‘Intelligence report’ on Siddaramaiah’s assembly seat fake, clarifies CMO

Mangaluru, May 28: A pregnant woman who returned from Dubai in a repatriation flight suffered miscarriage after she was allegedly denied entry to her apartment flat and also refused proper treatment in the institutional quarantine.

Fathima was put in a paid quarantine facility after she returned on May 12 flight for her first delivery.

On the second day of her return, she tested negative for Covid-19 in the first test. As per SOP (Standard operating procedures) for pregnant women, she was ready to shift to her apartment, Shivdeep Residency, located at Shivbhag in the city for home quarantine.

However, the members of the Resident Welfare Association of the apartment who got a whiff of her arrival, called an emergency meeting the previous night and reportedly informed the pregnant woman that her entry to the flat would put other residents in trouble and suggested that she stay away.

Sources said the RWA consists of some serving and retired police officials.

With no other go, the woman continued in the paid quarantine.

Treatment for a pregnant woman?

Fathima's father-in-law Azeez Bastikar said the doctors who attended her during the quarantine did not provide proper healthcare required for a pregnant woman and also refused to touch her, out of fear.

Many a time, they did not even check her BP, saying that they ‘forgot to bring the kit’. When her situation worsened, the family members contacted several hospitals in the city but all of them allegedly refused to admit her, fearing the sealing down of the hospital in case she tests positive on the 14th day COVID test.

Finally, the six and half months pregnant woman was shifted to a clinic on Wednesday after her 14th day test had turned negative.

The doctors who checked her found out that she had suffered a miscarriage and operated on her to remove the stillborn. The doctors said further delay would have costed the woman her life.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Azeez Bastikar approached Deputy Commissioner Sindhu B Rupesh, seeking action against the doctors and hospitals who denied treatment and the RWA who refused her entry to the apartment.

Stating that the ill-treatment meted out to her daughter-in-law by doctors and others added to her trauma resulting in the miscarriage, he appealed to the authorities to ensure that no one else is treated in a similar manner.

He said that Fathima and her husband live in Dubai and that she came to India for a safe delivery as the situation was critical in Dubai.

The paid quarantine facility where she had to continue after RWA denied her access, charged her Rs 60,000 for her stay.

Meanwhile, the MCC commissioner Ajith Kumar Hegde on Thursday issued a notice to Shivdeep Apartment for refusing Fathima's entry.

The apartment has to respond within three days, failing which legal action will be initiated against it.

New Delhi, Feb 18: The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh is holding a daylong meeting with 70 columnists from across India on Tuesday in an effort to clear misconceptions about the organisation, sources said.

RSS chief Bhagwat, who last year met representatives of international media organisations posted in India, is expected to deliver a keynote address that will be followed by a free-flowing conversation, they said.

The 70 columnists attending Tuesday's meeting write in different languages.

The meeting, in Chhattarpur in New Delhi, is a closed-door meeting and the proceedings are "strictly confidential", the sources said

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.