Mangaluru: Northeast student molested in broad daylight while returning from mall

Belagavi, Feb 22: A madrasa in Karnataka’s Belagavi district hosted a Hindu-Muslim mass marriage on its premises on Friday, sending a strong message of communal amity. As many as 76 Muslim couples and 25 Hindu couples entered marital life on the occasion.

Madarsa Al Arabia Anwarul Ulooma, an Islamic religious institute in Bailhongal, 50km from Belagavi district headquarters, played host to the event that was organised by Jamia Faizan-ul-Quran and Issa Foundation, which has conducted mass marriages on a bigger scale in Gujarat.

The mass marriage comes a month after the 100-year-old Cheravally Jamaat Masjid in Kerala’s Kayamkulam in Alappuzha hosted a Hindu wedding, complete with a vegetarian feast for 4,000 people. A Hindu priest led the rituals, and the couple sought the blessings of chief imam Riyasudeen Faizy of the mosque.

At Bailhongal, moulvis and pontiffs led the marriage proceedings and asked the couples to read passages from Quran and Bhagvad Gita.

The Hindu couples were gifted a copy of the Gita, and newly-married Muslim couples received a copy of Quran. The organisers provided each Hindu bride a mangalsutra. Bailhongal MLA Mahantesh Koujalagi blessed the couples at the event, which was attended by more than 4,000 people.

Mohammad Rafique A Naik, a member of Jamia Faizan-ul-Quran, said they have gifted each couple a refrigerator, an almirah and a tailoring machine. Ranjita Kalala, a bride who married a daily-wage labourer, said her family couldn’t afford the cost of a wedding, adding, “When we learnt about the Bailhongal madrassa’s plan, we agreed to sign up because it also sends out a message of communal harmony.”

Bengaluru, Mar 13: This year, schoolchildren will have a longer summer vacation starting early, thanks to the new coronavirus onslaught. Primary and Secondary Education Minister Suresh Kumar on Thursday announced that schools in Bengaluru Urban and Rural districts will be closed for vacation from Friday.

Classes from LKG to sixth standard will closed for vacations till the schools reopen in June, while students of classes 7-9 will have ‘study holidays’ until their examinations commence (as scheduled by their respective schools). Their summer vacations will begin with the completion of their examinations.

Class 10 students will have their examinations according to the dates scheduled earlier.

“Let us not treat this as a panic reaction or something to cause a scare. This measure is taken as a precaution. A lot of parents were worried about their children. We have already announced the closure of schools from nursery to sixth standards. Now, we are declaring official holidays upto sixth standard. Students of standards 1-6 will all be promoted based on their formative assessment,” said Kumar adding, “no student will be detained in those classes.”

With respect to seventh, eighth and ninth standards, the schools will be closed for study holidays and students will have to return to write their examinations.“We will not interfere in the examination schedules of CBSE and ICSC schools. However, state syllabus schools have to finish their examinations before March 23”, Public Instruction Commissioner KG Jagadeesh said.Just a couple of papers of the PU examinations are left after which their holidays will begin.

Exam timetable not changed

Miscreants are spreading rumours that SSLC examination dates are changed because of the new coronavirus outbreak. However, Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board director V Sumangala categorically said the examinations will be held from March 27  to April 9 as scheduled earlier.

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.