I cannot tell you what Hadiya told me: NCW chairperson

Mangaluru, Apr 18: Sauharda Forum in Moodbidri has placed a food-counter stand near Krishnakatte in Moodbidri here to feed the hungry during the lockdown.

Due to strict implementation of lockdown to prevent the spread of COVID-19, shops and hotels have remained closed since last one month posing a huge difficulty for many.

Stranded migrant labourers and others can collect water bottles, fruits, biscuits, and other eatables free of cost by the people at the stand.

Chamarajanagar, Jan 3: The residents of Galipura layout in Chamarajanagar city boycotted the annual Community Based Survey (CBS), conducted by the Health and Family Welfare department, mistaking it to be the National Register of Citizens (NRC).

Majority of the residents in the layout belong to Muslim community. The people, who mistook CBS to the NRC survey, got into arguments with the Asha workers, who were given the responsibility of collecting information. They even tore the forms into pieces and vent their ire.

The Health Department conducts CBS every year in the urban areas and collects all details including Aadhaar number, residential address, details of family members, health problems and others.

Fifteen Asha workers were deputed for the survey in the layout. A few youths started questioning them alleging it to be an NRC survey and started arguing with them.
Tahsildar Mahesh, District Health and Family Welfare Officer Dr N C Ravi, with the help of Muslim leaders cleared the confusion. The community leaders assured of explaining it to the residents and extend cooperation to the survey.

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.