Former minister, 22 others booked for lockdown violation in Karnataka

Bengaluru, Jun 27: The Bengaluru Police Commissioner’s office on Infantry Road has been sealed after one of the staffers tested Covid-positive. It will remain shut from June 27 to 29. 

A senior police officer from the administrative department, in a media release, stated that almost the entire staff has been asked to work from home, while some have told to work from sub-divisions of DCP’s offices. 

It is said that one of the staffers, who recently reported for duty at Anti-Terror Cell (ATC), tested positive on Friday, and officials took a decision to seal the premises after the media got wind of it. 

Earlier, a function for Drug Observation Day too was held on the premises on Friday. The staff has not been asked to go on quarantine. 

Only a few staffers have been asked to come to the police control room situated in the same building.

Bengaluru, April 3: One new positive case of COVID-19 was reported in the state on Friday.

The patient is a 75-year-old man from Bagalkot and has been isolated at a designated hospital in Bagalkot, the State government said.

"Till date, 125 COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in the state, this includes three deaths and 11 discharges," it added.

The total number of coronavirus positive cases rose to 2301 in India on Friday, including 156 cured/discharged, 56 deaths and 1 migrated, as per the data provided by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

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.