Lockdown: Karnataka to relax restrictions after Apr 21 midnight

Mysuru, Feb 6: Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu on Thursday said that he would consult experts in Ayurveda and other streams over coronavirus issue.

Speaking to the media here, he said that ''So far no positive case has been reported in the state''.

''However, the Health department officials have taken all precautionary measures to check the epidemic'', he further said.

Thiruvananthapuram, Feb 9: Kerala has sanctioned the setting up of 28 fast track courts for speedy trial in rape cases and other cases registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

State Social Justice and Women and Child Development Minister KK Shailaja said the state government has decided to set up POCSO courts to ensure that the culprits get the punishment they deserve. She said the decision has been taken in the wake of rising violence against women and children.

"The Union Law Ministry has recently sanctioned the opening of 28 POCSO fast track special courts in Kerala at the request of the state government. The project will be implemented jointly by the High Court, Law and Home Departments under the leadership of the Department of Women and Child Development," the Minister said.

The four courts are alloted in Thiruvananthapuram district, three in Thrissur and Malappuram districts, two each in Kollam, Kottayam, Idukki, Ernakulam, Palakkad, Kozhikode and Kannur districts.

The Minister informed that POCSO courts are jointly established by the central and state governments and according to the High Court data, 12,234 POCSO and rape cases are pending in the state.

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.