Govt officials removing saffron flags from private buildings across Udupi, complains Shobha

Bengaluru, Jan 5: Rural development and panchayat raj minister K S Eshwarappa has received two threatening calls from Tamil Nadu, according to Home Minister Basavaraj Bommai.

He said that he had instructed the police to provide adequate security. 

At 12.30 pm on Friday, an unidentified person made a phone call. Speaking in Tamil, he threatened Eshwarappa with life, it is said.

Eshwarappa is known for abusive remarks and issuing threats to non-Hindus.

Bengaluru,  Jul 9: Former Karnataka Chief Minister and Congress leader Siddaramaiah on Wednesday said that he was opposed to a tie-up with Janata Dal-Secular in the last Lok Sabha elections but the party high command did not listen to him.

"I had suggested that we should fight alone (in Lok Sabha elections) because JD-S votes would not have come to us and our votes would not have gone to JD-S," Siddaramaiah told reporters here.

Congress leader said that he was the only one to make the suggestion and he did not get support.

"I was the only one to raise a voice that's why it was not heard by (party) high command and I did not get support. We might have won over seven seats in parliament election if we had fought alone," he said.

After forming government in Karnataka in 2018 with support of JD-S, Congress had fought the 2019 general election in a pre-poll alliance with the party. Congress could only one seat of the 21 it contested and JD-S also won one seat of the seven it contested.

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.