Karnataka Bandh: Stones pelted on Tirupati-Mangaluru bus in Farangipet

Bengaluru, May 31: In spite of opposition, chief minister BS Yediyurappa has appointed his former personal assistant and maternal grandnephew NR Santosh as his political secretary.

Santosh is the fourth political secretary to the CM besides SR Vishwanath, MP Renukacharya and Shankaranna Munavalli. 

Santosh was arrested for allegedly trying to kidnap Vinay NS, personal assistant of BJP leader KS Eshwarappa in 2017. He's also facing attempt to murder and dowry harassment charges.

The 30-year-old had fallen out with the CM's younger son BY Vijayendra soon after the BJP came to power and had been reportedly asked to keep away from him. He had identified with some MLAs who were up against the CM.

It's said the appointment was made to send out a message to the rivals after some MLAs launched a renewed campaign against Yediyurappa over a dinner meeting at BJP MLA Umesh V Katti's house. 

Though Yediyurappa was not keen, sources said Santosh brought pressure from RSS and some BJP leaders, whose help he had sought to reunite with the family. 

Santosh from Tumakuru is the son of the CM's sister's daughter. He was Yediyurappa's Man Friday and his job was confined to ensuring he took his medicines on time.

Bengaluru, Jan 5: Karnataka Minister for Large and Medium Industries Jagadish Shettar warned of strict action against officers who demand bribe from farmers while acquiring land.

Mr Shettar, who paid a surprise visit to defense, aerospace hi-tech industry layout in Haraluru, Devanahalli in Bengaluru Rural district, warned the officials who demand a bribe for sanctioning compensation funds.

He said, 'Lands have been acquired from farmers for the development of the industrial area. It's the duty of state government to provide compensation to these farmers. Complaints must be registered against officials who demand a bribe for functioning compensation funds.'

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.