Four women raped, modesty of 9 outraged every day in Delhi in 2012-15

Bengaluru, Mar 21: Three new COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in Karnataka, taking the total number of infections to 18, the state government said on Saturday.

Earlier in the day, Health Minister B Sriramulu giving details about one positive case said, a 32-year old person from Gauribidanur in Chikkaballapura district, who has returned from Mecca has been confirmed for coronavirus infection.

The person has been admitted in a designated isolated hospital for treatment, he said in a tweet.

Details regarding the other two patients are still awaited.

The mid-day situation update by the government also said a circular has been issued to Health and Family Welfare Department officials and staff at all levels to work even on Sundays and general holidays without fail till March 31 in view of COVID-19.

A total of 48 government hospitals and 35 private hospitals have been identified as first respondent hospitals for the case management of COVID-19 cases, it said.

Mental health counselling is being done for positive COVID-19 cases and suspects in the identified hospitals and quarantined persons at home and hospital.

A total of 4,390 counselling sessions have been held till date, it added.

Sriramulu in a tweet, also said the government as a precautionary measure is planning to install thermal test CC cameras at government offices and certain important places.

Bengaluru, Mar 6: All the arrested in a case of sedition filed over a school play in Karnataka's Bidar have been granted anticipatory bail by a court that said the case lacked enough basis.

The play, themed on protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA), "has not caused any disharmony in the society", said the district and sessions court in Bidar.

The play, performed in January by the children of prestigious Shaheen School, landed in trouble when a sedition complaint was filed over an 11-year-old girl's lines - enacting an elderly woman, she said if anyone asked for documents she would hit them with slippers.

That led to a sedition case and the police questioning children, teachers and the school management over many rounds.

"The drama has not caused any disharmony in the society. Considering all the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 124A of IPC (Sedition) are prima facie lacking," said the court.

Five members of the school management team have been granted protection from arrest. Earlier, the head teacher and the mother of the student who spoke the dialogue were sent to custody, but on other charges including the abetment of an offence. They were not accused of sedition. They were later granted bail.

The repeated questioning of young students and the arrest of the widowed mother of a student caused a huge uproar in the town.

An order is expected soon on the bail application in another sedition case in Karnataka, against three Kashmiri students. The students, who were studying in Hubbali in north Karnataka, are facing charges for reportedly using pro-Pakistani slogans in an online post. The Hubbali Bar Association had asked its members not to represent the students. Lawyers from Bengaluru who went to Hubbali represent the students were heckled.

On Thursday, a team of lawyers from different districts again went to Hubballi and were provided police protection. BT Venkatesh, one of the lawyers, said he had a meeting with bar association members and that the matter was sorted out. The students have applied for bail and an order is expected next week.

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.