JD(S)-BJP likely to forge alliance for zilla, taluk panchayats

Lucknow, Feb 4: Even as anti-NRC protests continue to rage across the country, the Lucknow University has queered the pitch by demanding citizenship proof from RTI applicants.

The Lucknow University (LU) refused to provide the information sought by the people who filed the Right to Information (RTI) unless they furnished the proof that they were Indian citizens.

Alok Chantia, one of the RTI applicants who was refused information by the varsity, said that he had lodged a complaint with the vice-chancellor of the varsity but even then he could not get the desired information.

"It is shocking how the university has twisted the RTI law as per its whims and fancy. It does not have any authority to do so," said the RTI applicant.

Chantia, also a faculty member at a degree college here, had sought details of appointment of teachers for self-financed courses and their pay scale.

"It is possible that some applicants who may not be familiar with the provisions of the RTI, may have furnished proof of their citizenship to the varsity to get the information but that cannot become a rule," he pointed out.

When contacted, university officials admitted that such a practice had been going on in the varsity for the past few years.

"This practice started during the tenure of the former vice-chancellor S.P. Singh and still continues," said a senior varsity official.

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.

Kasaragod, May 25: An autorickshaw driver from Belur in Kasaragod was admitted for surgery to a hospital after being hit on the head by a falling jackfruit. He was tested positive for the coronavirus. It is not clear how he contracted the viral infection.

“While he was trying to pluck a jackfruit off a tree, one of them fell on him, injuring his spine. His hands and legs were weakened too. His condition required surgery. Our protocol dictates that we subject everyone who require immediate surgery to the covid test, just to be sure. That’s when he tested positive,” said Dr K Sudeep, superintendent of the Pariyaram Medical College in Kannur.

“He had symptoms of Covid-19. But he has no recent travel history or contact with any infected person. We’re not sure if he got it through one of his passengers in the rickshaw. He had visited the district hospital once so he could have got it from there. Anyway, we are examining it and preparing the route maps,” he added.

His family will be quarantined and health workers have begun to trace his immediate primary contacts.

Though there have been a number of cases in Kerala where a person’s source of infection could not be correctly ascertained, such people have gone on to recover without spreading the infection to others.

The Kerala government is conducting testing of high-risk persons on the frontlines, such as police officials, grocery vendors and health workers, as part of its sentinel surveillance programme, but maintains that there’s little evidence of a community spread in the state.