Hadiya case: Shafin Jahan moves contempt plea against NIA in SC

Udupi, Jan 16: The mandatory implementation of FASTag, across the country, was not enforced in the toll gates located in Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts.

The toll gate personnel cited that they had not received any directions from the NHAI and hence vehicles were being allowed to ply as per the current practice.

As per government order, two gates each have to be reserved for locals, emergency entry and cash transactions. All other lanes are to be used for FASTag.

Bengaluru, Mar 24: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa, who had earlier announced that Indira canteen will supply free meals to the poor and BPL card holders, on Tuesday announced that Indira Canteens will be remain closed as there is fear of spread of the coronavirus as people assemble in large number.

On Monday, he had announced that Indira Canteens would provide food free of cost for the benefit of daily wage workers and poor people in the wake of a complete lockdown.

Asked about the alternative the government would provide, he said, "Closure of canteens is needed to avoid the rush near the canteen as it may lead to problems.

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.