Image of three year old 'Krishna' at Kerala festival triggers rage

Bengaluru, May 15: Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa on Friday announced further relief package to the lockdown affected people.

Addressing a press conference, the Chief Minister said about Rs 500 crore would be earmarked to distribute to over 10 lakh farmers, who had grown Jowar and also cash compensation to the shepherds who would lose sheep and goats due to natural disasters.

While commending the efforts of the ASHA workers, who are remained in the frontline in fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chief Minister said an additional Rs 3000 would be remitted to their bank accounts as an incentive.

The Chief minister had announced Rs 1610 crore cash relief package to benefit the auto drivers, barbers and washermen, last week.

He had also announced relief package to the farmers, and migrant workers and construction workers.

Replying to questions, he denied that by bringing amendment to the APMC Act, farmers would be suffered.

Brushing aside the criticism over an ordinance brought to the APMC Act by the Opposition Congress and the JD(S), the Chief Minister said “Amendment had been brought after taking care that farmers interests will not be adversely affected”.

Bengaluru, April 3: Former prime minister HD Deve Gowda has written to Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan stating that he has communicated in writing to Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa to make arrangements for the passing of vehicles related to medical facilities and essential goods between Mangaluru and Kasargod.

"What made me write this letter is the pain and anguish I experienced when BM Farookhji, the national working president of JDS and K Krishnan Kutty, MLA and a member of your Cabinet and member of JDS, a coalition partner of your government brought to my notice the inhuman and inappropriate action on part of the authorities of Karnataka to block the interstate highway between Mangaluru and Kasargod, bringing the traffic movements between the two states and particularly to Kasargod district having a sizeable population of Kannadigas to a grinding halt," Gowda wrote in the letter.

"I immediately wrote a letter to Yeddiyurappaji, the Chief Minister of Karnataka to make arrangements to permit goods movement and the passage of ambulances and other vehicles for any emergency. But authorities of Karnataka government appears to be very adamant despite the assurance given before the High Court," it added.

Gowda said that the situation is very grim since he learnt that four to five patients died for want of medical facilities since the ambulances ferrying the patients were denied permission to cross the border, to avail treatment from the hospitals at Mangaluru.

He also condemned the Karnataka government for denying access to medical facilities to people in Kerala.

"I very strongly condemn the attitude of the BJP government in Karnataka denying access to people from Kerala to avail medical facilities on emergency and also the movement of essential goods for the survival of the people and deprivation of such emergency services amounts to violation of human rights and opposed to all norms of humanity and humanitarian considerations," the letter read.
Gowda said he will take up the issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

"I take this opportunity to assure you that I will take up this issue with the Prime Minister who had assured while imposing 21 days of lockdown that the supply of essential commodities will be maintained and hospital facilities will be kept open round the clock so as to prevent any untoward incident," he stated.

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.