Mangaluru youth stranded in Saudi Arabia returns home; family thanks Indian Social Forum

Thiruvananthapuram, Mar 30: With suicide cases being reported from various parts of the state after liquor sales were stopped in Kerala following the lockdown, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has directed the Excise Department to provide liquor to those with a prescription from a doctor.

The move comes after many reportedly showed acute withdrawal symptoms and suicide cases were reported in the state.

On Saturday, in Kodungaloor in Thrissur district, a youth committed suicide by jumping into the river after suffering from withdrawal symptoms.

In another incident, a 38-year-old man working in a barbershop in Kayamkulam consumed shaving lotion after he didn't get alcohol. Though he was taken to hospital after he developed uneasiness, he died.

The Kerala government has also asked the Excise Department to provide free treatment and admit people with withdrawal symptoms to the de-addiction centres.

The Chief Minister has said the government is also considering the option of online sale of liquor as the sudden unavailability of alcohol may lead to social problems.

Mangaluru, Jan 23: City Police Commissioner PS Harsha on Thursday said that Aditya Rao, who had surrendered after planting a bomb at the Mangaluru International Airport, had studied how to assemble an explosive device online.

Speaking to media persons here, Dr Harsha said that 36-year-old Rao, who holds engineering and MBA degrees, had worked in the financial sector for some time, but left, after realising that white-collar jobs were not suited for him and turned towards blue-collar jobs.

He took up a job as a security guard of a reputed college in the district. He also worked at few hotels in the city before leaving for Bengaluru.

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.