Meenakshi Shantigodu elected Dakshina Kannada ZP chief, Kasturi Panja deputy

Bengaluru, Jan 6: Cab aggregators are once again in news for the wrong reasons after an Ola cab driver misbehaved with a 34-year-old woman passenger and even threatened to kill her when she raised an alarm.

But what followed was worse. The woman, a software engineer, immediately called the Ola emergency number following which they asked her to check if the driver was drunk. She later pressed the emergency button on the Ola app but received a message asking her to dial 100. After the aggregator failed to help her, she said she was lucky to be saved by the public.

Reacting to the incident, an Ola spokesperson said, “We regret the unfortunate incident and have immediately terminated the driver-partner from the platform upon receiving the complaint.”

Shruthi G (name changed), an employee at a software company at Bagmane Tech Park in Mahadevapura, booked an Ola cab after her work in the evening of January 3. She booked pick-up stops at two locations as she had to pick her four-year-old daughter from the day-care centre, which is 2 km away from her house.

However, around 6.22 pm, when the cab reached Malleshpalya near Kids Castle, the driver did not stop the vehicle. He asked her to get down at the last drop location. She told him to stop and tried to open the doors but he locked the doors, insisting that she sit in the car. When she resisted, he held her hands and abused her; he even threatened to kill her if she raised an alarm.

The victim said she pressed the emergency button on the app twice but only got a message advising her to call the police.

When she called the Ola emergency number, the person at the other end asked about her condition and to check whether the driver was drunk. They called back after one-and-a-half hours when she was filing a complaint at the police station.

“Ola did not make any efforts to reach out to the police or do anything to track my location and help me in that situation,” she said.

The victim called 100 and the staffer at the control room asked her which area she was in. Since she was familiar with the area, Shruthi was able to give her location.

“First they told me that the area comes under Baiyappanahalli. Later, they said it comes under HAL. Finally, they figured out the location. It took 20 minutes for the police to reach the spot,” she said.

What saved Shruti was her sheer instinct and luck. Alone in the cab, she started raising an alarm. Luckily, commuters in the other vehicles next to the cab noticed her screaming for help and stopped the driver.

“If this is the kind of security Ola provides its customer, it is very questionable,” she said. “If we have to really call the police during an emergency then why they put out the number and emergency button, it’s a waste of time during that crucial situation. If they directly told us to dial 100 during an emergency, it will save time. Lakhs of commuters take Ola cabs thinking it is safe but they have no mechanism to check their drivers and track their customers in danger.”

Baiyappanahalli police said the accused Bhimashankar Malged was arrested and remanded in judicial custody following the complaint.

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.