Mangaluru: BJP MP calls Siddaramiah a 'murderer'

Mangaluru, Apr 19: In order to boost the Coast Guard's (CG) surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities on the country's west coast in Karnataka, CG OPV Varaha and CG Dornier 785 ex Kochi were pressed to service to undertake extensive surveillance.

"Both seawards and aerial surveillance of Karnataka coast line will be undertaken from Sunday," said S Babu Venkatesh, Commander, Coast Guard, Karnataka. The surveillance will be an air-sea coordinated operation.

The Coast Guard ships and aircraft maintained extensive search in the area for intercepting any suspect vessel. Indian Coast Guard ships classified various contacts in the area and kept them under constant surveillance.

Bantwal, Apr 27: Following the meeting at a guest house here, district in-charge Minister Kota Srinivas Poojary instructed the officials to stringently impose the lockdown in the taluka.

He stated that there will be no relaxation and exemptions in Bantwla till May 3 and ASHA workers will be continuing surveying houses in Bantwal Kasba and Narikombu.

Two people have already died from COVID-19 in the taluka and two new cases were reported in the past week.

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.