Hearing Wellness Clinic

Bengaluru, May 26: Unknown miscreants have set ablaze 30-40 migrant labourers hutments in Bengaluru east, prompting police to take suo motu cognizance, an official said on Tuesday.

"As many as 30-40 migrant labourers' hutments have been set ablaze by unknown miscreants at Kacharakanahallin in KG Halli, we have taken suo motu cognizance of the crime," said a police official to media.

Police are investigating the arson invoking IPC Sections 143, 147, 188, 436, 123, 504, 506 and others.

"There was no loss of life in the arson as the migrant labourers were away at their hometowns because of COVID lockdown," said the official.

The labourers came from different parts of Karnataka to eke out a living and were living in those huts near the Rama Temple in KG Halli.

Bengaluru, Apr 28:  Karnataka Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa today launched a Helpline service for Kannadigas residing outside Karnataka.

On April 24, Dakshina Kannada district in-charge Minister Kota Srinivas Poojary in a letter to the Chief Minister requested a helpline for stranded Kannadigas in Mumbai, other States and other countries.

The helpline will help resolve the problem of stranded Kannadigas across the country. After a request is made, local authorities of the caller will be contacted to provide the required help. The helpline will be operated from Bengaluru and staffed with 50 employees in three shifts.

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.