Meet Ayesha Aziz, India's youngest pilot who secured license at 16!

Bengaluru, Feb 19: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Karnataka High Court, seeking a stay on Anand Singh functioning as Minister of Forests, Environment and Ecology contending that there are criminal cases filed against him by the Ministry.

"A stay be granted prohibiting Anand Singh from functioning as the Cabinet Minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology. Any other order that the Honourable Court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity," the PIL prays.

The petition, filed by advocate Vijay Kumar, said that the Chief Minister has allocated the portfolio of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology to Singh without considering the fact that there are several criminal faces filed against him by the Ministry.

It said that the allocation of the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology portfolio to Singh is in the conflict of interest.

"The holding of the post of Cabinet minister for the Ministry of Forests, Environment and Ecology is against public interest and completely in conflict of interest as he has business for which the subject Ministry is the overseeing authority and further he will also have access to the case files which again is in conflict of interest," the PIL said.

PIL adds that "it is pertinent and absolutely necessary" to deny the incumbent from accessing files related to his cases and from taking any decisions which may provide him with pecuniary benefits through his businesses.

Mangaluru, June 21: As many as 7 fresh cases of covid-19 were detected in coastal district of Dakshina Kannada today whereas neighbouring Udupi did not report any new case. 

The total confirmed covid cases in Dakshina Kannada today mounted to 425. Among them, 227 people have been already recovered and discharged. Today alone 26 were discharged. Currently there are 190 active cases in the district.

In Udupi there are only 102 cases are currently active among 1,063 detected covid-19 cases. So far 959 people have been discharged from hospital after fully recovering from the diseased. Today six patients were discharged.

Dakshina Kannada has so far witnessed death of 8 covid-19 patients. Among them 2 persons lost their lives due to non-covid reasons. Udupi has witnessed 2 covid related deaths so far.

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.