Kerala CM welcomes Dr Kafeel Khan’s service in Nipah-hit Kozhikode

Tumakuru, Jan 2: Prime Minister Narendra Modi on Thursday slammed the Congress and its allies opposing the Citizenship Amendment Act, saying they are against giving relief to those who have been brutalised and victimised in Pakistan.

"Pakistan was founded on religious grounds due to which atrocities on minorities such as Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Christians have increased. But Congress and its allies don't speak against Pakistan," he said at a function here.

He also said the Congress and its allies take out rallies and stage demonstrations against the efforts to prevent atrocities on religious lines and save women from sexual assaults.

Modi wondered why those opposed to the CAA were not speaking out against Pakistan's atrocities and asked what stopped them from doing so.

Strongly defending the CAA, he said it was adopted by Parliament in a historic move, but that the Congress and its allies and the ecosystem created by his party's rival were now against the very institution.

He said India cannot leave the Hindus, Christians and Sikhs apparently fleeing Pakistan to "their fate" and added it was the country's responsibility to protect them.

Modi pointed out that the efforts are especially to protect the Dalits and tribals in Pakistan.

The Prime Minister also pointed out that the abrogation of Article 370 was a step towards ending terrorism and uncertainty in Jammu and Kashmir.

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.