Mangaluru's orthopaedic surgeon Dr Usman PK passes away in Australia

Mangaluru, May 12: The Karnataka government has ordered that Dakshina Kannada and Udupi districts be considered as one unit for the movement of people to undertake permitted activities between 0700 hrs to and 1900 hrs.

Principal Secretary and Member Secretary, Karnataka State Disaster Management Authority, T K Anil Kumar, in an order, said that there was no need for different passes for commuting by people between these two districts.

However, people should carry their identity cards issued by their respective enterprises/ companies to show that they are carrying out permitted activities only, he said.

Mysuru, Jan 21: South Indian actor Rashmika Mandanna, whose house was raided recently by IT sleuths, appeared for an inquiry along with her father Mr Madan Mandanna, here on Tuesday.

She arrived at the office of Principal Commissioner for IT, at Nazarbad, in the city. She was accompanied by nine persons, including auditors and accountants, who carried two backpacks and a kitbag.

Mr Madan mandanna said, "the IT officials have sought some documents and we are here to submit them."

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.