Muslims in Dakshina Kannada, Udupi, Bhatkal welcome Ramadan

Jan 14: A day after it moved the Supreme Court against the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the Kerala government on Tuesday said it would continue its fight against the legislation as it "destroys" the secularism and democracy in the country.

The CPI(M)-led government had on Monday moved the apex court challenging the CAA and sought to declare it as 'ultra vires' of the Constitution. State Industries Minister E P Jayarajan told reporters here that the state has moved the apex court and will explore all options to fight the Act.

"The state government will to go to any extent and continue its fight against CAA. This Act destroys democracy in the country. This will only help in implementing the RSS agenda, to drive the nation through a fascist regime, and destroying the secularism and democracy in the country. The RSS and the Sangh Parivar cannot implement this law just by using muscle power," Jayarajan said.

Tourism Minister Kadakampally Surendran tweeted that the state became the first in the country to approach the top court against the Act. "Kerala government files lawsuit against the unconstitutional CAA. Kerala becomes the first state in the country to go to the Supreme Court against CAA.

"Kerala leads the way," he said in the tweet. In a suit filed in the apex court, the Kerala government has sought to declare that the CAA 2019 was "violative" of Article 14 (Equality before law), 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) and 25 (Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice, and propagation of religion) of the Constitution.

It also claimed that the law was violative of the basic principle of secularism enshrined in it. The state Assembly had on December 31, 2019, passed a unanimous resolution against the CAA and became the first state to do it.

Bengaluru, Feb 5: New Tulu movie Pingara has bagged the NETPAC International Jury Award at the 12th edition of Bengaluru International Film Festial (BIFFes) on Wednesday.

Written and directed by Preetham R Shetty, the movie revolves around people who worship daivas (spirits) of Tulu Nadu.

The narrative goes back and forth in time, to tell the story of a family to Sinchana (Chaitanya Chandramohan), a journalist from Bengaluru who visits a village in Tulu Nadu to ‘write on Tulu culture.’

The film speaks about the caste system in Tulu Nadu and the struggle for land in the post-independence period.

Bengaluru, Feb 19: Pointing out that there was a deliberate attempt to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at whim, the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday granted conditional bail to 21 people who were accused by police of involving in violence during the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in Mangaluru.

Allowing the bail petitions of Ashik and 20 others from Udupi and Dakshina Kannada districts, Justice John Michael Cunha said the overzealousness of the police is also evident from the fact that FIRs were registered under Section 307 of IPC against the persons killed by the police themselves.

“In an offence involving a large number of people, the identity and participation of each accused must be fixed with reasonable certainty. In the present cases, the identity appears to have been fixed on the basis of their affiliation to PFI and they being members of the Muslim community. Though it is stated that the involvement of the petitioners is captured in CCTV footage and photographs, no such material is produced before the court showing the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot, armed with deadly weapons,” the judge noted.

In the statement of objections filed by the State Public Prosecutor-I, it was stated that there was a hint of Muslim youths holding protest on December 19, 2019, opposing the implementation of CAA. Prohibitory orders were clamped in that connection. This assertion indicated that the common object of the assembly was to oppose the implementation of CAA and National Register for Citizens (NRC) which, by itself, was not an “unlawful object”, the judge pointed out.

‘Pics show cops throwing stones at crowd’

Justice Cunha also said the material collected by the investigators did not contain any specific evidence regarding the presence of any of the petitioners at the spot. On the other hand, omnibus allegations were made against the Muslim crowd of 1,500-2,000, alleging that they were armed with weapons like stones, soda bottles and glass pieces. The photographs produced by the SPP depicted that hardly any member of the crowd were armed with weapons, except one of them holding a bottle. In none of these photographs, police station or policemen were seen in the vicinity, the judge noted.

“On the other hand, photographs produced by the petitioners show that the policemen themselves were pelting stones at the crowd. The petitioners have produced copies of the complaints lodged by the dependants of the deceased who died due to police firing and the endorsement made thereon reveals that even though the law required the police to register independent FIRs in view of the specific complaint made against the police officers making out cognizable offences, the police have failed to register FIRs. This goes to show that a deliberate attempt is underway to cover up police excesses by implicating innocent persons at the whims and caprice of the police,” the judge observed.

In the wake of counter-allegations against the police and in the backdrop of their failure to register FIRs based on complaints lodged by the families of victims, the possibility of false and mistaken implication could not be ruled out, the judge said. In these circumstances, it would be a travesty of justice to deny bail to the petitioners and sacrifice their liberties to the mercy of the district administration and police. The records indicate that a deliberate attempt has been made to trump up evidence and to deprive the liberties of the petitioners by fabricating evidence. None of the petitioners have any criminal antecedents, the court said.

“The allegations levelled against the petitioners are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. There is no direct evidence to connect them with the alleged offence. The investigation appears to be malafide and partisan. In the circumstances, in order to protect the rights and liberties of the petitioners, it is necessary to admit them to bail,” the judge said.

The petitioners were arrested and remanded in judicial custody after the anti-CAA protests on charges of being members of an unlawful assembly, armed with lethal weapons, attempting to set fire to the North Police Station in Mangaluru, obstructing the police from discharging their duties and causing damage to public property, etc., on December 19 in violation of the prohibitory orders. They moved the High Court as their bail pleas had been rejected by a sessions court in Dakshina Kannada.