Mangaluru Chalo: Cops scuttle bike rally as BJP defies ban

Bengaluru, Apr 10: With 10 new COVID-19 cases, Karnataka's tally of coronavirus cases has climbed to 207, the Karnataka government has said.

The 207 COVID-19 cases include 30 discharged and 6 deaths. Out of 10 new cases, 9 are close contacts of people who had earlier tested positive for coronavirus.

"10 more COVID-19 positive cases reported in Karnataka, taking the total number of positive cases in the state to 207, including 6 deaths and 30 discharged. 9 of the 10 new cases, are close contacts of people who had tested positive for the virus earlier," said the Karnataka government.

Meanwhile, the State Department of Health and Family Welfare has further notified 14 more COVID-19 dedicated hospitals in the state.

These hospitals include Bagalkot District Hospital, Chamarajanagar Institute of Medical Sciences, District Hospital Chikkaballapur, SNR District Hospital, Kandaya Bhavan Ramanagar, Tumkur District Hospital, Karwar Institute of Medical Sciences Uttara Kannada, Vijayapura District Hospital and Yadgiri District Hospital.

India's total number of coronavirus positive cases rose to 6,412 on Friday.

Out of the total cases, 5,709 are active patients and 503 of them have been cured/discharged, as per the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

With 30 new deaths reported in the last 12 hours, the toll stands at 199.

Bengaluru, Feb 16: Deputy chief minister Laxman Savadi’s election to the lone vacant council seat, for which a bypoll has been called, is only a formality as the only other candidate in the contest, independent BR Anil Kumar, dropped out on Saturday.

Kumar conveyed his decision to council secretary and returning officer Vishalakshmi. He decided to withdraw from the February 17 bypoll after failing to get support from Congress and JD(S) legislators.

The bypoll was necessitated after sitting member Rizwan Arshad of Congress resigned as he moved to the legislative assembly as an MLA. Rizwan won the Shivajinagar bypoll in December last year.

“Since the notification on candidates in the fray, after the last date of withdrawal, has already been published, irrespective of any candidate’s retirement, the election has to be conducted,” an official said.

Savadi’s victory was always assured as BJP has 119 members in the House.

Still, Ramanagara BJP district president Rudresh and MP BY Raghavendra reportedly approached Kumar, urging him to withdraw. Kumar, however, denied that he was persuaded by BJP.

“I entered the fray thinking secular parties and likeminded MLAs will support me, but that didn’t happen, so I decided to retire,”he said.

A section of Congress and JD(S) politicians, led by former minister HD Revanna, had persuaded Kumar to enter the contest with the hope that disgruntlement among some BJP legislators over Savadi’s promotion as the deputy CM would result in an upset.

Former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy also offered to support Kumar. Siddaramaiah of Congress refused to do the same. Congress and JD(S) did not field any candidates of their own as they don’t have the requisite numbers in the House.

Savadi must get elected to the council before February 20, otherwise he will lose his cabinet role. According to rules, a person who is not a member of either House should get elected within six months after becoming a minister. Savadi took oath on August 20 last year.

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.