Lokayukta Justice Vishwanath Shetty Stabbed Thrice Inside His Office Premises in Bengaluru

Bengaluru, Jun 25: Former Karnataka chief minister and Janata Dal (Secular) leader HD Kumaraswamy on Wednesday claimed that there are shortage of beds and ventilators to treat COVID-19 patients in the state.

In a series of tweets, he targetted the Karnataka government on COVID-19 management.

"The state government has failed to provide adequate treatment to those infected with corona. There are no beds and no ventilators to treat more than four thousand patients. Self-induced lockdown is the only solution," he tweeted.

In his subsequent tweet, he said, "Residents of the state, including Bangalore, now have only one way to escape from COVID-19. Stay at home and celebrate yourself as a self-proclaimed lockdown. Money is not more important than life. Your life is in your hands now."

In another tweet, former Chief Minister alleged that the government has fixed Rs 10-15,000 per day for COVID-19 treatment in private hospitals.

"The state government is also saying this indirectly. The 'home remedy' in the home is to stay at home and be safe. The government has fixed Rs 10-15,000 per day for the treatment of this infection in private hospitals. How poor can afford it while upper class can't afford," he tweeted.

"If four members of a family infected with corona, the cost of treatment for a 15-day treatment at a private hospital is Rs 5-6 lakh. Where do the poor bring that Much money? We must save our lives while the government is sitting incapable. This is my concern for the people of the state," he said in another tweet.

In a video message that HD Kumaraswamy demanded the state government to give all kinds of safety and security to the students who are writing the SSLC exam tomorrow.
HD Kumaraswamy also urged students to be careful.

About 8,48,203 students will appear in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (SSLC) examination tomorrow, said Karnataka Health Minister B Sriramulu on Wednesday.

Bengaluru, Jul 12: Karnataka on Sunday registered 71 COVID-19 deaths, its highest single day count, and 2,627 fresh cases, pushing the tally of infections in the state to 38,843, the health department said.

The total positive cases include 22,746 active cases and 15,409 discharges, the department said in its daily bulletin.

The total active cases include 532 people admitted in the ICUs across the state.

Of the 71 fatalities, a record 45 were reported in Bengaluru alone including the death of 16 day-old baby girl and 17-year-old girl with chronic kidney disease, taking the total mortalities in the city to 274.

Among the districts, where new cases were reported, Bengaluru urban accounted for 1,525 cases, followed by Dakshina Kannada with 196, Dharwad 129, Yadagiri 120, and 19 in Bengaluru Rural.

Since the outbreak of the pandemic, 8.39 lakh samples have been tested including 20,050 on Sunday alone, of which 7.80 lakh tested negative.

Other than Bengaluru, five fatalities were reported in Dakshina Kannada, three each in Mysuru, Hassan, Davangere and Belagavi, two each in Haveri and Bagalkote and one each in Dharwad, Koppal, Tumakuru, Vijayapura and Chamarajanagar.

While majority of those who died of coronavirus suffered from Severe Acute Respiratory Illness and Influenza Like Illness, significantly 21 victims did not have any pre-medical conditions while eight were the asymptomatic patients with pre-medical conditions.

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.