Modi, Sonia, Rahul among others to campaign in Kasaragod as election nears

Kalaburagi, Mar 5: Kalaburagi Police has issued a second notice to AIMIM leader Waris Pathan, for his controversial remark, directing him to appear before the Investigation Officer on March 8 and give his statement.

Earlier, Kalaburagi Police Commissioner MM Nagaraj said that the police had served notice to Pathan and asked him to appear on February 29 before Investigation Officer.

On February 20, while addressing an anti-CAA rally at Kalaburagi, Pathan had said, "time has now come for us to unite and achieve freedom. Remember we are 15 crore but can dominate over 100 crores."

However, Pathan later took back his words and had said he had not targeted any community but had spoken against members of some organisations.

"If any of my words have hurt someone, I take them back as I am a true Indian," he had said.

Bengaluru, Feb 17: A combative ruling BJP is bracing to face the onslaught of the opposition Congress and the Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) in the year's first legislature session beginning on Monday.

"We are ready to counter the opposition parties on any issue they want to raise or discuss, keeping in view the spirit of fairness in a democratic set-up, as we have the numbers to provide a stable government," party's state unit spokesman G. Madhusudhana told news agency here.

Ahead of the 3-day session, the BJP's legislature party met here under the leadership of Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa to chalk out its strategy to address issues, move bills and present the state budget for fiscal 2020-21.

"We hope the Congress and JD-S members will allow Governor Vajubhai Vala to address the joint session of the legislature on Monday and not disrupt his speech or walkout of the House before he concludes to maintain the dignity of his office," Madhusudhana said after the BJP meeting at a private hotel over dinner.

The legislature will resume the month-long budget session on March 2 with a special discussion for two days on the Constitution, markings the 70th year of its adoption and enforcement.

About 100 legislators, including the three Deputy Chief Ministers, the newly sworn-in cabinet ministers, council members and party's state unit members participated in the 2-hour long meeting.

"Yediyurappa, who also holds the Finance portfolio, will present the state budget for fiscal 2020-21 on March 5, which will be the fifth time as the fourth Chief Minister in over a decade," the official said.

Both the Houses will deliberate on the budget proposals and pass it by March 31.

In the 225-member Assembly, including one nominated, the ruling BJP has 117, opposition Congress 68, Janata Dal-Secular (JD-S) 34, Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) one, Independents 2 and vacant 2.

Buoyed up by winning 12 of the 15 seats in the December 5 assembly by-elections, the party is confident of passing the finance and other bills, as it has the support of 119 members, including 2 Independents in the lower House.

"There is no threat to our government, which will complete the remaining 3-year term of the Assembly till May 2023. Yediyurappa has already won the majority test on July 29, 2019, three days after he took office for the fourth time," Madhusudhana said.

The Congress, however, asserted that it would raise the alleged misuse of police against the opposition members, anti-CAA protestors and minorities.

"We will question the morality of the government in making a tainted legislator like Anand Singh a forest minister when a dozen illegal mining cases are pending in the courts," a Congress official told news agency.

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.