Karnataka polls: JD(S) endorses CM’s demand for ballot papers, but BJP wants EVMs

Bengaluru, May 7: Fear and anxiety gripped migrant workers who lined up at police stations in the city on Wednesday to register for train services without knowing that the state government had cancelled the train facility.

Senior officials in South Western Railway said they were ready to run special trains for migrant workers. On Tuesday evening, the state government decided to withdraw the requests made for 13 such trains to north India after realtors said they need the labourers here.

Migrants continued to stream into the railway station at Majestic, Bangalore International Exhibition Centre and even the bus station hoping for some travel arrangement. Many who were aware of the government web portal, stood in front of the BBMP ward office or police stations for enrolment.

In Varthur, over 100 migrants stood in front of the police station and sought to know what happened to the forms they had submitted four days ago. "We first went to the BBMP office and were shooed away by an official who directed us to go to the police station. We want to go home and demanded that the police help us. There was no response first. Then they came out and beat us," said Pintu Kumar from Mohanpur of Bhagalpur district in Bihar.

Though a video clip accidentally shot by Kumar showed two police personnel charging the cane at them, a police officer from the Varthur station, however, disputed the claim. "The video doesn’t show the cane landing on any person. We were beating the seat and tyre of two-wheelers to send the migrants away," he said.

At Mahadevapura, the workers came in groups and submitted the forms at the police station.

At the railway station in Majestic, a group of labourers from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Jharkhand had walked from several areas in south Bengaluru only to be told that there is no train. Mahendra, a labourer from Jharkhand, said they received 5 kg rice and nothing else in the last 45 days. "Now, I don’t want food. I don’t want the job or money. I can't get stuck here. I want to go home,” he said.

'Restore dignity'

Activists and leaders wrote an open letter to Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa questioning the decision to cancel trains without consulting labourers and protesting the violation of their fundamental rights.

The letter had support of 522 organisations and individuals, including Dalit rights organisations and trade unions. It urged the government to restore the dignity of the migrant workers. "We demand recognition of the autonomy and dignity of the migrant workers to decide their travel plans. No one should be forced either to stay back or to return to their home states," it said.

Kozhikode, Jan 26: The Indian national flag was unfurled at around 10,000 mosques and religious institutions across Kerala on the auspicious occasion of 71st Republic Day on Sunday.

"The national flag was unfurled at around 10,000 mosques across the state on this auspicious occasion as per the instruction of the Waqf Board," Secretary of the Kuttiady Juma Masjid Committee, K Basheer, told media here.

He said that the national flag was also unfurled at the Kuttiady Juma Masjid here as per the instructions.

"Constitution is under threat by the Citizenship Amendment Act, we also read the preamble of the Constitution in solidarity," Basheer said.

Meanwhile, a majestic event was held in the national capital on the occasion of Republic 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.