabetes, chest pain and hip fracture.

The patient was undergoing treatment in isolation ward at a hospital in Gauribidanur, later for more treatment she was shifted to Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Chest Diseases in Bengaluru, from where she was shifted to Bowring hospital on Tuesday," he had said.

This is the second coronavirus fatality in the state.

Earlier this month, a 76-year old Kalaburagi man died "due to co-morbidity and was also tested positive for COVID- 19", becoming the country's first coronavirus death.

Hubballi, Jan 11: Karnataka Industries Minister Jagadeesh Shatter's mother Basvennamma Shivappa Shetter passed away here on Friday evening.

She was 86. She is survived by three sons and a daughter.

The final rituals was held on Saturday, family sources 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.