I will marry my Muslim friend; it's my wish: Hindu girl shames saffron groups

Mangaluru, May 6: Amidst preparation for the paid evacuation of Indians stuck in Gulf countries amidst coronavirus lockdown, the central government has announced that it would only do a medical screening of the passengers before the flight and only asymptomatic persons would be allowed to travel.

Each passenger will have to fill a self-reporting form to be presented at the health and immigration counter at their destination.

The passengers are required to state whether they are suffering from fever, cough, diabetes or any respiratory disease. This form is similar to the one filled by passengers landing in India during the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak.

As per the announcement by the government, returnees would undergo COVID-19 once they complete 14-day quarantine in a hospital or government –arranged institution on a payment basis.

However, the form asks the applicants to keep themselves isolated at home for 28 days unless they develop any symptoms such as fever and cough.

During the journey, they will have to follow the protocols such as those issued by the Health Ministry and the Civil Aviation Ministry. Applicants from the UAE are yet to receive instructions on these.

On reaching the destination, passengers will have to register on the Arogya Setu app, India’s mobile application for COVID-19 surveillance.

No physical distancing!

Air India Express (AIE) which is set to operate the first two flights to Kerala on Thursday will operate its Boeing 737-800 flights, with a seating capacity of 186 economy class seats.

With nine seats reserved for isolation, only 177 passengers would be flown, sources said.

While most of the UAE flights in the first week will be operated by the AIE, Air India will operate two of its Dreamliner aircraft with a seating capacity of 256 seats. These flights would also reserve some seats for isolation.

However, the plan has made it clear that the Indian government will not be following the rules of physical distancing to prevent the spread of coronavirus in the repatriation flights.

Several people, including the Chief Minister of Kerala Pinarayi Vijayan, expressed concern over flying passengers, who will not be tested for COVID-19, without observing physical distancing.

Madikeri, May 30: Environmentalists have opposed the Karnataka Forest Department and the Public Works Department’s move to erect concrete pillars and marking of trees to construct a proposed road from Patti to Todikana within the Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary near Talacauvery in Kodagu District.

They have urged for immediate stopping of road works in a protected area.

In a letter to Conservator of Forests, Mysuru Circle, T Heeralal and DCF (Territorial and In-charge Wildlife) S Prabhakaran, the Trustees of Wildlife First K M Chinnappa and A A Poovaiah have termed the road works illegal and violates Supreme Court order on National Parks and Wildlife Sanctuaries.

The letter’s copy has also been sent to Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Head of Forest Force), and Kodagu Deputy Commissioner urging them to halt the progress of the road works. “Patti and Todikana are at the core of the Talacauvery Wildlife Sanctuary and such unilateral activities without complete approval on completion of the statutorily mandated procedure (both under Forest Conservation Act and Wild Life Protection Act),” the letter stated.

The letter added that they would be forced to move the Courts and the officers who have given approval to the project would face legal consequences.

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.