Former cricketer Prakash Rathod, social worker U B Venkatesh nominated to Legislative Council

Udupi, Jan 25: Mangalore International Airport (MIA) culprit Aditya Rao has revealed that after placing the explosive device he went to Malpe and made threat call of placing bomb in the Indigo flight.

Rao, who is in police custody, on Saturday, was brought to Malpe under tight security by the investigating officer ACP Belliyappa for spot investigation. On January 20, Aditya had come to the Mangaluru airport and planted an explosive device before going to Malpe and made a threat call about placing a bomb in the Indigo flight. He was just a couple of kilometers away from the Malpe police station while making the call.

Sitting outside an egg selling shop which opens only after 6:00 pm, Aditya had called the Airport and informed that a bomb was placed in the Indigo flight. Later he destroyed the sim card and left to Bengaluru to surrender.

Mangaluru, Apr 25: The coastal district of Dakshina Kannada today reported another covid-19 case. With this the total number of coronavirus positive case in the district rose to 18 including two deaths. 

The health and family welfare department in its bulletin today announced that a 33-year-old woman from Bantwal tested positive for coronavirus. She is undergoing treatment at Wenlock Hospital which is now converted into covid-19 hospital. 

She is the daughter of 67-year-old woman from Bantwal who was tested positive for the deadly disease last week. Both are the neighbours of the two women from Bantwal who died of covid-19 recently.

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.