Nature punished Kerala through floods for eating beef, claims Karnataka BJP MLA

Bengaluru, Jul 22: Yellow alert has been issued for Karnataka's Shivamogga, Chikmagalur, Hassan, and Kodagu for July 23 and 24.

Some areas of Bengaluru may receive light rainfall today, said CS Patil, Director, IMD Centre, Bengaluru.

He added that coastal areas of the state are very likely to experience rainfall from on July 23 and July 24, and that rainfall may increase July 24 onwards. Widespread rainfall is predicted for July 24th, 25th, and 26th.

Kochi, Mar 1:Adheringto a policy of "zero tolerance" towards clergy who sexually exploit minors, Pope Francis has expelled a Kerala priestconvicted of rape from all priestly duties and rights, according to church officials.

Syro-Malabar Church priest Robin Vadakkumchery is currently serving a jail term for impregnating a 16-year-old girl in Mananthavady diocese.

"Vadakkumchery has been dispensed from the exercise of priestly duties and rights. That means he has been reduced to the state of a layman", a Church official told PTI.

He was suspended from priestly duties soon after the news about his crime was reported in early 2017.

A POCSO court in Thalassery last year had sentenced Vadakkumchery to 20 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs three lakh on him.

The priest, 50, was the vicar of the local church in Kottiyur in Kannur district and manager at the school where the victim was studying.

He was arrested two years ago while trying to flee to Canada.

The Vatican's action came two years after Pope Francis made it clear that all bishops should adhere to a policy of "zero tolerance" for clergy who sexually exploit children.

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.