Muslims support terrorism, says Google accidentally!

Kalaburagi, May 4: Migrant workers stranded in different parts of Karnataka arrived in buses at Central Bus Stand in Kalaburagi on Monday morning and are being sent to their home towns.

The Kalaburagi City Corporation has made the requisite arrangements for labourers and their thermal screening is also being done.

"Food packets and water bottles are being provided to all. Buses carrying migrant workers started arriving from 5 am. We are expecting around 70 buses. This process will continue for the next 3 days," Rahul Pandve, Kalaburagi Commissioner City Corporation, told news agency.

"We have made arrangements for registration. And all arriving at the site are undergoing thermal screening," he said.

Karnataka Chief Minister BS Yediyurappa had on Sunday allowed labourers to travel to their hometowns in the state on KSRTC buses free of charge for three days starting on Sunday.

Mangaluru, Mar 25: Fishing boats returned to the old Port in Mangaluru after the government prohibited deep-sea fishing till further orders on Wednesday to prevent the assembly of a large gathering here in the wake of the novel coronavirus pandemic. 

According to officials, deep-sea fishing activities result in the gathering of a large number of people and is much against the government's direction on maintaining social distancing. 

According to the Department, the 42-Km coastline in Dakshina Kannada hass 57 purse seine boats, 1,270 trawl boats, 1,483 gillnet boats, 549 other mechanised boats.

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.