Mysuru: Illegal' madrasa claimed BJP worker's life, alleges MP Pratap Simha

Bengaluru, Jan 2: The Congress leadership in Delhi is expected to start the process of selecting a new party chief for Karnataka next week. There are strong indications the race has narrowed to DK Shivakumar and MB Patil.

Party insiders said the leadership almost finalised Shivakumar’s name as the president of Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC), but the decision was put on hold after requests by some senior members.

“It’s not that we are against Shivakumar. We think the party should have a Lingayat at the helm since community strongman and chief minister BS Yediyurappa is at the fag end of his long political career. There’s an opportunity here for a Congressman to occupy that space,” said a senior Congress politician, who didn’t want to be named.

That’s where the candidacy of Patil, a Lingayat, scores high.

The party, however, doesn’t want to compromise on quality and wants an efficient KPCC president who can unite two rival factions within the party, one led by Siddaramaiah and another by former union minister KH Muniyappa.

The need to pick a new state president arose after Dinesh Gundurao resigned from the post last month, taking moral responsibility for Congress’s poor showing in the byelections. Siddaramaiah also stood down as Congress party legislature leader.

The insiders said the new KPCC chief could be announced after January 16. The party might also appoint two working presidents and a new legislature party leader, who will automatically become the opposition’s voice in the assembly.

For the latter position, the name of senior Dalit politician and former deputy chief minister G Parameshwara is doing the rounds. But the party, the sources said, could still ask Siddaramaiah to reconsider his decision and stay on.

Many Congress members had raised questions over his stewardship after the bypoll disappointment. They said on his watch, the party had also fared badly in the assembly and Lok Sabha elections, demanding that he be held accountable.

Siddaramaiah is expected to visit Delhi next week to discuss the leadership issue with party boss Sonia Gandhi. Some other senior Congress members, including BK Hariprasad, are also likely to meet her.

Mangaluru/ Udupi, Jul 20: Dakshina Kannada has recorded 89 new covid-19 cases and five deaths whereas as Udupi recorded 98 cases in past 24 hours. 

Dakshina Kannada 

With five new deaths, the covid-19 death toll in the district mounted to 82. Among the five deceased, two are from Mangaluru taluk, one from Beltangady taluk, one from Bantwal taluk and one from Chikkamangaluru district. The deceased include a 2 month old child (from Bantwal). 

Out of the 89 cases, eleven persons had contracted the disease from primary contacts. Two persons had returned from the Gulf. Forty-five persons are suffering from influenza-like illness (ILI), and sixteen persons are suffering from Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (SARI). The health officials are tracing the contacts of fifteen others.

Meanwhile, 57 persons were also discharged from the hospital after complete recovery.

Udupi

With 98 new covid-19 cases, the total number of cases in the district today mounted to 2,321. Among them only 661 are currently active. 

1650 patients have been discharged from the hospital after complete recovery, and 11 persons have succumbed to COVID-19 in the district.

As of now, 213 throat swab samples are pending for results, 54 samples were sent for testing on July 20. On Sunday, July 20, 251 samples have tested negative. As of now, a total of 22357 swab samples out of the 24891 have tested negative for the coronavirus.

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.