Domestic Workers stage demonstration

New Delhi, Apr 29: WhatsApp on Tuesday said it will now allow up to eight people to connect on a group video call as an increasing number of people turn to digital platforms to connect with friends and family amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Facebook-owned company said over the last month, people on average are spending over 15 billion minutes talking each day on WhatsApp calls, well above a typical day before the pandemic.

"...we see that people all over the world are turning to voice and video calling on WhatsApp more than ever before. Group calling has been particularly useful and our users have asked to connect with more people at once," WhatsApp said in a blogpost.

Starting Tuesday, the company is doubling the number of participants one can have on a WhatsApp video or voice call from 4 to 8 people at a time, it added.

WhatsApp emphasised that like written messages, all calls on its platform are protected with end-to-end encryption.

"We have built group calling in a way that makes it available for as many users as possible, including people on lower-end devices and slow network conditions," it added.

Also Read: Coronavirus India update: State-wise total number of confirmed cases, deaths

WhatsApp said that to access the new, higher participant limit on WhatsApp calls, all participants in a call need to update to the latest version of WhatsApp available on iPhone or Android.

Video calling tools like Google Meet, Microsoft Teams, Zoom and others have also seen a significant jump in userbase and traffic as people connect while maintaining social distancing amid the coronavirus outbreak.

Last week, Facebook had introduced Messenger Rooms that will soon hold up to 50 people with no time limit.

It had added that the company will also add ways to create rooms from Instagram Direct, WhatsApp and Portal.

Noting that between WhatsApp and Messenger, more than 700 million accounts participate in calls every day, Facebook had said, adding that video calling on Messenger and WhatsApp more than doubled in many countries.

Also, views of Facebook Live and Instagram Live videos have also increased significantly in March, it said.

Mangaluru, Feb 11: Renowned journalist and winner of Magsaysay award, P Sainath will be in Mangaluru on February 14 & 15 at St. Aloysius College (Autonomous). He will speak on the topic ‘Indian democracy in post liberalisation and post truth era’.

P Sainath’s two-day visit to St. Aloysius College will also feature a workshop by the veteran journalist on his rural development project PARI (People’s Archives of Rural India). It is a part of the tenth edition of Media Manthan, a National level media fest organised by the post-graduate department of Journalism and Mass Communication of St. Aloysius College.

P. Sainath is a veteran journalist and media activist who has an avid interest in rural reporting. People’s Archives of Rural India (PARI), a digital journalism platform is an initiative put forward by him which aims to document rural Indian lives and livelihood. Sainath is also a teacher who has trained over 1000 media persons across 27 years.

Media Manthan is a media festival by the PG Department of Mass Communication of St. Aloysius College (Autonomous). Besides endowment lecture and workshop by P. Sainath, the fest holds various media-related competitions for the students of various colleges from across the state.

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.