HDK may undergo heart surgery again

Bengaluru, Mar 3: Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (BMTC) on Tuesday issued guidelines to its employees, as per advisory issued by World Health Organisation (WHO), to prevent the spread of coronavirus.

"The BMTC has provided general information on the topic and SOPs for daily life and operations to our employees as per advisory issued by the WHO. The corporation has started a communication campaign about Coronavirus indicating its characteristics, known ways of infection and recommended preventive measures. This information was distributed to the staff, drivers and conductors through Whatsapp, pamphlet and email," informed BMTC.

"The information was also distributed through pamphlets at bus stations. An awareness campaign is being taken up by sharing relevant information through social media," it added.

The BMTC further said that the circular was issued to create awareness among the cleaning personnel who work in depots.

Mangalore, Jan 16: Medical fraternity of the state are racing and thrilled to be participating in the upcoming Karnataka Medical Council election to be held on 23 Jan 2020 polling will be held at IMA House Mangalore by direct ballot.

The results will be announced on Jan 25, 2020.

This Election is a historic one since the inception of KMC, It is being conducted across the state by direct voting by all the registered MBBS doctors of the state for 12 seats numbering more than 65,000.

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.