Netanyahu: Israel and Bollywood can create magic! Jai Hind! Jai Israel!

Bengaluru, Jul 11: Karnataka Animal Husbandry Minister Prabhu Chauhan on Saturday said an ambulance service is being rolled out by the state government in a bid to maintain livestock's health in the state.

"An ambulance service is currently being rolled out by the Department of Animal Husbandry in order to maintain livestock health, livestock farmers in the state," said Prabhu Chauhan.

"A well-equipped ambulance is being provided in 16 districts of the state," he added.

The ambulance that is being introduced has special veterinary facilities including an emergency unit, lab facility, scanning pharmaceutical, and medical equipment, he said.

Chauhan further said that a 'war room' is being prepared to allow veterinarians and livestock farmers to pursue veterinary care in a timely manner.

"For the first time, a 'war room' is being prepared by the Department of Animal Husbandry in Karnataka to allow veterinarians and livestock farmers to pursue veterinary care in a timely manner. The facility will be available 24 hours a day," he added.

Moreover, Karnataka is planning to ban cow slaughter as well by bringing the Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Preservation Bill, 2012.

"Many states have passed the Anti-Cow Slaughter Bill. We are preparing to implement it in Karnataka as well. The state government will soon implement a ban on cow slaughter, sale, and consumption of beef on the lines of many other states," added Chauhan.

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.