Islamic organisation activists clean flood-hit temples in Chennai

Bengaluru, Jan 22: The suspected man in planting of a live bomb at the Mangaluru International Airport surrendered before the DG and IG of Karnataka Police, Neelamani Raju, here on Wednesday, police sources said.

The accused was identified as Aditya Rao, a resident of Udupi.

The accused was taken for questioning by the Halasurugate Police, where he was being interrogated intensively, the sources further said.

According to them, he confessed that he planted an explosive device at Mangaluru Airport on Monday said that it was an act of revenge for denying him an employment by the Kempegowda International Airport Limited (KIAL).

He was arrested by the Bengaluru police in the past for making a hoax call to the police stating that a bomb had been planted at the Bengaluru Airport.

Karnataka Home minister Basavaraj Bommai told the media that 'the Bengaluru police have taken the custody of Aditya Rao, who is being subjected for a thorough interrogation'.

The Mangaluru police was also likely to join the Bengaluru police into the investigation, the sources added.

Also Read: Udupi’s Aditya Rao arrested for issuing bomb threats to Airport, railway station

Bengaluru, Mar 25: Karnataka Minister Dr K Sudhakar has been allocated all matters related to COVID-19 by the Governor on the advice of Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa.
Health Minister B Sriramulu, who earlier handled matters related to COVID-19, has been allotted the Backward Class Welfare Development portfolio.
Karnataka on Monday announced a complete lockdown in the state till April 1.
"In the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, the entire state will be locked down from 12 o'clock night of March 23 to April 1. People are requested to strictly follow it to contain the coronavirus spread," Yediyurappa had 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.