Hindu-Muslim hate story: NIA questions wife of tax officer in Karnataka

Bengaluru, Jan 29: The Karnataka unit of BJP has urged the Centre and the State governments to ban the Popular Front of India (PFI) and the Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI), accusing them of harbouring terrorist tendencies.

Addressing a press meet, N Ravi Kumar, state general secretary of the party, alleged that there was a nexus between the Congress, the PFI and the SDPI.

“Recent reports have exposed the links between the PFI and the Congress,” he said, accusing Congress leader Kapil Sibal of receiving huge funds from PFI to defend their cases in the Supreme Court.

He also accused the organisations as the ones responsible for the death of 23 Hindu activists in Karnataka. Such incidents have proven that both SDPI and PFI are dubious organisations, he said.

Indore, Jul 24: A woman who sells fruits on a cart and who lashed out at municipal officials here has done PhD in Materials Science. Her siblings too are well educated and sell fruits as they did not find jobs.

Dr Raisa Ansari, who lives at Bakery Street in Pardeshipura with her family said she wanted to be a scientist but did not get a job anywhere.

Speaking to media persons, Raisa said, "I have done PhD in Materials Science and wanted to be a scientist but did not get job anywhere. I sell fruit here but the municipal officials are bothering us. We are being forced to move from here to there like cattle. Our religion may be the reason why we are not getting jobs but we are proud to be Indian. I am still looking for a job."

Dr Raisa's mother Ayesha Ansari said she herself is not educated, but has four children of whom three girls and one boy studied a lot but no one got job.

Speaking to media persons Ayesha said, "I have four children and they are well educated. I have not studied but all my children are educated but did not get job so all of them sell fruits."

"When the matter came to marriage, one of the daughters got married. Raisa and Shahjahan Bi wanted an educated boy, but they were not able to find a suitable match because of their complexion and sometimes they rejected the proposal because of dowry, so both are single. Two of my grandchildren are studying biology. They will become doctors," said Ayesha.

Meanwhile, people in the neighbourhood lauded the family's abilities. They said theirs was an educated family had to sell fruits as they did not get jobs.

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.