M B Patil urges Centre to declare Veerashaiva-Lingayat a religion

Kalaburagi, Feb 22: All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Waris Pathan was booked for his alleged remark against the Hindu community in his speech during an anti-CAA rally held here recently, police sources said on Saturday.

According to police sources, the FIR was registered against the AIMIM leader, following a complaint lodged by a woman advocate on Friday evening.

Taking strongly about the incident, the Karnataka Home minister Basavaraj Bommai had directed the Kalaburagi city police commissioner to submit a report on the incident.

It may be recalled that the AIMIM leader, in his speech at a rally held in the city on February 15 had said that if all the 15 crore minority populations in the country stand united they could take on 100 crore Hindu population.

Bengaluru, May 15: There is no trace of community spread of COVID-19 pandemic in Karnataka due to the strict measures taken by the State Government, Medical Education Minister Dr K Sudhakar said on Friday.

All those tested positive for the virus here have arrived from other states and are currently being treated in quarantine centres, he tweeted.

Over 25 per cent of the COVID-19 positive cases, which were detected in the state, were related to those who had either come from abroad or other states, and only about 7 per cent cases were associated with the influenza-like diseases, his tweet further read.

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.