MP to move private resolution in RS over attacks on journalists

Mangaluru, Jun 21: A total of 51 private hospitals and medical colleges empanelled under the Suvarna Arogya Suraksha Trust (SAST) have been allowed to treat Covid-19 patients in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi district. Among them 30 are in Dakshina Kannada and 21 are in Udupi. Here is the full list:

Also Read: 518 private hospitals across Karnataka can now treat covid patients

Bengaluru, Feb 4: The possibility of defeated MLA CP Yogeshwar being inducted into chief minister BS Yediyurappa’s cabinet is causing ripples within the ruling BJP, with many legislators, especially from Kalyana-Karnataka region, raising a banner of revolt.

Several MLAs led by Surapur legislator Narasimha Nayak, also known as Raju Gouda, held a meeting at the Legislators Home on Monday and voiced their opposition.

"When there are more than two dozen MLAs aspiring for a cabinet berth, making a former MLA a minister is beyond logic," Gouda said. "We will convey our feelings to Yediyurappa and state BJP president Nalin Kumar Kateel." Murugesh Nirani, Paranna Munavalli, Rajkumar Patil, Dattatreya Patil Revoor, Basavaraj Mattimud are among others who attended the meeting. MP Renukacharya, political secretary to the CM and Honnali MLA, was also present at the meeting. "Some more MLAs will join us when we meet again tomorrow," Gouda said.

The MLAs highlighted the issue of caste and regional imbalance in the council of ministers to further their cause. With four from Bengaluru and three from Belagavi district set to take oath on February 6, the share of MLAs from these districts in the cabinet will rise to seven and five respectively. Currently, 16 districts have no representation.

Sources say Yediyurappa and BJP’s national leadership decided to reward Yogeshwar with a cabinet berth for his "active" role in getting 17 Congress-JD(S) MLAs to resign and join the BJP, enabling the party to grab power. The party also believes he has the potential to become the Vokkaliga face of the BJP in the Old Mysuru region, where the party’s organisation is weak.

If Yogeshwar is inducted, he will be the second former MLA to make it to Yediyurappa cabinet after deputy CM Laxman Savadi, who lost the 2018 assembly polls. Several party MLAs were unhappy with Savadi’s elevation and are now upping the ante against the party leadership.

"Let Yogeshwar be made Rajya Sabha or council member. We have no problem. But making him minister is not acceptable. If they want to make defeated MLAs ministers, then why not AH Vishwanath and MTB Nagaraj, whose sacrifices brought BJP to power?" said Gouda.

Reports say Yediyurappa has promised Vishwanath and Nagaraj, the disqualified MLAs who lost the bypolls, that they would be made ministers in June. Both met Yediyurappa and secured this assurance. The two were demanding that they be inducted into the cabinet on Thursday.

Meanwhile, Vijayapura MLA Basavanagouda Patil Yatnal urged the CM to evaluate the performance of existing ministers and drop those found non-performing. "Many ministers don’t even come to the Vidhana Soudha. What is the use of having such ministers?" he asked.

Yediyurappa also continued to face pressure to induct Athani MLA Mahesh Kumatalli into the cabinet. The Jarkiholi brothers, Ramesh and Balachandra met Yediyurappa separately on Monday with a request to make Kumatalli, their confidant, a minister.

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.