Murdered neo-convert Anil Faisal’s 13 family members embrace Islam

Bengaluru, April 3: One new positive case of COVID-19 was reported in the state on Friday.

The patient is a 75-year-old man from Bagalkot and has been isolated at a designated hospital in Bagalkot, the State government said.

"Till date, 125 COVID-19 cases have been confirmed in the state, this includes three deaths and 11 discharges," it added.

The total number of coronavirus positive cases rose to 2301 in India on Friday, including 156 cured/discharged, 56 deaths and 1 migrated, as per the data provided by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare.

Bengaluru, Mar 12: Karnataka government on Wednesday issued a temporary regulation -- Karnataka Epidemic Diseases, COVID-19 Regulations, 2020 -- which aims to prevent the spread of the disease.

According to the regulation, all government and private hospitals should have flu corners for the screening of suspected cases of COVID-19.

All hospitals during the screening of such cases shall record the history of travel of the person if he or she has travelled to any country or area where COVID-19 has been reported in addition to the history of coming in contact with a suspected or confirmed case of COVID-19 shall be recorded.

Any person with a history of travel in the last 14 days to a country or area from where COVID-19 has been reported must report to the nearest government hospital or call at toll-free helpline number 104 so that necessary measures if required, may be initiated by the Department of Health and Family Welfare.

If a suspected case of COVID-19 refuses admission or isolation, the offices authorised under Section 3 of the regulation shall have powers to forcefully admit and isolate such case of a period of 14 days from the onset of symptoms or till the reports of lab tests are received, or such period as may be necessary.

No person, institution or organisation shall use print or electronic media to spread misinformation on COVID19. If a person is found indulging in any such activity, they will be punished.

If the cases of COVID-19 are reported from a defined geographic area, the district administration of the concerned district shall have the right to implement the following containment measures but not limited to these in order to prevent the spread of diseases:

* Sealing of geographic

* Barring of entry and exit of the population from the containment area

* Closure of schools, offices and banning public gathering

* Banning vehicular movement in the area

* Designating any government or private building as a containment unit for the isolation of cases

* The staff of all govt departments shall be at the disposal of the concerned district administration of the concerned area for discharging the duty of containment measures

Any person, institution or organisation found violating any of these regulations, shall be deemed to have committed an offence punishable under section 188 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

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.