Mangaluru cops book a suspect for audio threat against Janardhana Poojary

Mangaluru, Feb 17: Kambala superstar Shrinivas Gowda, who is drawing comparisons to ace sprinter Usain Bolt, has reportedly refused to take part in athletics trials with the Sports Authority of India.

28-year-old Gowda, who hails from Moodbidri in Dakshina Kannada, was celebrated as a potential Olympian after a clip of his race went viral, amid claims that he had done 100m in 9.55 seconds, against Bolt's record of 9.58. He has so far won 32 medals in 11 kambala events this season.

Union sports minister Kiren Rijiju and SAI said Gowda would appear for trials at SAI's Bengaluru centre on Monday. The government "will do everything to identify sporting talents", Rijiju had tweeted.

"I will meet the Chief Minister. I am keen on continuing in kambala," Gowda said. Asked about the clamour for a crossover into athletics, he said, "For the time being I have no plans to appear for SAI trials. I am busy with the Kambala season and will consider meeting them following that and after consulting my well-wishers."

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.