Highland Islamic Forum organises 'A Day with Orphans'

Bengaluru, Jul 17: Lashing out at Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa-led government over the handling of coronavirus crisis, Karnataka Congress chief DK Shivakumar on Thursday demanded Governor's rule in the state. He also took a dig at Health Minister B Sriramulu's "Only God can save us" remark.

"I heard the statement of Sriramulu and Sudhakar. They have said that they cannot manage this (coronavirus crisis) and they leave it to God who can save Karnataka. If such is the case, they could not solve the problems of the people of Karnataka. It is time now they must resign and let the Governor's rule come into force. The time has come for all of them to step down," Shivakumar said.

Taking to Twitter, Sriramulu said that the KPCC president misinterpreted his statement.

He said that Opposition allegations of negligence and incapability of the government and irresponsibility of ministers are "far from the truth".

The minister said that people should be made aware of the prevention of coronavirus as it plays a very important role in the prevention of infection.

"Here are the cautioning words, 'If you stumble, only God has to save us.' The government, our Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa and ministers are working day and night. We are working for the people, to effectively face this century's challenge," he tweeted.

As many as 4,169 new COVID-19 cases and 104 deaths were reported in Karnataka on Thursday, taking the total number of cases to 51,422 cases including 19,729 recoveries and 1,032 deaths.

Bengaluru reported 2,344 new cases and 70 deaths in the last 24 hours, according to the state health department.

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.