Mangaluru does it again: Green Corridor created for organ transport

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.

Udupi, Mar 26: As many as 1000 expatriates, who have arrived from foreign countries and have been placed in home quarantine, were warned against violating the guidelines given to them and leaving their houses. 

Deputy Commissioner G Jagadeesha, addressing reporters here on Thursday, said that the district administration and health department officials have sent notices to surrounding houses regarding those quarantined and requested them to bring to the notice of relevant authorities if anyone was found violating the quarantine rules.

'If anyone is found violating the quarantine rules and roaming in public, a complaint can be registered by calling on 9480242600. Strict action will be taken against such violators,' said Mr Jagadeesha.

Chennai, July 25: A widow living alone in her apartment in Chennai city suburbs has filed a police complaint against ABVP national president Dr Subbiah Shanmugam, accusing him of harassment, including urinating and throwing used surgical masks at her doorstep.

Shockingly, no action has been taken so far by the police, even though the complaint against Dr Shanmugam, who is in government service, was filed on July 11 at the Adambakkam Police Station here by the widow’s relative Balaji Vijayaraghavan. 

Dr Shanmugam and the 62-year-old widow were living in the same apartment complex in Nanganallur and an argument broke between them over a parking slot. “He wanted to use our parking lot. We agreed but demanded a nominal charge for using it. He was outraged by our demand and even broke our signboard at the parking lot,” Vijayaraghavan wrote in his complaint.

He also alleged that Dr Shanmugam began harassing her by throwing “pieces of chicken” outside her apartment despite knowing she is a vegetarian. Vijayaraghavan also alleged in his two-page written complaint that the ABVP National President had urinated outside the woman’s apartment gate and had been throwing garbage and used masks at her gate.

The 62-year-old woman has been living alone in her apartment for the last year following her husband’s death. In his complaint, Vijayaraghavan also said the family was “concerned about her safety”, while asking police to take action against Dr Shanmugam, who he says, “has a bad track record in maintaining rapport with neighbours.”

CCTV footage corroborates with the allegations of urinating outside the residence of the widow. However, the ABVP claimed the incident as a “malicious and derogatory propaganda” by the Congress’ student wing of NSUI.

Also Read: Finally FIR registered against ABVP national president for allegedly harassing widow