Karnataka’s list of 30 ignored; Good news for SL Bhyrappa, 10 others

Bengaluru, Jul 20: Karnataka Minister for Primary and Higher Education S Suresh Kumar today said that the results of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) Examinations, held amidst Corona threat, will be announced in the first week of August.

Speaking to newsmen on Monday after visiting the evaluation centres in the City, said that the work is in full swing and it was proposed to announce the results by end of first week next month.

He said that the evaluation of the answer sheets are set to take another 10-12 days. Currently, evaluations of the answer sheets are taking place at 220 centres in the State.

Bengaluru, Mar 22: Monday's only pending II PU exam (English) and SSLC exams scheduled to start on March 27 have been postponed due to Covid-19 concerns. The new dates will be announced in April first week.

The decision was taken after a meeting with chief minister BS Yediyurappa on Sunday morning, said state primary and secondary education minister S Suresh Kumar.

Around 8.25 lakh students are to appear for the Class 10 exam.

"I appeal to SSLC students not to get frustrated. I know you're fully prepared, fully geared up. But this is a peculiar situation which calls for hard decisions. The new timetable will be published very soon. Students should treat is as an extended study leave. Please revise more. Do not treat this as a relaxation time. You'll have plenty of time to relax after the exams," he 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.