FIR against Anant Kumar Hegde for derogatory remarks against Karnataka CM

Bengaluru, Ju 2 As many as 19 deaths and 1,502 new COVID-19 cases were reported in Karnataka till 5 pm on Thursday, as per information provided by the State Health Department.

The total number of COVID-19 cases in the state now stands at 18,016, including 9,406 active cases.

While 8,334 patients have been discharged after treatment, 272 people have succumbed to the virus.

India's COVID-19 tally breached the 6 lakh cases mark with 19,148 new coronavirus cases being reported in the last 24 hours, informed the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare on Thursday.

The total cases now stand at 6,04,641 of which there are 2,26,947 active cases while 3,59,860 patients have been cured/discharged/migrated. 434 deaths have been reported in the last 24 hours taking the number of COVID-19 deaths in the country to 17,834.

Bengaluru, May 11: Ten new positive cases of COVID-19 have been confirmed in Karnataka, taking the total number of infections in the state to 858, the Health department said on Monday.

"Ten new positive cases have been reported from last evening to this noon... Till date 858 COVID-19 positive cases have been confirmed. This includes 31 deaths and 422 discharges," the department said in its mid-day situation update. 

The ten new cases include- three from Davangere, two each from Bidar and Bagalkote, one each from Kalaburagi, Shiggavi in Haveri and Vijayapura. Seven cases are men, three are women.

While most cases are contacts of patients already tested positive, one each are with travel history to Mumbai and Ahmedabad.

One person's contact tracing is underway. 

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.