Feb 6 last date to link mobile with Aadhaar: Here’s how to do it

Bengaluru, Mar 25: Bengaluru Police Commissioner Bhaskar Rao on Wednesday called a meeting of online, e-commerce food, medicine, groceries or animal products delivery aggregators at his office in wake of situation arising out of lockdown imposed in the entire country due to coronavirus epidemic.

The Police Commissioner has appealed one representative from each agency to join him in the meeting at 7 pm.

"I have called a meeting of online, e-commerce food, medicine, groceries, vegetables/fruits or animal products delivery aggregators today at 7 pm at my office at Infantry Road, Bengaluru," said Rao.

"One representative from each agency may please come. We promise all cooperation, please come," he said.
The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) on Wednesday confirmed 539 positive cases of coronavirus in the country.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi had on Tuesday announced a 21-day lockdown in the entire country effective from midnight to deal with the spread of coronavirus, saying that "social distancing" is the only option to deal with the disease, which spreads rapidly.

New Delhi, Feb 21: A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the sedition case registered against a Karnataka school management for allegedly allowing students to stage an anti-CAA, anti-NRC drama that 'portrayed Prime Minister Narendra Modi in poor light'.

The petition seeks quashing of the FIR against the principal and other staff of the Shaheen School at Bidar who have been booked under sections 124-A (sedition) and 153-A (promoting enmity between different groups) of the Indian Penal Code.

In the petition filed on Thursday, social activist Yogita Bhayana has also sought an apex court direction for a proper mechanism to deal with alleged government misuse of the sedition law.

Section 124A of the IPC says that "whoever brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards... the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life...".

Bhayana, in the plea, has sought a direction to the Centre and the Karnataka government "to quash the FIR registered in connection of seditious charges against the school management, teacher and a widowed parent of a student for staging a play criticizing CAA, NRC, and NPR."

The petition claimed the police "also questioned students, and videos and screenshots of CCTV footage showing them speaking to the students were shared widely on social media, prompting criticism."

It further quoted the school principal, alleging that "on one occasion, police in uniform questioned students, with no child welfare officials present".

The plea said that the "proceedings were violative of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution and abuse of process of law."

"Issue an order directing the Centre to constitute a committee to scrutinise complaints under 124-A IPC and adhere to judgments by the apex court before registering the FIR under the section 124-A IPC," the petition said.

The drama was staged on January 21 by students of fourth, fifth and sixth standard.

The sedition case was filed based on a complaint from social worker Neelesh Rakshyal on January 26.

The complainant has alleged that the school authorities "used" the students to perform a drama where they "abused" Modi in the context of the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens.

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.