Wife turns cold-blooded killer for 'Apadbandhava Ashok'; missing mystery solved

Bengaluru, May 29: The Karnataka government clarified on Thursday that it has not sought for imposing a ban on flights emanating from Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan.

The domestic air travel was resumed in several parts of the country on May 25.

The state government also said that it has appealed to the Civil Aviation Ministry to take steps to lessen the incoming air traffic.

"If there is a huge turn out at a short span of time, there may not be adequate quarantine facilities," said the state government.

A total of 115 new COVID-19 cases have been reported in Karnataka, taking the total number of cases to 2,533.

Bengaluru, Jun 8: Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee (KPCC) chief DK Shivakumar on Sunday said that Congress is a secular party and they clearly do not want any third candidate from BJP to win the Rajya Sabha elections.

Speaking to news agency, Shivakumar said, "We are a secular party. We are very clear that we don't want any BJP third candidate to win the Rajya Sabha election. My leader, Sonia Gandhi will take a call on it."
"My party leaders have taken a call on HD Devegowda Ji, very soon they will come with an announcement," he added.

Shivakumar had on Saturday said that the party has decided to field one candidate for the forthcoming Rajya Sabha elections.

He said the party would soon take a decision on the issue of support to former Prime Minister HD Deve Gowda's candidature to the Upper House.
The elections to fill the vacant 18 Rajya Sabha seats from seven states will be held on June 19.

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.