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

Bengaluru, Jun 24: Dr K Sudhakar on Wednesday held a video conference with senior officials to review the preparedness for conducting of SSLC examinations safely which is beginning from Thursday.

"8,48,203 students will appear for the SSLC examination starting tomorrow in 2,879 centres across the state. All the guidelines issues by state government must be followed strictly" Sudhakar said in the meeting.

"It is the collective responsibility of officials of all departments to ensure that every student is safe, from the time he or she leaves home for the exam centre and returns home after the exams. The vehicles used to ferry students, where public transport is not available, must be sanitised properly. The surroundings near exam centres, exam halls, toilets must be sanitised properly. Social distancing must be maintained in the exam hall and mask must be provided to all students," he said.

The minister also said that since the students have been asked to arrive at exam centre at 7:30 in the morning, a small biscuit packet must be provided to each student so that they don't feel hungry during the exam and till they return home after the exam.

"Thermal scanning of every student should be done before allowing inside the exam hall. In case there is fever those students must be made to write exam in separate room. Separate exam halls must be arranged for students in quarantine areas and if it's not feasible they must be allowed to write exam in September. District administrations must disseminate information about precautionary measures taken to build confidence among parents," the minister said.

Sudhakar instructed the officials to work in coordination with the Education Department and other departments.

Stating that there are 458 containment zones in Bengaluru, the minister asked the officials to be extra cautious in these areas and make arrangements to ensure health department staff can take students to the nearest health center if anybody is found ill during the exam.

Education Minister Suresh Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary Javed Akhtar, Education Secretary, Secretary of Medical Education Department, BBMP officials, Health Experts and others were present.

Bengaluru, Apr 1: The price of petrol and diesel will go up by Rs 1.60 and Rs 1.59 per litre, respectively, from Wednesday. This is in line with Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa’s decision to hike the rate of tax on petrol from 32% to 35% and diesel from 21% to 24%.

He had announced this in his March 5 Budget for 2020-21 fiscal. At present, a litre of petrol costs Rs 71.97 and diesel Rs 64.41 in Bengaluru.

The government decided to roll out the hike from Tuesday midnight going into Wednesday, April 1, after briefly considering a postponement in view of the COVID-19 crisis. 

Finance Secretary (Budget & Resources) Ekroop Caur confirmed to DH that the hike will be rolled out. 

The 3% hike on fuel tax was a key resource mobilisation measure that Yediyurappa announced in his Budget. The hike is expected to fetch the government Rs 1,500 crore. 

Yediyurappa had also announced a 6% additional excise duty on Indian Made Liquor (IML), which could help the government mop up Rs 1,200 crore. However, the sale of liquor has been prohibited during the lockdown period. Plus, hiking fuel prices during the lockdown will not hit citizens very hard. 

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.