Godhra tragedy: Guj HC reduces death sentence of 11 to life term

New Delhi, Feb 11: The government has decided to rename National Institute of Financial Management (NIFM), Faridabad, as Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management, an official statement said on Tuesday.

Set up in 1993 as a registered society under the Department of Expenditure, NIFM trains officers of Finance and Accounts Services recruited by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) as also officers of Indian Cost Accounts Service. The Union Finance Minister is the President of the NIFM Society.

"Aligning the vision and aspiration of the Institute for the future with the vision and contribution of late Arun Jaitley, the Government has decided to rename National Institute of Financial Management (NIFM) as the Arun Jaitley National Institute of Financial Management(AJNIFM)," the statement said.

NIFM has become a premier resource centre to meet the training needs of the central government for senior and middle level of management in the fields of public policy, financial management, public procurement and other governance issues for promoting highest standards of professional competence and practice.

Padma Vibhushan awardee Jaitley was the Union Minister for Finance and Corporate Affairs during May 26, 2014 to May 30, 2019.

Mangaluru, Jul 17: An expert team from Bengaluru has arrived here on Friday to study the factors that have led to the sudden spurt in death due to Covid-19 in Dakshina Kannada district of Karnataka in the recent past.

The team has arrived following a request made by the district administration. The team comprising three experts has already held talks with specialist Doctors, according to official sources.

It will examine the reports on the treatment provided to the patients who have succumbed to the infection and will submit a report citing reasons for the increase in deaths, the sources added.

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.