I got death threat on Twitter; give me protection: Pratap Simha

Bengaluru, Jan 8: The second instalment of flood relief funds from the Centre, announced on Monday, has left BS Yediyurappa less than cheerful, with the chief minister insisting that it is barely adequate. The CM on Tuesday said he will urge the Union government to release more.

On Monday, the Centre announced it will release Rs 669.8 crore in addition to the Rs 1,200 crore it had released earlier towards flood relief and rehabilitation. The total sum is a small fraction of the loss, which the government pegged at a staggering Rs 38,000 crore.

“The Centre has released assistance in two instalments so far, but it is inadequate given the magnitude of the damage. I will request for more funds and I am confident the Centre will oblige,” Yediyurappa told reporters.

When Prime Minister Narendra Modi had visited the state last week, Yediyurappa had urged him — even openly at a function — to release funds. This followed several pleas over the past four months, which barely drew a response from the Centre. Now, the CM himself suggests it’s barely a drop in the ocean.

The opposition has been criticizing both Yediyurappa and the Centre for their handling of the situation and on Tuesday, leader of the opposition Siddaramaiah of the Congress criticised the CM for “misguiding people” on the sum released by the Centre.

Siddaramaiah tweeted, “Reports from State govt officials say only Rs 669 cr of addl funds are released in 2nd instalment as opposed to the claim of Rs 1,870 cr by Karnataka BJP leaders. At a time when manufacturing industries are closing, BJP’s fake news factory is running at full potential ".

In another tweet, he said, “Moved by the plea of chief minister, Yediyurappa, Prime Minister Narendra Modi released an additional Rs 669.8 crore, taking the total amount to Rs 1,869.8 crore. BJP leaders, who are devotees of the god of lies, attempts to depict the total relief amount as 1200+1869.85 = Rs 3,069 cr is ridiculous.”

A high-level committee chaired by Union home minister Amit Shah had sanctioned the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) funds on Monday. While the Press Information Bureau claimed Rs 1,869 crore was approved on Monday, state government officials clarified that the figure included the Rs 1,200 crore released in October.

Meanwhile, sources say the two instalments is all the assistance the state can expect from the Centre towards flood relief. Sources say the Rs 1,870 crore is roughly 60% of the funding — Rs 3,000 cr— which was supposed to be allocated for Karnataka, based on an inter-ministerial team’s assessment of losses in the state.

“Compared to other states for the same period, Karnataka has received the highest amount in flood relief. We cannot expect more,” said a revenue department official, who said the government will not approach the Centre for a special package.

However, revenue minister R Ashoka said the state will pitch for the entire Rs 3,000 crore. “The state government will pursue the matter with the Centre until it releases the entire Rs 3,000 crore. The state government will cover the remainder of the Rs 38,000 crore loss. We will not go back on our word,” Ashoka said. Incidentally, the state has spent about Rs 6,000 crore on relief and rehabilitation so far.

Kalaburagi, Jan 21: A team of bomb disposal squad along with sniffer dog visited Kalaburagi Railway Station on Tuesday morning.

In the wake of the bomb found at Mangalore Airport on Monday morning, the team visited the railway station as a precautionary measure.

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.