Mumbai’s shame: Dying woman molested on bridge during stampede

Jan 7: A Delhi Court today issued death warrant against four convicts in the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape and murder case. The hanging will take place on January 22 at 7 am.

During the hearing, the prosecution said there was no application pending before any court or the President right now by any of the convicts and the review petition of all the convicts was dismissed by the Supreme Court.

On Monday, the court had reserved order on issuing of death warrants against four death row convicts.

Today's order comes days after mother of the victim in the 2012 Delhi gang-rape and murder case moved the Supreme Court on opposing the plea filed by one of the four death-row convicts seeking review of its 2017 judgement awarding him death penalty.

The apex court had on July 9 last year dismissed the review pleas filed by the other three convicts — Mukesh (30), Pawan Gupta (23) and Vinay Sharma (24) — in the case, saying no grounds have been made out by them for review of the 2017 verdict.

The 23-year-old girl was gangraped and murdered by six men on a moving bus on 16 December 2012. The main accused, Ram Singh, allegedly committed suicide in Tihar Jail during the trial. Another accused was a minor at the time of the commission of the crime and was sent to a reform facility and released after three years.

Bengaluru, Jul 16: Amid difficulties being faced by COVID-19 patients in getting beds, the Karnataka government on Wednesday made bed allocation display board mandatory in all hospitals registered under Karnataka Private Medical Establishment (KPME).

"It is made mandatory that all hospitals registered under KPME in Karnataka State should display at the reception counter, a bed allocation display board," a notification issued by the state government read.

"It should display the name of the hospital, the total number of beds (as per of KPME registration) and the total number of beds allocated for COVID-19 patients referred by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP)," it said.

The notification further stressed that the data must corroborate with the data of the central bed allocation system of BBMP. The display board should be arranged by July 16.

Non-compliance to the order issued by the state government will attract punishment under relevant sections of the Disaster Management Act 2005 and Indian Penal Code, the order read.

The state government on June 23 issued a notification making it mandatory to reserve 50 per cent of the beds in private hospitals to treat COVID-19 patients referred by public health authorities.

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.