Kerala tops Health Index, Uttar Pradesh worst performer

Mangaluru, June 12: Juma prayers were held in dozens of mosques across coastal district of Dakshina Kannada including the city of Mangaluru for the first time in nearly three months upholding all the safety norms including physical distancing. 

For the first time in the recent history of Mangaluru, juma prayers were stalled in all the mosques for 11 consecutive weeks as part of nationwide coronavirus lockdown. 

While many mosques were reopened for the congregational prayers in the region on June 8 (Monday) after receiving approval from the government, many others are yet to be opened as Muslim religious leaders are taking additional precautionary measures to prevent the spread of covid-19 apart from following all the guidelines issued by the government.

“Around 400 people participated in the Juma prayer at Zeenat Bakhsh Juma Masjid. All the safety guidelines were followed. Sadaqatul Nadwi delivered the sermon and led the prayers,” S M Rasheed Haji, executive member of the mosque committee told coastaldigest.com.

“As per the guidelines, devotees performed Wudu (ablution) at their homes and also carried their own musalla (prayer mat) to the mosque,” said a Jalaluddin, a cleric who offered Juma prayers in Ullal.  

The guidelines issued by the government to the mosques also include disinfecting the premises at regular intervals, maintaining physical distance, wearing masks and finishing prayers in “minimum permissible time”.

Bengaluru, Feb 4: Taking the state government to task, the Karnataka High Court on Monday opined there was a need to rehabilitate or compensate migrant workers whose homes in Tubarahalli and Kundalahalli were demolished by a BBMP engineer last month.

On January 19, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) assistant executive engineer at Marathahalli had taken up a demolition drive stating that the migrant workers residing in the area were “illegal Bangladeshis”.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Abhay S Oka was hearing a petition by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties which contended that the evacuation of the workers was illegal. Stressing the need for relief, the court directed the state government to come clean on its stance and adjourned the hearing to February 10.

Advocate General Prabhuling K Navadgi submitted that the Union government had issued a circular last year to ascertain the presence of illegal Bangaladesh migrants. “On the basis of this circular, the BBMP officials had written a letter to Marathahalli police sub-inspector on January 18. Based on this letter, the residents in huts were evicted in a civilised manner,” he stated.

The bench, however, differed with the submission. “Who identified them as Bangladeshis before the eviction? Which is the competent authority to do so? Which police officer took up the inquiry?” the bench questioned.

The court also asked whether the government would take up similar eviction drives against illegal buildings of the rich. It also expressed displeasure over the action taken against the BBMP engineer.

“Instead of sending him home, you say you have transferred him. We can’t be mute spectators,” the bench said.

The court did not mince words as it castigated the authorities for failing to act judiciously. “The police and the BBMP are blaming each other. Your action appears to be dangerous. Going by the state of things, it seems that everything is not in order,” it 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.