Migration of Indians to Gulf countries including Saudi, UAE drops 62% over 5 years

Bengaluru, Jul 19: A man protested in front of Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa's residence on Saturday alleging lack of medical care claimed the life of his one-month-old infant girl, police said on Saturday.

Venkatesh sat with the baby's photograph in front of the Chief Minister's house, saying the girl developed health issues on July 11 and he rushed her to a hospital, but it turned him away, the police said.

He said he had approached about a dozen hospitals and all of them refused to provide the baby any medical care. Eventually, the baby died.

This forced Venkatesh to hold a protest to draw the Chief Minister's attention to the issue, the police said.

The demonstration drew public attention and a few people joined him in the protest, they said.

Bengaluru, Jan 17: Karnataka Health Minister and BJP leader B Sriramulu on Friday claimed that Congress supports Social Democratic Party of India (SDPI) and Popular Front of India (PFI) to disturb peace in the state.

His statement came after the arrest of 6 SDPI supporters in connection with an attack on a BJP-RSS follower during a pro-CAA rally held in December last year.

"The Congress party 100 per cent supports SDPI and PFI. Whenever they do not get the power, they try to disturb the peace with the support of SDPI and PFI. I will propose in Karnataka Assembly session to ban these organisations in Karnataka. We will discuss this matter," Sriramulu told ANI.

"We had already demanded for the ban on these organisations in Karnataka when I was an MP. Shobha Karandlaje, Yediyurappa and I had met Rajnath Singh, the then Home Minister in Delhi and we had given a memorandum to ban SDPI and PFI," he added.

A case has been registered against arrested SDPI supporters under relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Bengaluru Police is constituting a new Special Investigation Team (SIT) to handle this case.

"There were 6 people belonging to SDPI, who were here to carry out attacks on leaders supporting CAA. These people were being paid Rs 10,000 from their handlers to create ruckus here. Now this will be handled by the Anti-Terror unit," said Bhaskar Rao, Bengaluru Commissioner of Police.

Earlier today, Karnataka Minister Jagadish Shettar called for a ban on SDPI.

"SDPI always denies their involvement but it has been proved now. I welcome the police's action. Their organisation should be banned as they have always been involved in anti-social activities and government of India should take very serious note of this," Shettar told ANI here.

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.