With father's support 19-year-old girl kills mother for opposing love affair'

Mangaluru, Jan 12: Sudarshan Moodbidri and Robin Devaiah were today unanimous elected presidents of Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu district units of Bharatiya Janata Party.

Karnataka BJP vice-president Nirmal Kumar Surana oversaw the election process of the two district units at the BJP’s party office here.

While Sanjeeva Matandoor, Puttur MLA and incumbent president of DK unit of the party welcomed his successor Sudarshan, it was the turn of BB Bharatheesh, president of Kodagu unit to welcome Robin.

K Uday Kumar Shetty, DK district election officer and Ravi Kalappa, Kodagu district assistant election officer conducted the election under the supervision of Surana in the presence of MLAs of the party from respective districts.

Sudarshan started out his career as taluk and then district convener of Bajrang Dal before taking up responsibility as seva pramukh of Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

He formally joined the BJP as general secretary of Mulki-Moodbidri assembly unit of the party, moved on as convener of training cell of the party and was the general secretary of the district unit of the party before his elevation. A B.Com student of Dhavala College, Moodbidri, he is 44.

Robin, 50, who started out as a RSS volunteer as a student, too is incumbent general secretary of the Kodagu unit. Having been a member of ABVP for 8-years, he joined BJP formally in 1996 through Yuva Morcha and was its district treasurer, national executive member and state general secretary.

A product of Field Marshal K M Cariappa College, Kodagu, he served two terms as general secretary of the district unit prior to his elevation.

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.