HDK to go ahead with son's wedding on April 17 with precautionary measures against COVID-19

New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed a trial court in Ramanagara district of Karnataka to ensure the presence of absconding self-styled godman Swami Nithyananda to face trial in a 2010 rape case.

A bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde also allowed a plea by K Lenin alias Nithya Dharmananda, former driver of Nithyananda and had filed a complaint against Nithyananda, for cancellation of non-bailable warrants issued against him.

The apex court ordered the cancellation of the non-bailable warrants issued against the complainant in the case on the condition he shows up before the trial court in Ramanagara district today itself.

He had challenged the Karnataka High Court's February order where non-bailable warrants were issued against Lenin for not appearing before the court for recording evidence.

"Having heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the record, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court, which merely directs the petitioner to give evidence in support of his complaint," read the apex court order passed on Tuesday.

The Bench also directed that "the concerned trial court shall make every effort to ensure the presence of accused (Nithyananda) to face the proceedings."

The Karnataka High Court had last month cancelled the bail granted to Nithyananda, even as the state police claimed the absconding godman was on a 'spiritual tour'.

Nithyananda is facing charges of rape and indulging in unnatural sex. He was arrested on April 22, 2010, however, granted bail on June 11, the same year.

Mangaluru, Apr 22: Iftar parties, Taraweeh and weekly Friday prayers in mosques have been banned in the district during Ramadan amid Coronavirus theat, Dakshina Kannada Deputy Commissioner Sindhu B Rupesh said here on Wednesday.

In a release issued here, she said, “As per the guidelines issued by the State government and Wakf Board, arranging Iftar gathering, and offering Taraveeh Namaz and Friday Namaz at mosques or dargas during the month of Ramadan has been prohibited as a precaution measure to prevent the spread of coronavirus. Therefore, offer prayers at homes instead of going to mosques," the DC said.

“No one can perform Namaz in the mosques except the muezzin and the Pesh imam and the staff of the mosque. Also, gathering neighbors and offering collective prayers at anybody's home is also not allowed. Masjid administration committees must follow the directives of the government, Wakf Board and the District Administration”, the DC urged.

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.