MIT?to file complaint over 'fake notice' on masturbation

Bengaluru, Apr 29: The Karnataka police department has decided not to deploy its personnel aged above 55 as frontliners in Covid-19 related duty.

According to order issued here on Wednesday by Director General of Police Praveen Sood, it was a precautionary measure as the elderly was more susceptible to the risk of infection.

Apart from this, the order also states that any police personnel suffering from diabetes, hypertension, asthma, kidney, liver-related problems and cardiovascular disease must also be kept away from Coronavirus duty. The policemen can be deployed for station duty.

Bengaluru, Jun 3: Lack of awareness on rail travel norms led to a tense situation on a Karnataka train as a female passenger was forced to disembark midway after her fellow passengers raised a hue and cry on seeing her knuckle stamped, mistaking it for a quarantine stamp, an official said on Tuesday.

"Many passengers on the train with the woman raised a hue and cry on seeing her stamped and complained to the TTE. She was later disembarked at Tumkur," a South Western Railway (SWR) zone official said.

The woman was travelling from Bengaluru to Belagavi as a transit passenger. Her status as such a passenger was stamped on her knuckle.

However, after some time, her fellow passengers observed her stamped hand and misunderstood that she was violating the quarantine norms.

Without realising that she was just a transit passenger who will be quarantined on reaching her destination, they created pandemonium and complained to the travelling ticket inspector.

"Following the public pressure, she was forcibly disembarked in Tumkur station," said the official.

Incidentally, the railways allows transit passengers to travel.

The official said the TTE would not have been aware of the rules and must have yielded to the passengers' pressure.

Later, the woman was allowed to board another train and reach her destination, the official said.

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.