Meet Kannada cinema's first Khan, the son of JD(S) MLA Zameer Ahmed

Mangaluru, May 29: The southwest monsoon is expected to reach the Karnataka coast on June 1 or 2, earlier than forecast by the India Meteorological Department (IMD).

Normally, Karnataka witnesses the onset of monsoon either five or six days after it had entered Kerala. However, this time, Karnataka will also witness the arrival of monsoon either on June 1 or June 2, according to meteorologists at the Karnataka State Natural Disaster Monitoring Cell (KSNDMC).

The gradual formation of two low-pressure areas over the Arabian Sea located close to the western peninsular coast and gaining momentum has helped Karnataka mark the start of the four-month-long rainy season expected to revive the back-to-back drought-stricken state.

Confirming the changes in the atmospheric pattern, Dr GS Srinivasa Reddy, Director KSNDMC said, “Karnataka will also witness the onset of monsoon on the same time that of Kerala.”

The early onset of monsoon over Karnataka coast is attributed to prevailing to weather pattern over the Arabian Sea. 

“The two low-pressure areas over the Arabian Sea are steadily gaining momentum. They may reach the peak by the weekend and may concentrate further into depression causing widespread rainfall in the peninsular region and thereby advancing the onset of monsoon over the region,” Dr Reddy explained.

The KSNDMC, based on the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) forecast, stated that due to 'prevailing favourable conditions over the Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean regions', the monsoon will be normal and above normal over coastal and south-interior Karnataka according to the present scenario.

The IMD, which had initially issued a forecast of five-day delay in the onset, had issued a fresh forecast on Wednesday cautioning the states along the West coast about the formation of two intense low-pressure areas in South-East and East-Central Arabian Sea region.

Following the forecast, a yellow alert has also been issued in Kerala and coastal areas suggesting significant rainfall starting from this weekend. “Fishermen have also been advised not to venture into deep-sea due to high turbulent conditions,” an IMD official revealed.

Bengaluru, Apr 17: The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting on Thursday served a show cause notice to a Kannada news channel for broadcasting a programme in which it purportedly said that the Centre would 'air drop money' to the poor, owing to the COVID-19 lockdown.

The notice said that the channel was "spreading false information, creating panic and social unrest.

" The channel had allegedly aired a show titled, "Helicopter Money" on Wednesday which claimed that the Centre would drop money from helicopters during the lockdown period.

A Twitter user took a serious note of it and complained to the Union Minister for Information and Broadcasting Prakash Javadekar.

The fact check team of the Press Information Bureau, under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, refuted the claim.

In its notice to the channel, PIB said, "You are hereby directed to show cause why your channel should not be taken out of air immediately. You are instructed to send your reply in this regard within 10 days of receipt of this notice."

Reacting to the notice, the management of the news channels said, "A programme which has been seen in bits and pieces and those who have not even seen the programme appears to have complained. Notice will be replied accordingly."

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.