Hindu girl from your home town ‘found dead’; where are you: CFI asks DK MP

Bengaluru, Jul 8: In a setback to the State government, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday stayed the initial ban and the subsequent restrictions imposed on schools against conducting online classes from pre-primary to Class X.

Prima facie the ban and embargo imposed on online education violate Articles 21 and 21A of the Constitutionon the fundamental right to education, the Court said.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Nataraj Rangaswamy passed the interim order staying the operation of Government Orders issued on June 15 and June 27 respectively.

The Bench passed the interim order on the petitions filed by parents of children and several educational institutions questioning the legality of the ban and the restrictions imposed.

However, the Bench made it clear that this order should not be construed that the schools have right to make online education compulsory and can charge fee for offering online education. Also, the schools should not deprive students, who cannot opt for online education, the lost education when the schools reopen on regular basis.

Mangaluru, Jan 9: Customs officials seized 1.575 kg gold, worth about, Rs 63 lakh from three passengers who arrived from Dubai here at Mangalore International Airport on Thursday.

Official sources said that in the first incident, three days back gold weighing 336.7 grams was found in possession of an inbound air passenger. The passenger who arrived by Air India flight from Dubai had concealed the gold in his socks. The value of the seized gold is estimated to be Rs 13.43 lakh.

In the other two instances that took place on January 7, gold weighing 1239 gram and worth about Rs 50.3 lakh was confiscated from two passengers who arrived from Dubai by Air India flight. One of the passengers had attempted to smuggle 523 gram gold in paste form.

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.