Make Kannada medium mandatory for all till class 8: Nissar Ahmed

Udupi, Mar 24: Four people, including two women, suspected to have infected with Coron were admitted to the hospitals in Udupi district

According to the District Administration, in all, 51 samples were sent to the laboratory for test and 40 samples have been tested negative.

The result of remaining 11 swabs were awaited.

At least 21 people had been admitted to the isolation wards of hospitals in the district. Nine had been discharged from the isolation wards after they recovered from the health complications on Monday, it further said.

Bengaluru, Jun 24: The Karnataka government on Tuesday announced that fever clinics would be established at all district-level and taluk-level hospitals, wherein fever cases would be screened in a separate area.

"Fever clinics to be established at all district hospitals/district-level hospitals and taluk-level hospitals, wherein all fever cases should be screened 24x7 in a separate area and for Influenza-Like Illness (ILI) and Severe Acute Respiratory Illness (SARI) cases to be subjected for swab testing," read a circular from the Department of Health and Family Welfare dated June 22.

The circular said that private institutions in the corporation areas should also be designated as fever clinics.

"100 per cent of Community Health Centres (CHC), 50 per cent of Primary Health Centres and Urban Primary Health Centres (UPHC) to be converted as exclusive fever clinics to screen ILI/SARI during working hours. The remaining PHC/UPHC to cater to non-COVID-19 cases. All health institutions need to have a separate entry for COVID and non-COVID services," the circular further said.

Karnataka on Tuesday reported 322 fresh COVID-19 positive cases and eight deaths.
According to the state health department, the total number of positive cases has mounted to 9,721 and 150 deaths. So far, 6,004 people have been discharged.

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.