Eye on polls, BJP to hold Muslims' convention

Bengaluru, Jan 10: The National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST), which met with officials of the Social Welfare Department Thursday, has urged the state government to increase the reservation provided to the ST community.

The Commission's suggestion comes even as a committee headed by Justice Nagamohan Das is currently studying a demand for increase of reservation for the community from the existing 3% to 7.5%.

Addressing mediapersons on Thursday, Commission Chairperson Nand Kumar Sai, said the Commission had discussed the issue with the Social Welfare Department, Karnataka, asking officials to expedite the process.

In response to this suggestion, Social Welfare Department Principal Secretary G Kumar Naik said the government would take a call based on the Nagamohan Das Committee's report.

A meeting was held between members of the National ST Commission and the Social Welfare Department Thursday with regard to various projects taken up by the department.

In June last year, the then Kumaraswamy-led coalition government constituted the Justice Nagamohan Das Committee, after protests from members of the Valmiki community for an increase in reservation to 7.5%. At present, Karnataka provides 15% reservation for SCs, 3% for STs and 32% for other backward classes (OBC).

The national commission also urged the state government to ensure permanent faculty in all the 824 residential institutions run by the department. At present, as much as 50% of the faculty in these institutions have been hired on a contractual basis. "We have assured that the recruitment will be done in a short time," Naik told mediapersons.

Bengaluru, Feb 21: The Supreme Court in its interim order on Thursday allowed the plea of the Karnataka government for implementation of the final award by a tribunal for sharing of water between Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra from the Mahadayi river.

The interim order was passed by a bench comprising Justice D Y Chandrachud and Justice Hemant Gupta after hearing the counsel from the three states. The bench said the final hearing in the matter will take place in July.

It also said the interim order is subject to the final outcome of the petitions filed by the three states against the tribunal's award.

The Mahadayi Water Dispute tribunal had passed the order on August 14, 2018, allocating 13.42 TMC ( Thousand Million Cubic Feet.) water (including 3.9 TMC for diversion into the depleted Malaprabha river basin) from the Mahadayi river basin to Karnataka.

Maharashtra was allotted 1.33 TMC water while Goa was given 24 TMC in the final decision of the tribunal. The UPA-2 government had constituted Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal in 2010.

Karnataka government, which has locked horns with the neighbouring Goa on the larger issue of sharing Mahadayi River water between both the states, had petitioned the tribunal seeking the release of 7.56 tmcft of water for the Kalasa-Banduri Nala project.

The Kalasa-Banduri Nala (diversion) project, which will utilise 7.56 tmcft of water from the inter-state Mahadayi river, is being undertaken by Karnataka to improve drinking water supply to the twin cities of Hubballi-Dharwad and the districts of Belagavi and Gadag.

It involves building barrages across Kalasa and Banduri, the tributaries of the Mahadayi River, to divert 7.56 tmc water to the Malaprabha river which fulfils the drinking water needs of the twin cities.

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.