Ex-Cong leader drags deity into ‘abuse row’; invites Rai for ‘truth test’

Bengaluru, Jul 19: A man protested in front of Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa's residence on Saturday alleging lack of medical care claimed the life of his one-month-old infant girl, police said on Saturday.

Venkatesh sat with the baby's photograph in front of the Chief Minister's house, saying the girl developed health issues on July 11 and he rushed her to a hospital, but it turned him away, the police said.

He said he had approached about a dozen hospitals and all of them refused to provide the baby any medical care. Eventually, the baby died.

This forced Venkatesh to hold a protest to draw the Chief Minister's attention to the issue, the police said.

The demonstration drew public attention and a few people joined him in the protest, they said.

Bengaluru, Jun 12: The Central government has identified Karnataka's Udupi and Yadgir among the "emerging districts of concern" for COVID-19 in the country. Confirming the development, a top official of the state health department said, "they (centre) had reviewed these two districts a few days back...there was a sudden spurt of cases due to Maharashtra returnees turning positive." Sources said union cabinet secretary Rajiv Gauba, during a recent video conference with state chief secretaries and health secretaries, had shared his thoughts on the issue.

According to the information shared, districts with more than 400 cases, half of which was reported post-May 18 lockdown relaxation, have been identified as "emerging districts of concern." They are concentrated in the seven states/union territories of Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir and Haryana. "Udupi and Yadgir from Karnataka, along with Gurugram in Haryana and Kolhapur in Maharashtra have 90 per cent of the cases recorded after May 18," they said.

As on June 11 evening, Udupi had a total of 969 positive cases, out of which 619 are active, while 735 positive cases have been reported in Yadgir, out of which 626 are active. The two districts had reported a total of only 11 cases each as on May 18. While Udupi till last evening had seen 349 discharges, it was 108 in Yadgir.

Both districts have reported one COVID related fatality so far. As of June 11 evening, cumulatively 6,245 COVID-19 positive cases were confirmed in the state, which included 72 deaths and 2,976 discharges.

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.