As Modi-Bibi hang out, Kerala CM calls Israel a terrorist state

Bengaluru, Jan 26: BJP state president Nalin Kumar Kateel has been served with a court notice asking him to personally appear before the special court for people’s representatives on February 24, in connection with a defamation suit filed by Congress MLA Rizwan Arshad.

Rizwan had lodged the defamation suit against Kateel and state BJP social media chief after the party, in a tweet during the 2019 Lok Sabha election, alleged Rizwan’s involvement in the manufacture of fake voter identity cards.

Apart from Kateel, head of the party’s social media unit has also been asked to appear in person at the above court on February 24.

Tirupati, Jul 5: The Karnataka government will soon build a massive pilgrim amenities complex and marriage hall at Tirumala, the hill abode of Lord Venkateswara, at an estimated cost of Rs 200 crore, a temple official said here on Saturday.

The state would soon submit a blueprint for the construction of the Rs 200 crore mega complexes to the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) that governs the hill shrine, the official said.

Consequently, based on the designs, TTD would construct the complexes with the given fund and after completion, they would be handed over to the Karnataka government, he said.

Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa would lay the foundation stone for the mammoth complexes on the hills some time next month, he said.

Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy is likely to take part in the programme, he added.

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.