India needs Modi to make it stronger, says Yeddyurappa

Mumbai, Feb 26: Targetting Shiv Sena's silence over the recent controversial remark by AIMIM leader Waris Pathan, former Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis on Tuesday said the Uddhav Thackeray-led party might be "wearing bangles" but the BJP was not and knew how to retaliate in the same manner.

"Shiv Sena might be wearing bangles but we are not. If someone says something then he will be given an answer in the same way. BJP has this much power," said Fadnavis while launching a scathing attack on ruling-Shiv Sena in Maharashtra for not taking strict action against Pathan.

Fadnavis was addressing protestors at Azad Maidan where BJP launched a protest against Maharashtra government over issues related to farmers and women.

On February 20, while addressing an anti-CAA rally, at Kalaburagi in Karnataka, Pathan had said, "time has now come for us to unite and achieve freedom. Remember we are 15 crore but can dominate over 100 crores."

"They tell us that we have kept our women in the front - only the lionesses have come out and you are already sweating. You can understand what would happen if all of us come together," he had said.

Facing flak over his remarks Pathan later took back his words and had said he had not targeted any community but had spoken against members of some organisations.

"If any of my words have hurt someone, I take them back as I am a true Indian," Pathan said at a press conference here.

The AIMIM leader said that he was being portrayed as being anti-Indian and anti-Hindu for the past couple of days.

"I want to say that my earlier statement was basically against people who are members of organisations like RSS, BJP, Bajrang Dal, etc. These 100 are those people who want to divide this beautiful nation," he added.

New Delhi, Mar 3: Bharatiya Janata Party leader Kapil Mishra, who instigated violence in northeast Delhi by provoking mobs, has now been provided with 24x7 security. After he claimed threat to his life, he has been provided with “Y” category security — which entitles him to six security personnel round-the-clock to guard him in and outside the city.

He had fought the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections by giving inflammatory remarks around the anti-Citizenship Amendment Act in Shaheen Bagh, and lost to Aam Aadmi Party candidate. But he continued to issue provocative remarks.

While there is clear evidence of his scandalous statements just a day before the violence was unleashed on Muslims in Delhi last week where around 50 people were killed, no action has been taken against him so far. Instead, he is being treated as a hero in his party.

As per sources, Mishra complained that he got life threats over the past week in wake of the violence and based on his request, the Delhi Police has provided the security cover.

Mishra had taken to social media platform Twitter and alleged that he was receiving threats via WhatsApp, Twitter and Facebook, from Indian and foreign accounts.

“I am constantly being threatened with murder on the phone, on WhatsApp, on email. Hundreds of threats are being given continuously from the country and abroad. I don’t fear this hate campaign against me,” he had said on Twitter on March 1.

Mishra had on February 23 made an incendiary speech, following which North-East Delhi witnessed anti-Muslim violence.

The Supreme Court of India on Monday said it will on Wednesday (March 4) hear a plea that sought immediate FIRs against Kapil Mishra, Union Minister of State for Finance Anurag Thakur and other leaders for their recent hate speech, which allegedly triggered the violence in Delhi. The plea was filed by Delhi violence survivors.

The apex court bench, comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, listed the matter for hearing after senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, who is appearing on behalf of the survivors told the SC that the Delhi High Court had last week adjourned the matter for six weeks even as “people are dying every day”.

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.