Mangaluru: Youth Congress protestors call Amit Shah a terrorist', court arrest

Mangaluru, May 25: Four domestic flights that were scheduled to operate from Mangaluru International Airport today have been cancelled. 

A total of six flights were scheduled to depart Mangaluru Airport today. 

Among them, two flights to Mumbai, one to Chennai and one to Bengaluru were cancelled due to lack of passengers and other reasons, sources said.

The remaining two flights – both to Bengaluru – are expected to take off with limited passengers later in the day.  

Domestic flight operations resumed in the country today after a gap of two months. All flight operations had ceased when the nationwide lockdown was imposed in March.

Mangaluru: The sixth Judicial Magistrate of First Class court here today remanded techie-turned-bomber Aditya Rao to 10-day police custody.

36-year-old Rao, the prime accused in planting improvised explosive device at Mangaluru International Airport, was handed over to Mangaluru police by their Bengaluru counterparts yesterday.

He was produced before the magistrate court amidst tight security. The police sought for 15-day custody for interrogating him.

Justice Kishore Kumar, the JMFC court judge inquired Rao if he was subjected to police torture and if he had any lawyer to represent him in the case. Rao is said to have replied in the negative for these questions, it is gathered.

The judge finally decided to send the accused to police custody for 10 days.

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.